The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996/05/08 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 8, 1996 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 Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp STAFF PRESENT: Ron Bieberdorf, Police Captain; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff had received a Pre-Application from Mimi's Cafe at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue. He recommended that the Commission schedule the review for May 22. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 (Barker, Lumpp absent), to approve the minutes of April 10, 1996. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street. o APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Variance 96-03.\ B. VARIANCE 96-03 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to reduce the interior landscape setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church and preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street. - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 94-13. Vice Chairman McNiel stated that the applicant had requested that the items be continued to June 12, 1996. He opened the public hearing. There was no testimony. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 94-13 and Variance 96-03 to June 12, 1996. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-32 - RF,,,X SHAFFER - A request to add 3,112 square feet of body shop/office space to an existing auto body facility in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9777 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-282-03 and 04. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that a letter had been received from an adjoining resident raising concerns about the alley. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Michael Bem, 9922 Linden Avenue, Bloomington, stated he is the principal designer on the project. Rex Shaffer, Foothill Auto Body, 9777 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the owner. Mr. Bem objected to Planning Condition No. 1 requiring reveals/score lines on the side elevations. He thought that would break up the building too much and create a forced look. Mr. Shaffer expressed concem regarding Planning Condition No. 15, which indicated the permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible termination of the use if the operation causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses. Vice Chairman McNiel stated that the use is a conditioned use rather than one which is a permitted use. He thought there should not be any problems so long as the conditions placed on the project are met. Mr. Shaffer said he is not currently subject to having a permit pulled. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that the business is as an existing non-conforming use and expansion of that use makes the application subject to the conditional use permit process. He said that City Code allows the City the ability to consider possible revocation if there are adverse effects even if such a condition is not stated in the resolution. Mr. Bern noted that Engineering Condition No. I requires a cash contribution for future median island and ultimate street improvements along Foothill Boulevard. He stated they would like a detailed amount prior to starting working drawings. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the applicant must hire an engineer to perform a cost estimate which is then reviewed by City Engineering staff. He said that is generally done prior to building permit issuance. Vice Chairman McNiel asked the applicant's objection to the additional detailing on the building. Mr. Bern felt that if they score the building on the sides, it should be carried around to the front of the building and he felt that would break up the architecture of the building too much. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 8, 1996 Mr. Buller stated that the applicant contends the sides of the building are not very visible. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if they are using some type of screeds on those walls. Mr. Bern said they will be using a horizontal screed. He said they will be breaking up the large expansive spaces with decorative tile. Commissioner Melcher observed that there is no conditional use permit if the applicant does not expand his use; therefore, the City could not hold a hearing to revoke a use permit which does not exist if the use were to become onerous. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the City has performance standards for noise, vibration, lights, odors, and other potential nuisances which are enforceable through the nuisance abatement process. Commissioner Melcher thought that, in reality, the applicant would not be exposed to any more potential enforcement action by virtue of having a permit than what is already available, even though there may be procedural differences. Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct. Warren Henderson, 9778 Hampshire Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if he would have any recourse if the noises and fumes increase in the back of the business. Vice Chairman McNiel stated that if the noise exceeds the level allowed in the City Code or there are other nuisances that exceed standards in the Code, he could file a complaint with Code Enforcement. Mr. Henderson asked how it would be determined that the applicant is exceeding any of those standards. Vice Chairman McNiel said a complaint would be investigated. Mr. Henderson asked why such things are not already checked out. Vice Chairman McNiel responded that neither the City nor the Environmental Protection Agency has the ability to monitor everything. Mr. Henderson asked if such things are not investigated prior to building. Vice Chairman McNiel said there are restrictions placed upon businesses prior to building. Mr. Henderson said he has lives behind the facility and asked if someone else can determine that he is wrong if he complains. Mr. Buller indicated there are building and Fire Code standards as well as City codes which identify various potential nuisances such as light, glare, noise, etc. and all businesses in Rancho Cucamonga are subject to all of those standards. He said anyone can file a complaint or City staff may detect a problem by occasional surveillance of the property. He reported those violations are addressed either through Code Enforcement or other legal action to reach compliance. He commented that neighbors are sometimes the best eyes and ears because the neighbors are there most of the time. Mr. Henderson felt there was nothing he could do about what has already been done and said he was willing to accept that. He stated he did not know how large the building is currently and he Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 8, 1996 questioned if the added square footage will increase the existing noise level. He said he does not want to fight with the business. He commented that staff had informed him the applicant cannot occupy the new part of the building until the alley has been improved and he asked if the applicant could put in the alley first so that dust will not be raised by the building construction traffic. He observed that when he bought his property 35 years ago he could see the mountains but that view was taken away when the building was constructed. He said he quit using his pool years ago because he was getting paint in his pool and fumes in his yard. He stated the business then got an air conditioner which helped with the fumes but shakes his house. He thought someone should police the situation without his calling. He said there are also other noisy industries located by his property. He stated that he had not been contacted when the building was first installed or he would have asked that the building be put back 20 feet so that he could still have some view. He said the alley affords a hiding place for gang members and receives a lot of graffiti. He asked what he should do. Vice Chairman McNiel stated that he should contact Code Enforcement for problems with noise, fumes, or paint spray. He thought the building was constructed under plans approved by the County. Mr. Le Count said the building was first constructed before the City was incorporated. He said an addition was added in 1980 under the applicable code at that time. Mr. Henderson asked if the alley could be finished first. Vice Chairman McNiel asked the hours of operation. Mr. Shaffer replied they are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. so far as body work. Vice Chairman McNiel felt that was reasonable and he thought a condition should be added regarding the hours. He asked if the applicant would be willing to construct the alley first. Mr. Shaffer thought that should not be a problem. Vice Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the alley is in bad shape and he asked if the City has a paving program for alleys. Mr. James replied that maintenance crews repair alleys as needed, He said the City relies upon citizens to advise when alleys need maintenance. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the last time he used the alley, it was not paved by the Bank of America. He asked if the alley will be paved other than behind the applicant's business. Mr. Buller stated that Bank of America may be submitting a project on their site and the portion of the alley behind the bank would be addressed at that time. Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that something could be done about getting the entire alley paved. Commissioner Melcher stated that one of the Commission's responsibilities is to consider the environment and the relationship between uses. He wondered if there was a history of complaints from Mr. Henderson regarding this business and if any Code Enforcement actions had been taken. He said he feels sympathetic when hearing about an air compressor running all night because he lived next door to a dentist's office for 23 years. He was also concerned about air pollution when hearing that someone cannot use their swimming pool. He felt the City's Code Enforcement staff does a good job but he stated they have limited resources and limited staff. He said he knows of problems which have been brought up in the past and have gone unattended until special pressure Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 8, 1996 was brought to bear. He stated he would feel better about the application if Code Enforcement staff could be directed to the site and to Mr. Henderson's property to make an independent analysis of · the problems which had been discussed tonight so that appropriate additional conditions could be added to the application before it is approved. Vice Chairman McNiel asked staff to address Commissioner Melcher's comments. Mr. Buller said it appeared Commissioner Melcher would like historical data and an up-to-date analysis of whether there are any violations. He said that would require that the matter be continued. He questioned if Mr. Le Count had contacted Code Enforcement to see if there are any outstanding issues, Mr. Le Count said he was unaware of any outstanding issues with Code Enforcement and said it was his understanding that Mr. Henderson had not contacted Code Enforcement. Mr. Buller did not recall any complaints during the time that Code Enforcement was contained within the Planning Division but noted that Code Enforcement has been within the Building and Safety Division for over a year. Vice Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to see if the applicant had received any contact from the City regarding Code violations or neighbor complaints. Mr. Shaffer replied he had not. Mr. Bern said they will be putting the compressors in a concrete modular block unit which should reduce the noise. He said they will also be installing a block wall along the alley with vine pockets. Mr. Shaffer felt the wall should also reduce the noise reaching adjacent properties. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if they had to receive permission from the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to expand their business. Mr. Shaffer said that AQMD has authorized what they are currently using. He said they have changed their spray guns so that less paint is wasted. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if there are also restrictions on the types of solvents and cleaning materials they can use. Mr. Shaffer responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he could not imagine that paint could be escaping and entering the neighbor's pool under current AQMD regulations. He asked if the paint has been observed recently. Mr. Henderson replied that paint in the pool has not been a problem since the air conditioner was installed. Vice Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt Mr. Shaffer is one of the better businessmen in the City as evidenced by his increased business and the need to expand. He thought the success of the business is an asset to the City and the renovation will improve the site immensely. He did not object to deletion of the condition requiring reveal/score lines on the side elevations because one of the sides is next to another building and the other is not that visible because of its distance from the property line. He felt the wall will help mitigate the noise. He supported the project. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 8, 1996 Commissioner Melcher felt the additional conversation was very helpful. He suggested the project be conditioned to complete the alley first. Mr. James suggested imposing Standard Condition M.9 to require that public improvements to the alley be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that condition should be added. Mr. Buller said the applicant could proceed to improve the alley at any time. He said the applicant is conditioned to improve only the portion of the alley that is adjacent to the project. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if anything could be done to get the remainder of the alley paved. Mr. Buller responded that staff will make an attempt to talk to the other property owners and work with Mr. Shaffer to see if the entire alley could be improved. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-32 with modifications to restrict the hours of operation to 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday, require that the alley be improved prior to the issuance of building permits, and delete the requirement for reveals/score lines on the side elevations. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP - carried D. VARIANCE 96-06 - STEWART - A request to reduce the interior side yard setback from the required 15 feet to 8 feet 6 inches for an existing single family home in the Very Low Residential Distdct (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8175 Orchard Street - APN: 1061-711-18. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that an anonymous letter had been received in opposition to the variance request. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Traci and Brad Stewart, applicants, 8175 Orchard Street, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced themselves and said they agreed with the staff report. Hearing no further comments, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher noted that the staff report cited a number of properties within the neighborhood with reduced side yard setbacks which had been built prior to incorporation of the City. He said that following incorporation, the City has adopted a number of standards to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. He felt that if the applicant had received the proper permits from the City prior to building the room addition, the addition could have been built to meet code without a variance. He recalled that the Commission had opposed similar variances in the past and been overturned by the City Council but said he believed that "after the fact" variances are inappropriate and he would not support the request. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the County had quite different setback requirements which are evident in some of the old neighborhoods. He stated that many of the houses in this neighborhood have very narrow setbacks and he supported the request. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 8, 1996 Commissioner Melcher thought that Commissioner Tolstoy had been instrumental in helping to set the standards in the early days of Cityhood and that the City was formed because many people felt the County was not doing a good enough job. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that was one of the reasons the City incorporated but he stated that others in that neighborhood enjoy the ability to add structures and he felt it would not be fair to deny this application. Vice Chairman McNiel stated that one of the purposes of the code changes which were made following City incorporation was to develop some consistency. He felt that when faced with retrofitring, it is necessary to look at what is consistent in an area as opposed to what is consistent with the code. He felt the request was consistent with the area. He thought that so many others in the neighborhood have setbacks which are not up to code, it would penalize this applicant if the request is denied. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that others in the neighborhood are enjoying the lesser setbacks. Commissioner Melcher asked if the property was developed before or after incorporation. Mr. Murphy said the house was built prior to incorporation. Commissioner Melcher stated that he would support the variance as the house had been built prior to City incorporation. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 96-06. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP - carried E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-19 - JUNG (ACCU-CENTER) - Consideration of revocation of a massage establishment within Deer Creek Village shopping center, located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #11 - APN: 1077-401-29. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff would like to request a continuance to further investigate the matter. He requested that the matter not be continued to a specific date Vice Chairman McNiel asked if staff would need to ask the applicant to consent to a continuance. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attomey, stated that was not necessary. He said it would be necessary to renotice the matter at a future time. Geoffrey Pope, 1375 East Elm Court, Ontario, asked if he could speak on behalf of the business owner. Vice Chairman McNiel indicated that the issue was to be tabled. Mr. Pope asked if there will be a requirement to again post at such time as a new hearing date is set. Vice Chairman McNiel responded that there would be, per government code. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 8, 1996 Mr. Pope asked the notice requirement as to the number of days prior to the hearing because he stated the posting poses a burden on the business. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded that the notice requirement is ten days. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 94-19. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP - carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHU RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported that Council Member Diane Williams had submitted a memorandum requesting that the phasing reference be deleted from the proposed text. Commissioner McNiel asked for clarification that the area will continue to fall under the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Ms. Bratt responded affirmatively. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff felt it would be best to place a provision for Community Commercial for this particular property within the Industrial Area Specific Plan rather than removing the property out of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and placing it under the Terra Vista Community Plan, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, or the general development code. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that would not be a departure from what has been done in the past because he recalled that was done for the K-mart center. Mr. Buller commented the Masi site was also handled in that manner. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the proposed text amendment refers to a 24,000 square foot building. He did not recall a proposal for a building that size. Mr. Buller replied that one of the original plans included a 24,000 square foot Good Guys store. Commissioner Tolstoy thought it was only for a 20,000 square foot building. Ms. Bratt remarked that a current plan has been submitted for a Pre-Application review with a 29,000 square foot building and two buildings slightly larger than 20,000 square feet. Mr. Buller stated that the figure could be changed to 20,000 or 18,000. He reported that Council Member Willjams sent a memorandum indicating she meant to address the issue and she indicated that was not a position she would want to take. He said it was an option but is a condition that has not been placed on any other projects. He noted most phasing plans are reviewed at the time of a conditional use permit, not at the time of zoning approval, and said staff was willing to delete that phrasing from the recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 8, 1996 Commissioner Tolstoy thought the recommendation was directed by City Council. Mr. Buller stated the Council recommended a Community Commercial designation but they did not discuss size of buildings or phasing. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Peter Desforges, General Partner, Wohl/Rancho Partners, 2404 Michaelson Drive, #170, Irvine, stated his question had already been answered with respect to the phasing. He said their only concem was phasing. He thought none of the other projects had been required to submit a phasing plan at this step in the process. He remarked they are currently negotiating with potential tenants that may change the plan slightly. He said they are talking to an anchor store regarding a 30,000 square foot store at one end of the project and they would want to be open as soon as possible, perhaps pdor to when they will be able to get the rest of the site through the planning process. He suggested that they be allowed to construct as soon as possible within a master plan, without requiring the entire site to be built. He objected to putting in the interior infrastructure because he feared there may be changes to the depth of other buildings which might alter where the driveways would ultimately be placed. He said he had also questioned the uses for the site. Mr. Buller stated Mr. Desforges called after receiving the staff report and asked about uses which were crossed out under Exhibit F-5. He said the proposal before the Commission is that the underlying zoning for Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan would remain intact. He observed the City Council desires to add the land uses currently allowed under Commercial Retail within the Terra Vista Community Plan. He stated the business support services are not being added from the Terra Vista Community Plan because they are already permitted or conditionally permitted in Subara 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. He indicated there may be some instances where a particular use requires a conditional use permit under the Industrial Area Specific Plan but not under the Terra Vista Community Plan. Mr. Desforges said movie theaters is a conditional use permit under one plan but a permitted use under the other. He thought the City was going to be taking away industrial uses from the site. He remarked their master plan will not include industrial uses. Mr. Buller responded there is no proposal to take any of the uses away. Commissioner Melcher observed that the ordinance requires a master plan and he thought there is not yet a master plan. He understood an application had been received regarding Mimi's and he asked how the City could act on that application without a master plan. He observed that the Council had directed that the project should go forward and he asked why the Planning Commission was not considering the site plan instead of taking the time to work on the procedural aspect. Mr. Buller replied he had met with the applicant and the applicant is moving quickly to process the project. He said their first step is a Pre-Application and they would like to address the design direction for the center and hope to pull together the packet for the master plan and conditional use permit for the entire center. He noted that Mimi's was a use that would have been permitted under the existing zoning and he felt the applicant could show that a restaurant such as Mimi's is consistent with the current master plan which is on the site under the Industrial Park zoning. He said staff felt it would be appropriate to review Mimi's similar to restaurants such as Olive Garden on the north side of FoOthill Boulevard with a schematic master plan that would make sure that circulation would be addressed with the approval of the restaurant pad. Hearing no further comments, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He asked if anything happens to the project until it goes back to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 8, 1996 Mr. Hanson responded that tonight's hearing was to fulfill the requirements of state law and City code that the Planning Commission consider text changes to a specific plan. He said that when the matter was previously before the Commission, the suggested language of the text change was not considered. He reported the City Council could not independently take action prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of the change. He stated it would not be necessary for the Commission to adopt the resolution recommending approval because state law indicates that the proposed text changes be forwarded to the City Council with a written report of recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City Council could then act as it so chooses. He said that if the Commissioners did not wish to approve the resolution, it would be appropriate to direct staff to prepare a written report to City Council reflecting the Commission's comments. Vice Chairman McNiel asked when the application would be heard by the City Council. Mr. Buller replied that it will be June 5, 1996. Vice Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing for a question from Mr. Desforges. Mr. Desforges noted that the section discussing shopping center criteria had been crossed out in the exhibit from the Terra Vista Community Plan. He thought the City might want that section included. Ms. Bratt read from the proposed text that "...a Community Commercial Retail Center is Conditionally Permitted..." She stated it would not be necessary to add in the text Mr. Desforges referred to. Mr. Desforges said that was acceptable. Vice Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated that at a recent meeting on another matter he was publicly chastised by the Chairman for expressing his opinions after the vote was taken, and up until that time he had always been under the impression that if a person wished to vote no, it was his perogative to explain his no vote after the vote. He said he intended to no vote on this. He stated he simply wished to say that the City Council's action does not make this good planning, and he must therefore vote against it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had previously made a number of comments and those comments still stand. Vice Chairman McNiel stated the item will go back before the City Council as scheduled for action by the Council. He observed that the Commissioners are not elected and serve at the pleasure of the Council, but that did not mean they have to agree with the Council. He observed he has expressed an uninterrupted record of opposition to this amendment and he too would be unable to suppod it. Mr. Hanson suggested that the Commissioners could make a motion to recommend denial and direct the staff to prepare a written report reflecting the Commission's vote. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to recommend denial of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and to direct staff to prepare a written report reflecting the Commission's vote. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP - carried Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 8, 1996 Vice Chairman stated that the resolution in the staff report indicated staff support of the amendment as directed by City Council. He thought the Commission may have put staff in an awkward position but he felt principles needed to be dealt with as well. He said he appreciated staff's efforts on behalf of the City Council and said he did not want to see staff's integrity compromised. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-04 - SUNSCAPE CONDOMINIUMS - Appeal of the City Planner's decision to deny an application to stucco over existing wood siding, wood window frames, and exterior areas on patio fences at the Sunscape Condominiums located at 8990 19th Street - APN: 201-292-06 through 61,201-293-01 through 39, 201-294-01 through 47, 201-295-01 through 63, and 201-296-01. Commissioner Melcher complimented staff and the City Planner for his ruling. He felt the City needs to define the difference between stucco over and exterior remodeling. He thought the City should define standards for exterior remodeling to make it clear the City expects strengthening of architectural elements for consistency with the City's goals to improve quality development. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Ransom, Sr., 8990 19th Street, #442, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he has 60 years experience in construction including working as a construction manager and architectural manager for UCLA. He said he graduated from Temple University with a degree in architectural design and building technology. He stated it is too expensive to maintain their wood siding properly; therefore, they did a lot of research to find a solution. He indicated they considered pre-cast concrete and determined it was not feasible because it is too expensive. He reported they considered masonry construction for the patio fencing and determined it would be much too expensive to dig up and put in new footings. He said they considered vinyl siding but it was determined that the underlying surface is not fiat enough. He reported they considered aluminum siding but that is too easily damaged. He said they considered Masonite but it requires extra blocking and has a tendency to buckle out and needs to be painted. He said the last time they painted and repaired the woodworking the cost exceeded $110,000 and their painting costs would be reduced by more than half with their proposal. He said Dick Gorman from the Southern California Plastering Institute reviewed their proposal and agreed it would be a good idea. He reported Jerry David, head of Peadire Construction, one of the largest stucco organizations in Southern California, said it is very common to do what they are proposing because it improves the fire resistance for the building and it provides added strength to the building because stucco over the T-111 siding creates a shear wall. He said the architectural lines would not change because the stucco over the T-111 would be stepped out in front of the existing stucco. He said they planned to use two colors to set off the building. He noted it will reduce their overall cost and give them practically a maintenance free building. He asked why what they are proposing is against anything in the General Plan or Development Code as they are not moving any earth or adding onto the building. He felt their proposal will result in a better looking building which will be an asset to 19th Street. Mark Vorisek, 8990 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, #321, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a resident of Sunscape. He reported they had been discussing the proposal for eight years. He said they do not intend to change the color scheme, only the material used and he thought the difference will not be discernable from the street. He felt it will enhance the curb appeal. He acknowledged their complex currently looks terrible because they don't have the money to paint every time the siding starts to fade. He felt their proposed solution is the right approach because it will enhance the integrity of the building. Hearing no further comments, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 8, 1996 Commissioner Melcher felt staff's position is correct. Although he felt the City must be careful with the question of applying stucco over the existing housing stock, including in this instance, he thought it is questionable to force the condominium association to incur needless expense in the name of applied architecture. He stated he was employed by Lewis Homes at the time the buildings were built and he is the architect for these buildings. He commented he has been an architect for more than 30 years. He said he is leaving the Commission as of the end of June, and he offered his services free of charge to work with the applicant to see what could be done consistent with the design of the original buildings but using stucco without incurring a lot of unnecessary cost. He shared their concem for the long-term durability of the project and felt a strong sense of responsibility for the way it is. He said that if the applicant preferred a vote tonight, he would have to support staff's recommendation of denial. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it is a good idea to renovate the T-111 and said he understands the maintenance cost involved. He said he sympathizes with the homeowners because he also owns a condominium and understands that assessments hurt. He liked Commissioner Melcher's offer of help and wondered if Commissioner Melcher could not work on it while he is still on the Commission. Brad Buller, City Planner, said the Planning Commission, could refer the matter to a subcommittee of Commissioners and Commissioner Melcher could then work on it. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to see the applicant take advantage of Commissioner Melcher's offer but he felt they probably would like to work on it as soon as possible. He thought the use of a different color stucco with a texture change and the use of some plant-ons would be a good solution. He hoped the applicant could move forward as soon as possible. Commissioner Melcher said he would prefer to work with the applicant after July I so that he could also assist them with the advocacy. Vice Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Ransom stated he had taken pictures of the property to the church to the east and Lewis Homes apartments to the west and he felt that the color scheme is the key on both of those buildings. He felt that would improve their buildings. Vice Chairman again closed the public hearing. He felt that Mr. Ransom had made an excellent presentation and he felt a resolution is close. He agreed with staff that the initial presentation is not acceptable. He stated that Commissioner Melcher is a very talented man and he felt his offer would be an asset to the applicant. Mr. Buller stated that staff wholeheadedly supports the idea of minimizing the labor and cost of maintaining the exterior of the project. He said staff felt a little more could be done to create greater shadow lines or there should be a better presentation of the change of color. He agreed with Vice Chairman McNiel that staff and the applicant are close to a resolution. He said the applicant had stated a strong opinion that they want to do what has been submitted. He suggested that the Commission make clear what it is looking for. Vice Chairman McNiel said the Commission had several options: 1) table the matter for a time, deferring a decision; 2) grant the appeal of the applicant; or 3) deny the applicant's appeal. He felt that what had been presented is insufficient and said he would support staff's recommendation of denial based upon what had been presented. He thought Commissioner Melcher had also indicated he would support staff's recommendation if the matter were to be voted upon tonight. Vice Chairman McNiel felt there are alternatives that will make the project work for everyone. He thought the matter is close to resolution. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to know what the applicant would like to do. Planning Commission Minutes -12o May 8, 1996 Vice Chairman McNiel again opened the public hearing. Mr. Ransom asked for confirmation that Commissioner Melcher is willing to work with them after July 1. Commissioner Melcher said ihat was correct. He said he could not guarantee that the City will approve what he suggests, but he thought they should be able to come up with something by working together. Mr. Ransom said he was receptive to that idea. Mr. Vorisek asked for confirmation that Commissioner Melcher is willing to donate the time. Commissioner Melcher confirmed that was correct. Mr. Vodsek said he would welcome any input and would like to accept Commissioner Melcher's offer. Mr. Buller suggested the matter be referred back to staff. He said the appeal would remain open pending resolution and the association would not have to pay any additional fees. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to direct the applicant to work with staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP - carried The Planning commission recessed from 9:11 p.m. to 9:22 p.m. H. ENGINEERING DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff repod. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what will happen on Carnelian. Mr. Hanson said the pavement will be rehabilitated where it is bad and a storm drain will be installed from Cucamonga Creek north of Vivero Street to just north of Base Line Road. He said there are two options under consideration regarding realignment: 1) flatten out the first curve south of Vivero Street, or 2) a major realignment from Vivero Street south, including the curb. He said those options are currently being studied by a consultant. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the curve had already been realigned once. Mr. Hanson was not sure it was the same curve. He thought one of the curves further south was realigned. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that there had been a priority last year for a signal to be installed at Highland Avenue and East Avenue. He asked what the holdup has been. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, replied there have been several major holdups. He said the Historic Preservation Commission reacted quickly to approve clearance but it then had to be processed Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 8, 1996 thought Caltrans. He said there was then a series of delays within Caltrans because the officials at Caltrans failed to communicate the importance of the project to lower level staff. He said the latest delay was caused by the telephone company because telephone wires must be moved. He hoped construction will be underway in about a month. He repoded the City has received permission to utilize used signal poles and other equipment in order to cut down on the cost and the controller and signal have already been tested and cedified. He noted the trees will be relocated to their permanent location and will not need to be moved for freeway construction. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the signal at Hermosa and 19th Street. Mr. Rougeau replied the State is the lead agency on that signal. He reported that two years ago the State scheduled the job for advertising in December 1995 and now the State has indicated it will be advertised in June 1996. He thought the hold up had been budgeting within the State. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if there have been problems with communication between the City and Caltrans regarding the signals at Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street, and East Avenue and Highland Avenue. Mr. Rougeau stated that all of the signals Commissioner Tolstoy mentioned have been priorities for the City but none of them have come close to qualifying under safety parameters. He said they have had to compete within a large area for State money and they have not been high on the State's priority list. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the extent of accidents on East Avenue would not qualify under safety parameters. Mr. Rougeau replied that it does not when considering the traffic volume. He said that just shows the type of problems elsewhere. Commissioner Melcher stated there have been some serious accidents at the intersection of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. He felt there may be many accidents because north/south traffic has no protection for left turns. He thought people are accustomed to having protected left turns within Rancho Cucamonga and the absence of that protection at that intersection contributes to accidents. Mr. Rougeau said the City recently received a call from a citizen regarding that same matter. He stated staff has contacted Caltrans and provided statistics and requested left-turn phasing. He said it is staff's hope that something will be done before the intersection is turned over to the City. He agreed there are several along the existing Route 30 that need additional left turns. Commissioner Melcher observed that some time ago he had stated that the left turn pocket from southbound Haven Avenue to Civic Center Drive is not long enough. He said he noticed a yield left-turn lane was instituted to cure that problem. He acknowledged that was probably cheaper than modifying the median but he thought it is not as safe. Mr. Rougeau said yield left-turns have been shown to be very safe. He observed they have been used more extensively for a long time throughout the country and statistics show they are safe. He said the rewiring costs over $10,000; therefore. staff tried working with the signal cycling before making that change. He said the same change had been made at Ramona Avenue and Base Line Road and is also being used on more of the new signals being installed. Commissioner Melcher said that when he is making a left-turn from southbound Haven Avenue onto Valencia Avenue it hard to see traffic in the northbound left-hand lane because the landscaping is too high. Mr. Rougeau said staff will look at it. Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 8, 1996 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the yield left-hand turn signal is great and felt staff has selected the right places to put them but he observed he has had people ask him what they mean. He felt there is some confusion but said he likes them. Mr. Rougeau acknowledged there is a slight bit of confusion but said that fortunately it does not translate into a sedous accident problem. He said many people also dislike two-way left-turn lanes as they seem scary, but they don't increase accidents. He felt they need to be used wisely. Vice Chairman McNiel asked when the signal will be installed at the Foothill Boulevard and 1-15 Freeway intersection. Mr. Hanson replied it is 99 percent designed and the City is now waiting for Caltrans money. He said Caltrans had indicated for several years that the signal was out of the program, but informed the City several months ago that the signal is back in the program. He guessed it is imminent. Vice Chairman McNiel stated there is a tremendous amount of traffic there and he felt it will increase after the church moves when that property is redeveloped. He asked about the progress of the Red Hill realignment. Mr. Hanson said that realignment had been tied in with the Foothill Boulevard project which was dropped when the Redevelopment money dried up. Vice Chairman McNiel observed that several years ago the Milliken Avenue railroad underpass was done and traffic was ultimately to be divetied to Haven Avenue. He asked if that will happen soon. Mr. Hanson thought that project had dropped on the Caltrans priority list when Milliken Avenue was pushed up on the list. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if anything will ever happen to the old railroad overpass at Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue. He thought the area is treacherous and will become more dangerous when the signal goes in at Baker Avenue. Mr. Rougeau felt the signal at Baker Avenue will help. He remarked the City has been contacted several times by a developer who needs a bridge for a private railroad crossing for a development in Orange County. He said that developer is currently examining the bridge to see if it could be moved and used. He noted the owner of the bridge is SANBAG, so they would have to approve it. Other than that option, he thought the bddge was tied in with the Foothill Boulevard project that was to have been funded by the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there may eventually be a light rail along that route and he thought SANBAG may not want to give the bridge away. Mr. Rougeau said that there would probably be a lot of citizen complaints if it is made into a light rail. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that people might appreciate light rail if gasoline prices are raised dramatically. Commissioner Melcher commented that many cities have already put asphalt over the crossings and extensive sections of the track have been removed along that line. Commissioner Tolstoy said the rail would not be used for light rail. Commissioner Melcher noted that under Beautification, a number of projects call for spending small sums of money for design with notations that funding will occur in a later year. He asked if staff will be doing the designing. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 8, 1996 Mr. Hanson responded that would probably be true. Commissioner Melcher asked the logic. He feared that the plans will have to be redone when funding is available. Mr. Buller said that sometimes grants can be obtained for construction if projects are already designed. Commissioner Melcher noted that $6,000 is budgeted for curb ramps and he asked how many curb ramps that would equal. Mr. Hanson replied the money will probably be turned over to City maintenance staff and they will construct as many ramps as possible. Commissioner Melcher recalled mention on a recent City Council or Redevelopment Agency agenda that $100,000 was authorized for a study of the Church Street Basin. He said he was curious what the outcome will be and whether the basin will someday be removed. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, said the Flood Control District has determined the basin is not needed. He said that several years ago a developer had talked with the District and City staff regarding developing the site, but that project had been dropped. Commissioner Melcher asked why the basin fills up when there is a large storm. He asked if that was because it has not been taken out of the loop. Mr. James said that sounded plausible. Commissioner Melcher said he had heard about a signal at Victoria Park Lane and Milliken Avenue. He asked if that will make a total of three signals on Milliken Avenue between Base Line Road and Highland Avenue. Mr. Rougeau confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher felt the volume of traffic on Milliken Avenue between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard must be greater than the between Base Line Road and Highland. He asked the status of signals between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Rougeau replied the signal at Tetra Vista Parkway was turned on last week and the one at Church Street will be turned on in a few weeks. He said one at Mountain View will be put in the City's budget within a year or two if Lewis does not develop the project to the east sooner. Commissioner Melcher recalled there had been a project on the list in the past regarding eliminating the ditch on Haven Avenue and putting it underground. He did not see the project on this listing. Mr. Hanson said the City hopes to award the contract for the portion between Deer Creek Channel and Base Line Road within a few weeks with construction beginning later this summer. He said there may be money available in the near future to do the portion from Base Line Road north because SANBAG wants to widen Haven up to 1-30. Commissioner Melcher said he was disappointed that the Five-Year or Seven-Year projects were not included with the staff report. Mr. Hanson responded that it is so difficult to project funding that far in advance that staff felt the document is too imprecise. Planning Commission Minutes -16o May 8, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS I. SITE PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE Vice Chairman McNiel thought the matter should be deferred until the entire Commission was present. Commissioner Melcher indicated he had requested the item be placed on the agenda and he had no objection to waiting for a full Commission. Mr. Buller said it would be scheduled for the first meeting in June as Commissioner Melcher had indicated he would not be available at the second meeting in May. J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-30 - McDONALDS - A review of an approved fast food restaurant located at 8701 Base Line Road. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated McDonalds had submitted a revised grading plan which needs to be approved by the City. Commissioner Melcher hoped that Commissioner Lumpp would have an opportunity to review the plan. Mr. Buller said staff will make it available to Commissioner Lumpp. Mr. Buller noted that Wohl had submitted a Pre-Application Review for Mimi's Restaurant to be reviewed by the Commission on May 22. Vice Chairman observed that Commissioner Melcher had indicated he would not be at the May 22 meeting. Commissioner Melcher said he could not be at the meeting at 7:00 p.m. but he should be able to arrive later in the evening. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule the Pre-Application Review following the regularly scheduled meeting on May 22. Mr. Buller observed several appeals were scheduled for City Council consideration. He said the Sacred Heart Church bell issue will be on the May 15 agenda and had been appealed by a resident as well as by the church. He reported that Lewis Homes filed an appeal regarding the Mello-Roos condition applied to the project at Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue and Lewis has asked that the item be continued from May 15 to June 5. He noted that an appeal from the owner of Bunky's Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 8, 1996 was also on the agenda, and the owner had also requested a continuance to June 5. He reported that staff had also just received an appeal regarding the permit granted for the modulars at Hillside Community Church and that appeal would probably also be heard on June 5. Mr. Buller reminded the Commissioners that they had received an invitation to the second Regional Planning Commission meeting on May 16 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. in Grand Terrace. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 3-0-2 (Barker, Lumpp absent) to adjourn. 10:10 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18- May 8, 1996