Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/08/11 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 11, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:06 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 3-0-0-2 with Melcher and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of July 28, 1993. CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 - ROCKFIELD - A request for an extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map consisting of 154 single family lots on 67.8 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Summit and Almond Avenues - APN: 226-321-01 and 11. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-14 - BUTTERS - A request to construct a 1,200 square foot second dwelling unit on .8 acre of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Pepperidge Lane - APN: 202-041-58. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Butters, 6896 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, acknowledged that at the Design Review Committee meeting he had accepted the Committee's request to place concrete tile on the granny's quarters, but he now requested that he have the option of using asphalt shingles. He referred to his July 13, 1993, letter requesting that option. He provided pictures from brochures and stated he planned to use the 30-year style shingles. Chairman McNiel asked what type of roofing was on the main house. Mr. Butters replied that it is asphalt shingles and remarked that the house in front of his lot also has asphalt shingles similar to what he proposed using for the granny quarters. Commissioner Melcher stated that he personally did not object to asphalt shingles, but he noted that at the Design Review Committee meeting Mr. Butters had said the asphalt shingles were to match the existing house, and his July 13 letter stated the asphalt shingles were needed for architectural integrity of the Cape Cod style. He questioned if the reasons were being manufactured. Mr. Butters said he he stated the asphalt was requested to match the existing house, but when his architect heard that concrete tiles were to be required, she stated she had never considered that asphalt shingles would not be permitted and she felt they are necessary to match the Cape Cod style. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He requested clarification on the recommendation for tile roofing. Commissioner Vallette stated staff had recommended tile roofing and the applicant had indicated he was willing to use it. She commented that the site is buffered by the Flood Control Channel to the back and the application is for only a granny flat, not part of a tract. She expressed a willingness to accept asphalt shingles. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to split the lot and place the granny flat on its own lot. Mr. Murphy responded that technically it could be done, but there is an easement. He noted that the lot in front had been created in the past, and if the property were to be subdivided further, a street would probably be required. He felt the chances of a further lot split were very slim. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 11, 1993 Chairman McNiel asked if the City Code limits the size of granny flats. Mr. Murphy replied that originally they were limited to 640 square feet, but the state had increased the size to 1,200 square feet. Commissioner Melcher noted that the house is attached to a two-car garage. Chairman McNiel asked if the maximum 1,200 square foot size mandated by the state does not include garage space. Mr. Murphy replied that the state regulations do not address garage space, and the City has interpreted the 1,200 square feet to be living space. He said the City Code requires a garage, so that is not part of the 1,200 square foot maximum. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City would require a tile roof on a typical single-family home application. Mr. Murphy said staff would normally require concrete tile, based upon the Planning Commission policy. He said the majority of applicants change to tile at the City's request. Chairman McNiel noted a variety of roofing materials are in use in the area. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the asphalt shingle beng proposed by the applicant would be appropriate for the neighborhood. He noted that if the residence were adjacent to brush that might burn, he would request concrete tile. Commissioner Chitiea felt the applicant could use concrete or other light- weight tile and achieve the look he wanted. However, as the house would not be seen from the street and there are a variety of roofing materials in use in the area, she was willing to accept asphalt. Commissioner Melcher agreed that asphalt would be appropriate. Chairman McNiel expressed a willingness to accept asphalt. He requested that thick-butt shingles be used in a color appropriate for the building. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-14 with modification to permit a 30-year, dimensional asphalt shingle to be approved by the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 11, 1993 Co CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-20 - EN AGAPE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP - A request to establish a church in an existing building totaling 12,825 square feet on 1.1 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9215 Arrow Route - APN: 209-012-09. Chairman McNiel noted there was a request to continue the matter to August 25, 1993. He opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Conditional Use Permit 93-20 to August 25, 1993. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of the proposed integral public art for Foothill Marketplace, a previously approved commercial retail center located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-27 through 43. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if all of the sketches in the staff report will be included in the bas relief. Mr. Murphy responded that was correct, they would work their way around the area. Commissioner Melcher noted that from the sketches it appeared the murals on Pages D-11 and D-14 may be so large that they will give a crowded appearance with the light fixtures almost touching the side of the murals. Mr. Murphy responded that staff could work with the applicant and consultant to be sure the appearance is suitable. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that barrels and wine bottles with labels were shown on Page D-31. He asked if the art would be distinct enough to read the labels and if they could be labels used by the wineries of the area. Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, responded that they could be. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be nice to show the brands that were sold there. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 11, 1993 Chairman McNiel noted the scenes are general and that level of detail may appear to distract from the other scenes. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be a nice touch to show the labels used. Ms. Hartig suggested it may be more appropriate to depict the labels on the plaques identifying the wineries. Commissioner Chitiea asked if a buggy will be included on the mural shown on Page D-11. Ms. Hartig responded that she would discuss the matter with the artist. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Phil Ramming, Wattson Arno Company, 3620 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel felt the art program will be very nice. Mr. Ramming stated they were very excited about the art. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the text on the plaques was beautifully written and conveyed an important message, but he questioned if some of the words may not be understandable to the average shopper. He felt some of the words and sentences may be too long. Commissioner Melcher felt it is appropriate as written. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it should stay as written. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the pictures were outstanding. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 90-37. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 11, 1993 COMMISSION BUSINESS E. REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING NUMBER AND LOCATION OF MONUMENT SIGNS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was before the Commission as the result of discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding the Thomas Winery Center. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, observed that the Development Code allows one monument sign per street frontage with a maximum of two monument signs for Neighborhood Centers. He provided layouts of the eight centers in the City which have more than two street frontages. He noted that Terra Vista Town Center and Foothill Marketplace are permitted more monument signs because they are considered Regional Centers. Commissioner Melcher stated he was in sympathy with Commissioner Vallette's point of view that another sign on San Bernardino Road would be a benefit to the Thomas Winery Center. Commissioner Vallette noted that Commissioner Tolstoy had also expressed concerns that the hospital on Milliken above Foothill Boulevard also needed more signage. She felt signage is a benefit to the consumer to indicate what is located in the center. She said the purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to guard against an overabundance of signs and she did not feel allowing additional signage on frontage roads for the eight centers noted would be contrary to the principles and the original thought process of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Melcher agreed that signage is a benefit to the consumer, thereby benefiting the merchants. He acknowledged the Planning Commission has concerns regarding aesthetics and visual quality of the community; but he felt it is hard to find many of the smaller shops in some of the centers because the shops are difficult to see and the signs are small and restricted. He felt the ordinance should be readdressed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that signs should be permitted on the major entrance streets, but not necessarily at the backs of shopping centers. He felt Central Park Plaza should not necessarily have a sign on Ellena West. Chairman McNiel agreed that there should not be a blanket opportunity to have a monument sign on every street frontage. He noted that Victoria Village has a third access off a small cul-de-sac street and he did not feel it should necessarily have a monument sign. He suggested a workshop to discuss the matter. He thought monument signs can be attractive. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. She felt there may be some appropriate locations and noted the Code would need to be changed rather than making exceptions. Brad Buller, City Planner, felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Sign Ordinance with language to Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 11, 1993 benefit the consumer and provide additional monumentation for shopping centers with more than two street frontages. He suggested there may be provisions allowing monument sign identifying the center without identifying individual tenants which would be permitted as exceptions and not be counted as monument signs. Commissioner Melcher requested that graphic examples be included with the staff report. Mr. Buller responded that would be done and the matter would be brought back to the Commission as soon as staff time permits. F. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission should formally proceed with the election even though new appointments have not been made for the Commission. He suggested that the sitting Chairman and Vice Chairman be prevailed upon to continue to serve. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy to nominate Larry McNiel as Chairman and Suzanne Chitiea as Vice Chairman. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried' ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0 to adjourn. 7:55 P.M. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop at 8:00 p.m. on August 11, 1993, in the Rains Room regarding Development Review 93-13 and Design Review for Tract 13316. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 11, 1993