Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/07/12 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 12, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. RO]'.T. CAT.T. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-0-1 with Melcher abstaining, to approve the minutes of the May 30, 1995, Adjourned Joint Meeting with City Council. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy abstaining, to approve the minutes of June 28, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Barker reported that the Commission had received requests for continuance on Items B and D on the agenda. He said it was also his understanding that there may have been confusion regarding the definition of the Low Medium Residential District with respect to the description on Item C. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, defined Low Medium Residential. He stated that the Parcel Map on Item C is to create two parcels for the purpose of expanding the school site. Chairman Barker questioned the requests for continuance for Items B and D. Mr. Coleman stated that the applicant for Item B had requested a continuance to July 26 as a result of information from the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Board that a second dwelling unit could not be placed on the property because the resulting density would exceed that which is permitted for the existing septic system and the size of the lot. He further reported that the applicant for Item D had also requested a two-week continuance to July 26 in order to further study staff's recommendation of denial because of the septic issue. Chairman Barker suggested that the staff reports be given and the public hearings be opened on those items to allow input from those members of the public who would not be able to attend on July 26. SIGN ORnINANCE AMENDMRNT 95-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a revision to the Sign Ordinance to allow additional wall signs for industrial uses. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker asked how many buildings there are in the City which are 200,000 square feet or larger. Mr. Murphy thought there are approximately four to five. Commissioner McNiel asked if the change is restricted to industrialbuildings. Mr. Murphy responded that staff's intent was to limit it to industrial buildings. He said the current commercial standards provide for one sign per building elevation with a maximum of three signs. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this change would now allow three wall signs in addition to a monument sign. Mr. Murphy responded that staff is proposing a maximum of three wall signs plus one wall sign on large industrial buildings which meet all three criteria cited in the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked if monument signs are permitted for industrial users. Mr. Murphy replied that generally one monument sign plus two wall signs are permitted. Commissioner Lumpp asked if other cities were surveyed. Mr. Murphy replied affirmatively and indicated that criteria vary greatly; some communities allow only one wall sign per business and some cities which have no maximum. He said the majority allow two wall signs. Commissioner Melcher asked if any thought had been given to attempting to differentiate a corporate logo versus a sign which becomes an advertising message. He noted that BHP uses a logo of the three letters whereas someone else might wish to use a much longer name on three walls. Mr. Murphy noted that the sign ordinance limits the sign to the identification of the business and there is no proposed change to the maximum size, 150 square feet or 10 percent of the building face. He noted that the current BHP logo sign is 136 square feet, so using a longer name would mean that the letters would have to be much smaller. He observed that staff has discretion in reviewing the sign application for compatibility with the building architecture, etc. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 12, 1995 Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter Pitassi, AIA, Peter Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak, Suite 105, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Mr. Murphy had presented the issue very well. Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Schlosser Forge would be eligible for another sign. Mr. Murphy responded in the negative. He stated that all the buildings combined would meet the 200,000 square foot minimum size but no one building would meet it. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a manufacturer meets the other two criteria and has a total of over 200,000 square feet in several buildings, if staff would determine that an additional sign could be granted. Mr. Murphy replied in the negative and indicated that staff's feeling is that only single buildings of over 200,000 square feet would be of sufficient size and scale to handle three signs. In the case of Schlosser Forge, he did not feel there is a building that would warrant three signs. He said the larger buildings sit back behind other buildings and are fairly obscured. He said he would recommend one wall sign on Arrow Route, one wall sign on Rochester Avenue, and a monument sign. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-04 - MESTER - A request to provide a temporary modular unit as a second dwelling unit in the Very Low residential designation (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8455 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-701-10. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if the code would prohibit hooking up to the existing septic system. Mr. Murphy replied that because the applicant could not meet the requirements of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Board (1/2 acre per dwelling unit), Building and Safety would have to deny building permits. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There were no comments at this time. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 95-04 to July 26, 1995. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 12, 1995 C. ENVIRONMR. NT~L ASSESSMRNT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14786 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 10.2 acres of land into two parcels in the Low Medium Residential Development District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the north side of East Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-26 and 27. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Lewis Homes is selling Parcel 1 to the School District. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, replied affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the area between the school and the parking lot is an existing detention basin. Mr. James responded that it is a vacant pad. He reported that in June 1994, Lewis submitted a site plan and they indicated that area as future classrooms and the area to the west of that is indicated as future administrative offices. He said there is no need to leave the area vacant at this time for drainage purposes. Commissioner McNiel asked if staff had spoken to Lewis regarding providing trees on both parcels. Mr. James replied the engineering condition only requires street trees across the Parcel 1 frontage with the parking lot. He said trees are not requested on Parcel 2 because it would be difficult to maintain the trees on the vacant parcel; therefore, staff recommended deferring street trees until development of Parcel 2. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the drain which might be used for the future street would be installed with the construction of the parking lot. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Con~nissioner Tolstoy asked if the drain is sufficient to take care of any property to the north. Mr. James responded that was correct, regardless of whether it develops as multi- family or single family. Commissioner Melcher questioned the size of the parcel and the underlying land use designation. Mr. James replied the overall parcel is 10.2 acres, with Parcel 1 to be 3.3 acres and Parcel 2 to be 6.9 acres with a designation of Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). Commissioner Melcher asked if development is generally mid-range when calculating the overall density in the Terra Vista Planned Community. Mr. Coleman responded that was correct. Chairman Barker asked if the surrounding houses are developed at Low-Medium. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 12, 1995 Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, Lewis Development Corporation, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they were processing the parcel map as an accommodation to the School District to address the severe parking problem at the existing Coyote Canyon Elementary School. He said the land to the east of the parking lot is for future classroom expansion. He indicated they will provide a sidewalk along Elm Street up to the trail. He observed the storm drain has been designed to accommodate development to the north and a catch basin will be installed in the parking lot and will be maintained until the property is developed and the system is turned over to the City. Commissioner McNiel questioned the probable timing on development of Parcel 2. Mr. Luque thought it would be approximately a year. He said the property to the south is zoned for Medium density and they are contemplating single family detached homes on Parcel 2. Commissioner McNiel asked if it would be possible to install some landscaping within the parkway o'f Elm Avenue to complete it to the trail. Mr. Luque replied the street cut is not in as yet and he preferred to delay landscaping until development. He said the full frontage of Parcel 1 will be landscaped. He noted the curb and gutter already exist but the street and driveway cuts are not going in at this time. Mr. James said the driveways for the parking lot will be installed, but the streets for the future subdivision will not be installed at this time. Mr. Luque said they are undertaking the parcel split now so that the School District can get the parking lot installed and operational for the fall term. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the storm drain being installed will be hooked up to the regular drain on Elm Avenue. Mr. James replied that it will be. Bill Baker, 7753 Belvedere Place, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if tonight's action covered the development of Parcel 2. Chairman Barker replied that it only allows for the development of the parking lot and the applicant will have to return to the Commission with development plans for Parcel 2. Mr. Baker asked if apartments could be built on Parcel 2 with its zoning for 4-8 dwelling units per acre. Chairman Barker responded it would be detached housing, not apartments. Mr. Baker asked that the Commission keep safety in mind as the City is developed. He said he had moved into the community because he thought it to be a good place to raise children with the many parks in the area. He opposed allowing apartments or other housing that would lower the economic value of the area. He thought the Commission has done a good job so far. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 12, 1995 Commissioner Melcher expressed opposition because he did not feel School District offices should be placed in an area that is planned as a residential neighborhood street. He also thought a Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment should be required in order to approve the change. He noted the proposed parking lot will park 160 vehicles and he did not feel that many parking spaces should be needed at an elementary school. He thought the parking lot is being designed to also serve the eventual office building- He suggested that two conditions be placed on the map if it were to be approved. He asked that La Mission Park be completed prior to the recordation of the map. He also requested that the overall number of units allowed in Terra Vista be reduced by the number of units lost as the result of a portion of the land being sold to the School District. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there is a density transfer provision in the Terra Vista Plan. Commissioner McNiel observed the Plan provides for a gross number of units. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the Commission would have to revisit the Terra Vista Specific Plan in order to make any changes to the overall number of units and it could not be done as a part of this action. He understood the Commission's frustration regarding La Mission Park, but he did not feel completion of the park could be added as a condition of approval on the parcel map application-' Commissioner Melcher thought the sale of land to the School District effectively changes the land use without the benefit of a Plan Change. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, stated he had conversations with the School District and Lewis Homes, and they are aware they will be required to submit a zone change request from Low Medium to Elementary School. He said Lewis Homes had indicated they are working on an amendment to other issues within the Community Plan and will be including this as part of that submittal. Commissioner Melcher said he had heard the parking lot is to be installed for the fall school term. He felt it would be out of sequence to process the application prior to a Terra Vista Community Plan change. Mr. Murphy said it was his understanding that if the parcel is sold to the School District and is used a school facility, the City does not have jurisdiction over how the parcel is used. Mr. James thought Lewis Homes could have grant deeded the property to the School District without going through the City. He said the developer had chosen to go through a parcel map split in order to get a cleaner transaction of the sale. Commissioner Melcher felt the City was being had. Chairman Barker observed that the applicant and School District do not need the City and the School District can do what it wants with the City having no authority- He understood Commissioner Melcher's concerns and the impact of the parking. He suggested that any residents who are impacted direct their comments to the Board of Education- Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the City has jurisdiction over the construction of an administration office by the School District. He recalled that the Alta Loma School District owned property on Beryl on which they were going to erect an administration building and a maintenance yard and he thought the City had jurisdiction over the use. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 12, 1995 Mr. Murphy affirmed that the City had jurisdiction at the Beryl location only because the site was not being used as a classroom related facility. He said it was his understanding that the City has no jurisdiction over administrative offices built in conjunction with school classroom facilities other than offsite improvements and ensuring that the grading does not impact adjacent properties. Ralph Hanson felt that the City would have jurisdiction over an administration building only if it is on a separate site and not used in conjunction with a school site. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that as an ex-school person, he would hate to be in a district where the administration office was at another school site because the other school sites would tend to feel slighted and that the school site with the administrative offices would receive preferential treatment. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Luque stated he had brought the matter to the attention of the Commission on December 28, and it had been his understanding that they should go ahead and proceed to accommodate the School District. He confirmed it is a sale of land to the School District. He said they intend to begin construction on La Mission Park as soon as possible, but it has been a long process to get all the approvals. Tom Baca, 7759 Belvedere, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if apartments or single family homes will be built on Spruce and Elm by Church. Mr. Coleman said several apartment projects have been approved on the site and construction was begun more than one time. He said they had not gone forward. Mr. Murphy indicated the site in question had been approved for 317 apartments approximately five to six years ago and a modification was approved approximately three years ago. He said they have graded the site on two separate occasions and the approval is still valid. Mr. Baca felt there are enough apartments already in the area. Chairman Barker indicated that he personally agreed. Mr. Baker requested clarification that Parcel 2 is zoned for single family residential. Chairman Barker stated that was correct. He again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 14786. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY MELCHER NONE - carried Chairman Barker suggested that the residents contact the Planning Division to look at the Residential Applications Map to see what applications have been approved by the City. He noted that the City Council had taken action a few years ago to reduce the ratio of multi-family units in comparison to single- family units within the City. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 12, 1995 D. CONDITIONAT, USE PERMIT 95-17 - TING - A request to construct a 1,189 square foot second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units/acre), located at 6029 Vineyard Avenue - APN: 1062'281'31- Steve Ross, Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that staff recommends denial. He commented that staff had also received numerous calls and letters and a petition in opposition to the second dwelling unit. He noted that the primary concerns of the residents relate to neighborhood compatibility of the structure, privacy of adjacent property owners, equestrian use of adjacent lots, and the use of the second unit for a rental property. He said that application complies with the City's development standards in that it meets the zoning requirements and complies with a state law which governs this issue. He said that the other concerns which have been raised are not addressed by the Development Code as such because they are less tangible issues. Chairman Barker noted that one of the letter writers indicated that he did not receive notification even though his property backs up to the proposed development. He asked if staff had uncovered any notification problems. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded that the City mailed notification on June 21 to all property owners within 300 feet of the project, based upon property ownership records of the County of San Bernardino Tax Assessor records. He said one of those notices was returned in the mail as not being deliverable- He noted that in checking some of the names against the mailing list, it was found that the Tax Assessor's records have incorrect zip codes for some of the addresses, which may have resulted in a delay of the notification- He noted the City will be purchasing a product from another vendor to correct those errors. He observed that the property was also posted and a number of the letters indicated they had observed the posted sign on the site. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the procedure for notifying the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board with respect to a discretionary approval process. Mr. Ross replied that the initial response from Building and Safety Division was that a second dwelling unit could be sited on the lot without any problems; but after checking with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, it was determined that new development requires a minimum of 1/2 acre for each dwelling unit on a septic system. He reported that the Board considers this project as "new development" because of the conditional use permit requirement. He said the City does not normally notify the Santa Ana Water Quality Control Board because it is left up to the applicant to provide written certification from the Water Quality Control Board that adequate sewer and water facilities are available prior to pulling of building permits. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Building Division would follow through to see that the proper certification is provided. Mr. Ross responded affirmatively- Chairman Barker noted that the applicant was not present and the application would be continued for two weeks. He opened the public hearing and observed that the public hearing would remain open. He invited people to comment if they would not be available to attend the July 26 meeting, but indicated they could again comment on July 26 if they felt something new should be added. planning Commission Minutes -8- July 12, 1995 The following residents spoke in opposition to the project. Richard Marzocco, 6021 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Ben Murphy, 8143 Thoroughbred, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Owen, 6042 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Peter Karikas, 6019 Zircon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Fred Mead, 6087 Vineyard, Rancho Cucamonga Michael Rademaker, 6020 Zircon, Rancho Cucamonga John Gillespi, 6041 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Tim McCandless, 6074 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga In addition Molly Mitchell, 9028 Camellia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, spoke and said that she represented the Alta Loma Riding Club. She stated concern with the potential loss of horse keeping on neighboring lots. The residents voiced concerns about the loss of privacy to surrounding residents, an increase in traffic and the fear that the increased traffic would endanger children who play in the streets, a potential impact upon surrounding property values, the replacement of the current front yard with cement in order to provide vehicular access to the new house, a loss of rural atmosphere, an increase in the number of transient people occupying the residence because of the increase from the current six bedrooms to a possible nine bedrooms, interference with view of the mountains, lack of space for a mailbox, and the potential for setting a precedent. The residents opposed the project because they fear it will limit the rights of adjoining property owners to have horses because of the restriction that horses cannot be within 70 feet of a habitable structure. The adjoining resident said he would have to remove his swimming pool and landscaping in order to accommodate horses and he felt he could not sell his property as an equestrian lot because of the limitation. An observation was made that the project would be in violation of CC&Rs. It was thought a 1,200 square foot second dwelling unit would not be compatible with the surrounding 3,400 square foot homes. It was felt that the project is not in the essence of Rancho Cucamonga and does not fit in with the well planned subdivision that was plotted to ensure privacy for each lot. Residents expressed a desire to preserve quality of life in the area. It was stated that the house would not be a benefit to anyone but the owner who lives in China. Someone stated that a possibly unlicensed business was being run out of the house and that one of the garage spaces had been converted to a bedroom. Residents questioned their right to control their own destiny. One resident expressed an opinion that state law enables, but does not require, cities to approve second dwelling units. He also felt that a 1,200 square foot dwelling may meet the letter, but not the intent, of the law that allows second dwelling units. One resident submitted pictures of his property and the location of the proposed second dwelling unit. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to continue Conditional Use Permit 95-17 to July 26, 1995, as requested by the applicant. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried Chairman Barker requested that another notification be mailed to announce the July 26, 1995, meeting. , · , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 9:05 p.m. to 9:18 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 12, 1995 Commissioner McNiel left during the recess, E. SIGN O~oINANCE AMRNDMRNT 95-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ Consideration of an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow. signs for service club organizations- Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker asked what would happen if different service clubs meet at the same restaurant- Ms. Frazier responded that Upland allows more than one sign in front of Stein's Restaurant. She noted that they are supposed to be temporary signs, but Upland has indicated they are not enforcing their regulations. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the proposed regulation would allow a changeable type of sign. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the regulation was written to allow one sign per organization per location. Mr. Coleman stated the ordinance was drafted to only permit one service club sign per property. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that would create problems. Chairman Barker agreed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt one sign per club should be permitted. Chairman Barker'observed that could result in five to six signs per location, Commissioner Tolstoy asked how it would be decided which one could go up if more than one service club meets at a location. Mr. Coleman suggested the ordinance could be modified to allow one sign per service club per property if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Melcher commented that the City does not seem to have any control over banners and window signs. He felt the proposed service club signs were more appropriate and supported one sign per club. Commissioner Lumpp preferred a permanent ground sign with each service club being permitted to have one per meeting location. Chairman Barker thought ground signs are tacky. Commissioner Lumpp felt a wall sign could be just as tacky if not placed properly- Commissioner Tolstoy did not want service club signs affixed to a monument sign. He preferred a wall sign or an individual temporary sign. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and he closed the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 12, 1995 Commissioner Melcher and Chairman Barker preferred a wall sign. Commissioner Lumpp supported wall signs or permanent ground signs. Commissioner Tolstoy supported limiting it to wall signs. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-02 with modifications to allow one wall sign per service club per location. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried DIRRCTOR'S REPORTS WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add Commercial uses and standards for Commercial uses in conjunction with Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 for parcels located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked what area the Master Plan for Rancho'Cucamonga Business Park encompasses. Ms. Bratt responded it is the area generally bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Arrow Highway, Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue. She said the Master Plan was approved in the early 1980s and it sets out the kinds of development allowed; such as office park, tennis office park, etc. She stated a Development Agreement was also approved for the subject parcels which used some of the commercial uses which are permitted in Subarea 7. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the business park master plan is consistent with Subarea 7 land uses but indicates particular areas for various types of uses. Ms. Bratt responded that it is not unlike the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, but it was called a master plan. Commissioner Lumpp asked if it is staff's intention to request that the applicant prepare a market study for their site. Ms. Bratt replied that such a study had already been requested. Commissioner Melcher asked if there would be a net increase in the amount of commercially zoned land in the City if the amendment were to be approved. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded that it would add approximately 15 acres. Commissioner Melcher requested staff's estimate of the relationship of the timing of looking at the applicant's market study versus the timing of the City initiated market study which is scheduled to be finished in October. He asked what sort of commitment of staff time and resources would be needed to deal with the applicant's application if the Commission were to initiate the text changes. Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 12, 1995 He observed that there are limited staff resources and he felt it would be foolhardy to devote a lot of staff time when the outcome is speculative. Ms. Bratt stated that the applicant had submitted a market study today but she had not had a chance to review it. Mr. Coleman replied that any land use amendment takes quite a bit of staff time to review. He said this application involves a significant change to the General Plan and a rezoning of the property. He stated staff had sufficient time to review the project. Mr. Coleman indicated that if the application is deemed complete within the next few weeks, the application would potentially reach the Commission at its second meeting in September. Commissioner Melcher observed the Commission put in over a year's effort to get the City Council to undertake the market study and he felt it would be premature to process this amendment prior to the completion of the City's study because it is to provide a basis for making sound decisions. Mr. Coleman observed that the City Council had clearly indicated that they do not want to delay any applications that come in before the City's market study is complete. He said that was why staff has asked all applicants to prepare their own studies, like Lewis did for Terra Vista Town Square and Terra Vista Promenade and Wohl/Rancho Partners had done for this application. Commissioner Melcher questioned who would prepare the text changes. Ms. Bratt replied that staff would. Commissioner Melcher asked who bears the cost of preparing the changes. Mr. Coleman responded that the applicant pays the cost. Commissioner Melcher noted the applicant had provided certain exhibits to the Commission and also shown them at the International Council of Shopping Centers meeting. He said he had taken the liberty of discussing the applicant's plan with knowledgeable people and he had formed the opinion that the site plan is inadequate for the proposed type of development. He asked about the possibility of going through the process and allowing the requested uses and then finding out that the site is not adequate. Commissioner Lumpp asked that the record reflect that the applicant had attempted to contact him and he had returned the phone call but had been unable to reach the applicant. Ms. Bratt commented that the Commission did not have a project application before it, only a request to initiate a land use change. She said the site plan was to give an idea of what might happen but did not have a bearing on the land use change. Mr. Coleman remarked that the applicant had originally requested a Pre-Application Review from the Commission on their site plan concept, but the Commission informed the applicant that it would not discuss design before the land use issue is resolved. Chairman Barker invited public comments. Laura Brozek, Wohl Investment Company, 750 North Archibald Avenue, Suite D, Ontario, stated she was available to answer questions. She said they had Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 12, 1995 prepared a site plan to see if there would be interest from prospective tenants prior to pursuing a General Plan Amendment. She stated there has been some interest and negotiations have been entered into, but. the. site plan is not set. She said it was their understanding that the Co~nission wanted to look at the land use issue prior to the design phase of the site plan. Commissioner Melcher remarked that the process of conceptualizing a development to see if there is interest on the part of prospective tenants is a valid process. He understood that the site plan is only a concept, but he thought the street plan for the property is fixed, so that the north/south dimension of the property will be unyielding. He was concerned that it will not be possible to do an adequate site plan with the proper parking field in front of the stores on that land because of the constraints placed upon it by the parallel streets which are approximately 400 feet apart. Ms. Brozek said they have hired a reputable architectural firm to work on the parking issues and those issues would be addressed in the design phase of the project. She acknowledged the lot is not as deep as some of the other commercial sites in the area, but felt that promotes a convenience factor. She thought the higher visibility would be a plus for food court or other convenience-oriented tenants. Commissioner Melcher asked if they were contemplating a "strip center" type of development. Ms. Brozek said they are trying to make the development as tasteful as possible. She thought the conceptual design is tasteful. Commissioner Tolstoy noted the brochure from Wohl/Rancho Partners gave the impression the company is primarily an asset management firm that does a lot of work in refurbishing and remarketing centers. He asked how much experience the company has in developing projects from raw land. Ms. Brozek replied they developed a vacant site into an outlet center on the San Diego/Mexico border. She confirmed the firm does a lot of repositioning of difficult retail, industrial, and office complexes. She noted her area is normally in the repositioning of existing centers. She thought there may be other projects they had developed from the ground up, but she was just not aware of them. Commissioner Tolstoy noted their submittal stated there is "tremendous demand on our site from large national chain tenants." He asked if she could provide names of the proposed tenants. Ms. Brozek replied they are in escrow with Good Guys. She said they have letters of intent from others, but she felt it would be premature to divulge names. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they had contacted Caltrans to see if their proposed ingress and egress would be acceptable. Ms. Brozek did not believe they have reached that point in the process as yet. She indicated they had contacted the Air Quality Management District to find out the requirements for processing the application. Andrew Hall, General Manager of Best Western Heritage Inn, 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, submitted a letter from the Vice President of Operations asking that the new tenant located at the corner of the proposed development complement the hotel, i.e., restaurant, sports bar and grill, or other form of Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 12, 1995 entertainment. The letter suggested that the Good Guys electronic store might be better suited for another portion of the plan. He noted that the hotel is averaging a 70 percent occupancy. He remarked that the hotel does not have a restaurant or a lounge and stated the hotel guests need places to go, but not necessarily dry cleaners or 7-11s. He expressed concern that a large building in the proposed Good Guys location would obstruct the views from the hotel rooms. He was concerned about increased noise levels generated by truck deliveries or overflow patrons. He noted the hotel's main driveway butts up against the parcel in question. He was concerned that retail buildings would become vacant with the development of other retail areas, such as the Ontario Mills project. Me asked that the City consider that the development on the corner of Spruce and Foothill should complement the hotel. Commissioner Melcher felt that, in spite of the Council's direction not to hold anybody up, it would be out of sequence to initiate the amendment at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher that there is limited staff time and he felt the scope of the project would be overwhelming to staff. He felt that it would be best to proceed when the City's market study, which is already underway, is completed. Ms. Brozek said they had submitted a market study to staff that says there are certain retail category demands which are not satisfied within the City. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Lumpp felt the application is a request for an amendment to the General Plan that simply allows the due process to move forward and he saw no reason not to proceed. He remarked that initiating the text changes would not guarantee that the Commission will approve the application when it is presented, as approval would depend upon how the Commission feels about the information that is formally presented. He said it is currently a request to give direction to staff regarding proceeding with the requested amendment. He did not see anything wrong with the applicant's providing a market study while the City proceeds with its own commercial study. Chairman Barker thought the issue raised by Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy had to do with staff time. Commissioner Tolstoy confirmed that was his major concern. Commissioner Melcher feared that once the process is initiated to make the changes, the Commission loses the ability to evaluate whether or not the change is appropriate. He thought that once an application fee is paid, it becomes hard to turn down the outcome. He felt it peculiar that the City would entertain a land use amendment in this location for something as small as 15 acres. He noted there are major, long established land use determinations in the City that indicate that north of Foothill Boulevard is residential and commercial and south of Foothill Boulevard is industrial. He said those broad, sweeping assumptions get called into question every time the City tampers with what is going on south of Foothill Boulevard. He stated that, under pressure, changes had already been made at the corner of Rochester and he felt planning in the larger sense is being lost in favor of small amendments being made to enhance opportunistic approaches of the development community. Chairman Barker observed that only the Planning Commission or City Council can initiate text change amendments to the Industrial Area Specific Plan and that there appeared to be insufficient Commission votes to initiate such an amendment. Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 12, 1995 Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Barker, to direct staff to initiate an amendment for text changes to add Commercial uses and standards for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. Motion denied by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: LUMPP BARKER, MELCHER, TOLSTOY MCNIEL - denied Chairman Barker observed that the City Council can direct staff to initiate the amendment or the applicant could wait until the City's commercial study is completed, which would be approximately two to four weeks after the timing for their application. Ms. Brozek asked how they could have the item placed on the City Council agenda. Chairman Barker replied that staff could assist her in placing it on the City Council agenda. , , , , , PUB!.IC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS G. ET.ECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to nominate the current officers for another year's term. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL - carried , , , , , H. DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS Chairman Barker asked if the Commissioners wished to continue the matter until all five Commissioners were available. It was the consensus of the Commission, 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, that Design Awards Nominations be continued to August 9, 1995. , , , , , I. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman Barker suggested that Item I and the workshop be continued to a night when all Commissioners could be present. It was the consensus of the Commission, 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, that Design Review Committee Appointments be continued to August 9, 1995. , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 12, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp noted that there are several cul-de-sacs in Terra Vista which have wrought iron fencing facing Spruce Street. He commented he had noticed that a diamond shaped trellis has been fastened to the wrought iron fencing on the inside of the one just south of Spyglass. He expressed concerns about the aesthetic value of the addition, which he thought had been placed there by homeowners. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that if the fence is a public improvement, staff would remove the trellis. He also noted that staff has received petitions from residents to close off two different cul-de-sac streets which side on to collector streets. He said that policy matter would be brought to the Commission at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, to adjourn. 10:14 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop regarding Design Review Process and Philosophy. Respectfully submitted, Dan Coleman Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 12, 1995