Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/03/10 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 10, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Prfncipal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a workshop was scheduled for 8:00 p.m. and he suggested that the Commission may wish to recess to the workshop before taking Item G on the regular agenda, Discussion of Residential Development because the workshop may generate some discussion regarding Item G. It was the consensus of the Commission that the workshop be conducted prior to Item G on the agenda, so long as the workshop did not start prior to 8:00 p.m. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 10, 1993. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, carried 4-0-0-1 with Melcher abstaining, to adopt the minutes of February 24, 1993. , , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 - PACIFIC FIRST BANK - A request for the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Lots 1 through 21 of a previously approved tract consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 11 and 207-641-01 through 10. Related file Variance 89-12. Be TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 89-12 - PACIFIC FIRST BANK - A request to allow reduced front yard setbacks on 8 lots, a reduced minimum average front yard setback for all lots, height extensions above 35 feet on 3 lots, and a reduced accessory structure setback on Lot 2, for a previously approved tract map consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 23 and 207-641-01 through 15. Related file Design Review for Tract 10035. Ce TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC - A request for a 3-lot subdivision and design review of 115 condominium units on 10.27 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located north of Arrow Highway and east of Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-44. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14875 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC - A request for a residential subdivision and design review of 36 condominium units on 3.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-332-26. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-05 - K & K GOLFING - A request to construct a golf training facility, consisting of a driving range, putting green, chipping area, clubhouse, and maintenance building, within the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-011-24. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Bill Kaufman, K & K Golfing, Inc. 8868 Rochester Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced Harold Kneller the other principal in the potential venture. He commented they are considering a land lease of a small portion of a larger parcel for what they feel is a relatively short period of time in which to Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 10, 1993 recoup their capital. He said they have a five-year lease with a possible option for another five years, however, they may have to move to another site for the second five years. He stated that the off-site improvements being requested would require many millions of dollars which they could not fund. He observed that the City will get the improvements when the entire parcel is developed, at which time the golfing project would most likely be removed. He requested that they be required to improve only 600 feet of Arrow Highway with sidewalks and landscaping and appropriate landscaping in the parking lot. He said the property owner agreed to put in a storm drain near the eastern portion of the property in exchange for removal of the berm and retaining wall on Arrow and channeling the water toward the storm drain. He said they planned to elevate the front part of their project to allow the golf range to retain water during a 100-year storm. He said they had looked at other sites but they preferred this site. He remarked they have budgeted $400,000 for the project and were not financially capable of spending the many millions of dollars requested for off-site improvements. He said they had offered a purchase option, but the property owner was not willing to consider that alternative at this time. He stated they would be willing to stipulate that they would make improvements if they were able to purchase the property. He thought the City could use a large recreational facility to be utilized by both adults and children. He felt it would be a good spot for fund raisers or practice by school teams. He observed they would provide 11 jobs and a tax base which would probably range from $750,000 to $1,500,000 per year. He said they were looking at the project for hopefully ten years, but if they were able to purchase the project, they would then be able to sit and talk about long-term improvements. Commissioner Melcher requested a summary of the applicant's proposal for Arrow Route improvements. Mr. Kaufman proposed that they improve 600 feet of Arrow Route going west from the eastern property line with curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping including trees. He felt the lights in their parking lot would provide adequate lighting along Arrow Route. He said they planned to landscape both sides of the range including the extreme north border. He remarked the landscaping would include grass and trees with irrigation. He said the property owner has also committed to spending $50,000 to hook up to the storm drain. Chairman McNiel asked the dimensions of the property. Mr. Kaufman responded it is about 900 feet along Arrow Highway by 1,200 feet deep. Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant was only suggesting improving 600 feet along Arrow Highway. Mr. Kaufman stated the project entrance is 200 feet from the east boundary wall and they proposed improving another 400 feet past the driveway. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be complete permanent improvements - concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, etc. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 10, 1993 Mr. Kaufman replied they had proposed asphalt curb. He felt the improvements would be torn out if their project is taken out when the larger parcel is improved. He said they would do whatever is required in front of their project, including permanent concrete curb and gutters. He proposed the additional 300 feet of frontage to contain grass and landscaping. He said they had suggested 600 feet of improvements, because that seemed to fit their budget. He thought they may be able to do the 900 feet. He stated they would like to have the project on a septic system instead of having to hook up to a permanent sewer line. Harold Kneller, 5633 Canister, Rancho Cucamonga, said they were flexible in the design of the structure and would try to make it as appealing as possible keeping the budget in mind. Chairman McNiel commented that the facilities put in so far have gone a long way toward beautifying the neighborhood and the City would expect an attractive building, noting that the facility could potentially be there for ten years or longer. Mr. Kaufman said they would provide what the City wants. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it is within the Planning Commission's purview to decide what off-site improvements may be required or if a certain minimum is required by ordinance, thereby necessitating the City Council's approval to deviate from that ordinance. Brad Buller, City Planner, said the Commission had the discretion to determine what is reasonable. Commissioner Vallette questioned staff's position on the issue of septic versus sewer system. Mr. Murphy responded the issue could be addressed at the staff level. He said there are certain procedures which must be followed and testing which must be completed to be sure a septic system is feasible and would be permitted by Cucamonga County Water District and the Building and Safety Division. Commissioner Vallette noted the applicant had mentioned parking lot lighting but not street lighting. Mr. Murphy replied that the City would require full improvements, which would most likely include street lights. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, concurred it would include street lights. Commissioner Melcher asked what sort of transition currently exists on Arrow west of the animal shelter and sports park and what sort of transition would be required for this project. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 10, 1993 Mr. James stated that currently the lane closest to the curb going west on Arrow is a right-turn only lane into the sports complex because the street does not continue full-width west of the complex project. He said when the street is completed full width to the west, the lane is proposed to be a through lane as well as being used for turns into the complex. He said with the improvements being contemplated the right lane could either be a right- turn lane into the golf facility or it could be a through lane transitioning to the west back to the narrower pavement. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant were required to put in the full width of Arrow for the 900 feet of frontage, if another 1,000 foot transition would be required to move the traffic back to the narrower street section. Mr. James said any transition lane would be rather long if the transitioning were not started until after the driveway. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, noted that the full improvement of Arrow along the 900 feet of frontage would permit a proper lane drop if the City chooses to pick up a full through lane at Rochester carrying it past the sports complex entrance to this project. He said since there is only one lane of traffic approaching to the east of Rochester, he did not feel it is currently necessary to pick up two lanes at Rochester and then drop back to one lane just past this project. He felt it would be better to have one through lane and a right-turn lane onto Rochester, into the sports complex and then into the proposed project. Commissioner Melcher asked if that meant the proposed 600 feet of improvements would be adequate for traffic safety. Mr. Rougeau said that would be correct at this time and the remainder of the frontage would be used for an asphalt transition, which would not necessarily be as long as a traffic transition which is striped out on the street. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be desirable from a traffic safety standpoint to require the applicant to make improvements to a reasonable distance west of its driveway. Mr. Rougeau stated it is standard to require full-width improvements across the full frontage of projects to give the City more flexibility to do striping changes and transitions beyond the project boundary. He suggested that the traffic tapering be accomplished through paint on the pavement as opposed to narrowing the pavement. Chairman McNiel observed that the Municipal Code requires street improvements along all street frontages of a parcel but that this project encompasses only a small portion of a much larger parcel. He asked if the Commissioners wished to acquiesce to the applicant's desire to improve only the frontage along their portion of the parcel and if in doing so would the Commission be meeting the requirements of the community and what is best for the City. Commissioner Vallette remarked that the applicant had been very willing to work with the Design Review Committee regarding the building structure. She Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 10, 1993 felt the development will be an asset to the City and the location would be a good one for the type of facility proposed. She thought a reasonable alternatives route would be best. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification that the Commission would have the authority to determine that improvements along only the portion of the parcel the applicant is developing would meet the Municipal Code requirements. Mr. Bullet affirmed the Commission could make that determination. Commissioner Melcher thought the applicant should be granted relief so far as Milliken and Foothill are concerned and he favored giving the applicant as much relief as possible on Arrow Route. Mr. Buller stated that staff supports that position so far as street improvements but would recommend dedication of all rights-of-way surrounding the entire parcel. Commissioner Melcher agreed that would be best. Chairman McNiel invited further public comment. Mr. Kaufman stated he had talked with the property owner regarding those dedications and he felt there was a strong possibility those dedications could be made although he could not guarantee it. Mr. Bullet said he had also spoken with representatives of the property owner and it did not seem out of the question because they realize they would have to make those dedications eventually when the full property is developed. He said their main concern seems to be any current out-of-pocket expenses. Commissioner Chitlea felt the facility is appropriately located and would be an asset to the sports complex. She thought it would be appropriate to relieve the applicant of obligation to do the Foothill and Milliken improvements if the dedications are obtained. She was concerned with the proposed level of improvements on Arrow Route. She noted that the project may last the full ten years and the property to the west may develop in that time. She supported the improvement of the full 900-foot Arrow frontage with striping to allow future opening of the lane. Mr. James remarked that Engineering staff would like the Commission to consider requiring the storm drain installation along the portion of Arrow Route that is improved. He noted that it has been the City's desire to avoid having to go back and tear up street improvements in order to install storm drains. Mr. Murphy noted that even if only 600 feet of Arrow Route is improved, dedication would be required for the full street length. Commissioner Chitlea asked who would pay for the additional 300 feet in front of the portion of the project being developed. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 10, 1993 Mr. Hanson remarked that the project is only a lease hold and the developer to the west is the property owner of the lease hold site. He said such a condition could be imposed on a subdivision map if the property owner applied for a lot split in order to have the ability sell off a portion of the parcel. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the project, but he felt the rights-of-way need to be dedicated along Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, and Arrow Route for frontages along the entire parcel. He noted that would not cause the owner of the parcel any out-of-pocket expenses. He also thought the full 900 feet of Arrow in front of the project should be improved including a right-turn lane into the project's driveway with a paint stripe transition west of the driveway back to the narrower road. He felt full improvements should including concrete curb and gutter, street lights, etc. Chairman McNiel felt the project will be an asset to the community but he agreed that full dedication of Foothill, Milliken, and Arrow and full improvements of the 900-foot frontage of the property would be appropriate. He thought it would also be aesthetically necessary to improve the full frontage area. He concurred that the applicant had been willing to work with the Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review 93-05 with modifications to require dedication for street rights-of-way along Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, and Arrow Route and full street improvements along the 900-foot Arrow Route frontage of the project. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried , , , · PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS F. TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES - A discussion of Public Safety Commission Resolution No. 93-001. Brad Bullet, City Planner, introduced the resolution forwarded by the Public Safety Commission. He said the Public Safety Commission resolution requests that the Planning Commission consider requiring striping, traffic signs, and stop signs consistent with those used in the public rights-of-way and requiring stop signs at all exits of all commercial centers. He indicated that staff had met with the Traffic Engineer and the City Attorney's office and believed some of the concerns raised by the Public Safety Commission are valid but the attorney had some legal concerns with the resolution if the Planning Commission takes formal action. He noted that the Planning Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 10, 1993 Commission has full discretionary action with regard to requirements for private parking lots when reviewing a project. He stated that when the Commission has concerns about circulation, design, or striping layout, the Commission can request enough evidence from the applicant to satisfy the Commission's concerns. He said the legal concern is with trying to apply City street standards to on-site, private parking lots which may then hold the City responsible and liable for enforcing those standards. He believed the Planning Commission could address the concerns raised by the Public Safety Commission without developing standards, but instead by using their discretionary review of projects to withhold approval of projects until applicants have addressed the Commission's concerns regarding on-site circulation. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, expressed concern about requiring Cal-Trans stop signs at the exits of all commercial centers because it would essentially create a new responsibility for the City staff to check that they are all installed. He feared the City does not have the staff to check every private entrance. He observed that the rules of the road control traffic as it exits a private driveway onto a public street. He said if the City however makes it a standard, the City now has an established a duty going beyond the normal rules of the road, and it could then be argued that the City has created an expectation that a stop sign be present. He commented that the absence of such a sign could potentially create an argument of a dangerous condition of the public street, increasing the City's liability. He felt there would not be a problem if it is a matter left to the Commission's discretion in looking at a particular site or the discretion of an applicant in controlling on-site circulation and traffic controls. He stated the attorney's office did not have any objection to requiring striping on site or a particular design of the traffic control devices on site. Chairman McNiel asked if the City would be placed in the same liability situation if the Commission required the stop signs at all exits as a matter of Commission policy. Mr. Hanson thought that so long as the requirements are on an individual basis, rather than as a formal policy, the liability would be minimized. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be any difference in liability if the stop signs were unique to the center and not the same as Cal-Trans signs. Mr. Hanson indicated the design of the sign would not necessarily decrease or diminish the liability. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the concern was then that the City was requiring a sign at a particular location. Mr. Hanson responded that the liability may increase if the City is requiring a stop sign at every driveway exit from commercial properties in the City. Commissioner Vallette asked if the City would be liable if a vehicle does not stop at an exit because there is no stop sign. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 10, 1993 Mr. Hanson responded the City should not be liable. He said the City's liability stems from the use of the public property, i.e. is there a dangerous condition on the public property or has the City created something on the private property that increases the danger onto the public property. He said the situation described by Commissioner Vallette would be covered by the rules of the road unless the City is maintaining something in the right-of-way that obscures view. He said the driver is responsible for obeying the rules of the road. He noted that if the City now required stop signs, there would be an expectation that the City is responsible for taking care of things both in the public right-of-way and extending onto private property. Commissioner Vallette felt that consistent signage is needed and that some centers are safety hazards because of the lack of signs. She asked if it was Mr. Hanson's opinion that the Planning Commission could adopt Items 1 and 2 of the Public Safety Commission resolution and could implement Item 3 as a matter of policy rather than a resolution without creating a liability for the City. Mr. Hanson stated that was correct so far as Items i and 2 and that Item 3 could be a part of individual projects as needed. Chairman McNiel stated that he and George Yankovich, Chairman of the Public Safety Commission, had taken a tour of the City and had observed a great variation in the placement of limit lines and also an absence of limit lines. He thought the Commission could create the sense of a limit line with variation in paving materials through the Design Review process. He said they observed some centers with stop signs where people did not stop and they also saw exits from centers with no stop signs where again people did not stop. Commissioner Melcher recalled that the state of California has a law that a vehicle leaving private property and entering the public way must stop entirely behind the property line and make sure it is safe to proceed. He suggested that the Planning Commission concern itself with dealing with on- site planning issues and thank the Public Safety Commission for its input. Commissioner Chitlea noted that many commercial centers have enriched paving materials to designate crosswalks and she felt that the use of striping similar to that which is used in the public right-of-way would diminish the aesthetics of such centers. She thought it is appropriate to allow each center to utilize materials which are consistent throughout the center. She stated she had not observed any problems with drivers not being able to determine crosswalk locations. She did not feel that a stop sign at a center exit would make anyone stop who does not already know that rules of the road apply. She thought perhaps the location of limit lines could be reviewed by the technical review team during the design review process. She felt that so long as traffic signs are clear and readable, they need not necessarily be the same as those used in the public right-of-way. Chairman McNiel thought that stop signs may be of a consistent size, shape, and color for the benefit of those who do not read English. Commissioner Chitlea did not see a necessity to extend the bureaucracy into parking lots. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 10, 1993 Commissioner Tolstoy thought that each shopping center should present their ideas for traffic control signs in conjunction with their approved sign program. He did not feel that a blue stop sign would be a good idea, but he did not feel the signs should follow the rigid, official signs. He thought that the City should allow a center to design their own stop signs with the appropriate color. He felt striping is important but is not necessary in some cases because of the changing of the pavement. Commissioner Vallette suggested that the striping section of the Public Safety Commission resolution be rephrased to state that it refers to striping used with stop signs. She remarked that the resolution had been forwarded from the Public Safety Commission and she felt safety issues are their expertise and she indicated she agreed with the resolution. She noted that in entering some commercial centers there are no clear stop signs, but merely worn out lines on the pavement and she had observed some near-collisions. She thought there is need for consistency and the signage would blend in and not detract from the aesthetic values of the centers. George Yankovich, Public Safety Commission, stated it had been brought to the Public Safety Commission's attention. He said that there are currently limit lines within centers but there is not uniformity when it comes to exiting the centers. He felt drivers are confused because there are differences in signs and different colors of limit lines, some yellow and others white, and some centers don't have any limit lines or stop signs. Commissioner Chitlea asked if the Public Safety Commission would be in favor of amending Item I of Public Safety Commission Resolution No. 93-001 to indicate that the the striping was in conjunction with stop signs and not including crosswalks. Chairman Yankovich said he did not feel there is a need for limit lines at crosswalks where there is a change in concrete or a row of bricks with a stop sign. He said there had not been any studies regarding accidents. Commissioner Melcher felt the appropriate action would be to acknowledge receipt of the resolution and thank the Public Safety Commission for its input. Chairman McNiel felt the Commission was generally in agreement that the spirit of the Public Safety Commission resolution should be adopted in review of commercial centers but he noted it may not be wise to formally adopt the resolution because of the potential of increased liability. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be up to Code Enforcement to enforce if particular striping or signage is required in a parking lot. Mr. Buller responded that would be correct and that Code Enforcement currently tries to enforce landscaping, lighting, general property maintenance, etc. to abate nuisances. Motion: Moved by Melcher to acknowledge receipt of Public Safety Commission Resolution 93-001 and refer it to staff for consideration for possible Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 10, 1993 inclusion in the City Council's commercial property security study as appropriate. Commissioner Vallette seconded the motion for discussion purposes. She stated she wished to adopt Items i and 2 while adopting Item 3 as a policy. Chairman McNiel noted that Commissioner Melcher did not move to adopt the resolution. Commissioner Vallette acknowledged that and said she felt it should be formally adopted as a resolution with Item 3 being a policy issue. Chairman McNiel asked if his motion stood as originally submitted. Commissioner Melcher responded affirmatively. Commissioner Chitiea noted that to accept the resolution and consider it may be appropriate but she felt the Public Safety Commission resolution goes too far. She did not feel that staff or the Planning Commission should be that involved in such on-site issues. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY CHITIEA, VALLETTE NONE -carried , , , , , The Planning Commission recessed at 8:40 p.m. to a workshop on Tentative Tract 13796. The workshop concluded at 10:15 p.m., at which time the Planning Commission reconvened. , , , · G. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - Oral report Commissioner Vallette raised some general issues related to residential development. They included density transitions, use of three-story products in multiple family projects, master planning larger block areas, need for a workshop with Lewis Homes, overall review of density numbers and open space requirements for Tetra Vista, variation in lot sizes, floor area ratio requirements, entry statements, and the need to update the residential guidelines. After brief discussion of these matters, the Planning Commission directed staff to set a workshop with Lewis Homes, prepare an update to the residential guidelines to include clarification of the Commission's intent for entry statements, and review the possibility of a greater lot size variation requirement and floor area ratio standards. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 10, 1993 Mr. Buller indicated that earlier in the month Lewis Homes had set a meeting for March 31 with the City staff to discuss development activities now and into the future for Terra Vista. He also informed the Commission that Don Thompson of Lewis Homes indicated that this meeting was open to any Commissioners who would like to attend. He further thought that it might be a good time to initiate preliminary discussions with Lewis Homes for the future workshop with the full Planning Commission. , , , , ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:25 p.m. , · , , Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 10, 1993