Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/10 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 10, 1991 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: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that a letter had been received from the applicant for Item H requesting a continuance to April 24, 1991. Mr. Bullet announced that the Building Industry Association (BIA} had sent a letter requesting that Items F and G be continued to allow the BIA an opportunity to participate in a workshop with the City. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 21, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 9326 - THE PLIES COMPANIES - A subdivision of 38.5 acres of land into 28 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Light Industrial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located north of Arrow Route, east of the 1-15 Freeway and south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-021-59. VACATION OF PORTIONS OF AN ALLEY - A request to vacate portions of an alley located east of Ramona Avenue and south of Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-085-01. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS Ce MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-08 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A request to switch building pad locations of commercial Building No. 10 and shops Building No. 11 for a previously approved neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of 11 buildings totaling 122,673 square feet on 12.9 acres of land within the Neighborhood Commercial Development District of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues - APN: 227-011-22. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned if Building 10 is planned to be a bank; and if so, if the developer had requested a drive-thru lane. Mr. Hayes replied that the developer has indicated the proposed tenant is a bank but no drive-thru lane has been requested. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, stated Wells Fargo Bank has expressed interest in occupying Building 10, and that was being processed by a separate application to the City. He reported that Wells Fargo is not requesting a drive-thru lane. He said they wanted to go ahead and get approval for the switching of the buildings before approval of the Wells Fargo application. He indicated they have contracts in process and a portion of Building 11 will be leased to a video store. Chairman McNiel asked if the bank will occupy all of Building 10. Mr. Potter responded affirmatively. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Co~missioner Melcher felt the corner will look nicer with a smaller building but he thought the bank usage would contribute nothing to the pedestrian pattern. He thought Building 11 will appear ponderous in its new location. Commissioner Vallette asked the proposed setback from the street to Building 11. Mr. Hayes indicated the current configuration includes a 35-foot setback. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 10, 1991 Commissioner Vallette asked if Building 11 could be angled differently. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Buildings 10 and 11 should again go through Design Review. Commissioners Chitlea, Vallette, and Melcher agreed. Commissioner Chitiea felt the pedestrian area would have been more active as originally designed. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 89-08 with modifications to return Buildings 10 and 11 to Design Review prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , VARIANCE 91-02 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request to reduce the 22 foot minimum setback to 19.33 feet from the street for Buildings 57 and 58 within the existing Tract 13273, a 256 unit condominium project on 15.8 acres of land within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) within the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Mountain View Drive - APN: 227-151-13. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned how staff learned that the garages needed a variance. Ms. Hernandez replied that the developer approached the City to request the variance. Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, reported the discrepancy was noted when they applied for their ALTA Title policy. He stated they accepted the conditions of approval ~ncluding the additional landscaping requirements. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Design Review Committee had been wise in requesting that the garages be ekewed rather than parallel to the street. He supported the request with the additional landscaping requirement. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 10, 1991 Commissioner Chitlea concurred. Commissioner Melcher asked how much additional landscaping would be added. He said he felt the street trees had been killed. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that there will be a final landscaping inspection prior to release of the final buildings in the project and any dead landscaping would have to replaced. Commissioner Vallette felt that the angled buildings add to the variety of the site and she supported the Variance. Chairman McNiel agreed. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 91-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA - To define and establish development criteria for recycling uses within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the use of scales had been considered. Mr. Guarracino replied that processing facilities would require a Conditional Use Permit which would allow consideration of equipment needs and circulation issues. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. closed the hearing. There was no testimony, and he Commissioner Vallette thanked staff for the thorough report. Commissioner Chitlea felt it to be appropriate for the City to establish regulations for recycling facilities. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned with screening. He felt the ordinance properly addressed potential bulk storage, vermin, and noise issues. He thought any outdoor storage could be screened from the street with appropriate landscaping, but he was concerned if any of the potential sites could be viewed from the freeway. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 10, 1991 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Industrial Area Specific Plan currently has' language addressing outdoor storage near the freeway. He said the City would not be precluded from applying those standards with these changes. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that language should be added to the standards because people may be able to view potential sites from the 1-15 freeway. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested including "weighing" in the description for land use type and a clause that screening from the 1-15 freeway would be required. Commissioner Tolstoy felt comfortable with the additional language. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 with modifications to include "weighing" in the description and to require screening from the 1-15 freeway. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , · , , , Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Oe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. reiterated that a letter had been received from the BIA. He Chairman McNiel stated that a letter had also been received from the Chamber of Commerce requesting a workshop to discuss the issue. He opened the public hearing. Frank WillJams, BIA, 9227 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested the item be continued to allow workshops on the issue. He said he had met with the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and they felt the issue warrants more study. He said they would also like to look at landscaping versus lighting in parking lots. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 10, 1991 Kent Crowley, Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, 8280 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, re'quested that a workshop be scheduled to discuss the proposed elimination of compact parking spaces. He proposed establishing a standard 9 foot by 19 foot space. Richard Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated there is a national trend toward smaller cars, with compact and subcompact cars accounting for 83.3 percent of car sales. He felt the main difference in compact versus full size is in length rather than width. He requested the issue be discussed at a workshop. He felt the environmental repercussions of additional paving should be considered. Mr. Mager stated they had analyzed a lot of literature regarding the subject and he volunteered to provide their analysis. Chairman McNiel observed that many times compact spaces are filled with standard size vehicles. He felt the current situation is not working properly. Commissioner Vallette requested that any information the develo[Mnent community wished to present be made available to the Commissioners prior to any workshop, if one were scheduled. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that the raw material also be provided to staff and the Commissioners. Mr. Mager said he would provide the materials to the City within a week. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the statistics should be geared to suburban areas in the west. Mr. Mager agreed. Geoff Reeslund, SGPA Architecture and Planning, 2603 Main Street, Suite 810, Irvine, stated that he had been the architect for over 300 shopping centers. He felt that compact parking areas need to be properly designed. He thought it should be utilized in areas where there will be long term parking, such as employee parking areas. He also indicated it should be placed further away from building entrances. He said that other cities have studied the issue and the most common trend is to downsize all parking. He requested that the development community be permitted to work with staff and a workshop be scheduled. Joe Oleson, Lewis Ho~es, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, felt that compact spaces should be permitted in residential multi-family areas because residents are familiar with parking arrangements and would know where to park. Commissioner Chitlea felt that would mean that leasing agents would then have to police the parking area to be sure people were parking in the proper spaces. Planning Co~nission Minutes -6- April 10, 1991 Mr. Oleson stated that their apartment managers have indicated they do not have problems'with people parking in the wrong areas. John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, stated the value loss equated with the loss of compact parking spaces would be significant. He said most major tenants in shopping centers are required to designate employee parking areas, and he felt the compact spaces could be used for employee parking areas. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He indicated he had been an advocate for abolition of compact parking spaces for several reasons. He felt parking is generally plugged into a project at the end of design as a last resort and often does not relate to needs. He felt the deletion of compact parking spaces would help establish Rancho Cucamonga as a notch above other communities. Commissioner Chitlea observed that there are a lot of pick up trucks, vans, and suburbane in the area. She felt the current standards could be improved upon. She commented that people want to be able to get in and out of parking spaces easily. Commissioner Melcher felt that the information presented by the developers and architects deserved consideration. He challenged the development community to meet and submit their combined materials to staff along with the comprehensive raw data. He then suggested a workshop could be held after staff had time to study the data. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with Commissioner Melcher's suggestion. Commissioner Vallette thought the development community could suggest other options. Chairman McNiel commented the approach should not be simply value-oriented or yield-oriented. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the development community would only supply information which would support their position. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated that the data must be regionally oriented. She felt that experience has shown that compact parking is not working well. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Mager commented that the Planning Commission would probably be pleasantly surprised if it allowed the development community to propose an option. He said that developers are aware of parking and the majority of their spaces in grocery store areas are wider than standard size spaces. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 10, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea felt that compact parking should not necessarily be concentrated in employee parking areas because not all employees drive compact cars. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the public be given until May 15, 1991, to submit options and hopefully a collective recommendation. He felt that staff could then review the options and return the item to the Planning Commission in June. He asked how the Commission wished staff to deal with projects in the interim. He said certain projects had already been conditioned to utilize only full-size spaces. He asked the Commission if staff should continue to advise developers that compact spaces would not be permitted. Chairman McNiel suggested that staff continue with the current practice of advising developers that compact spaces would not be permitted because it would be easier to retrofit to add them back in if compact parking is not deleted. It was the consensus of the Commission that developers should continue to be advised that compact parking spaces would not be permitted. Commissioner Chitiea asked that the issue be returned to the Commission at the first meeting in June. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing, He asked if the developers could have recommendations to staff by May 15, 1991. It was the consensus of the developers that they could comply. Mr. Bullet suggested staff could provide the documentation to the Commission as soon as it is received while staff concurrently analyzed the data. The Commission agreed that would be satisfactory. Motion= Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 to a workshop on June 12, 1991, with the proviso that the development group submit their material by May 15. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried , · · · · The Planning Commission recessed from 8=25 p.m. to 8=40 p.m. , , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 10, 1991 NEW BUSINESS AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER- An appeal of staff's decision to deny a sign program amendment, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-771-01. Chairman McNiel reiterated that the applicant had requested the item be continued until April 24, 1991. He invited public conunent, but there was none. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to continue Amendment to Uniform Sign Program for Rancho San Antonio Medical Center to April 24, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS MODIFICATION TO TOWN CENTER PHASING PLAN - WESTERN PROPERTIES - Consideration of amending the phasing plan for Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (Reference Conditional Use Permit 88-12) - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the applicant would also like to request additional modifications based upon a recent workshop. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Richard Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, asked if the Commission would permit discussion beyond the issues raised in the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if that would present any problems. Brad Bull,r, City Planner, stated the Commission could allow expansion of the discussion, as the item did not have to be advertised and the agenda indicated a modification of the phasing plan would be considered. It was' the consensus of the Commission to allow the applicant to present his additional requests. Mr. Mager requested final release of occupancy for Buildings A and B. He reported that construction of Building E had been held up because it was Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 10, 1991 discovered that the building would encroach upon the Mervyn's property. He indicated they were still in the process of negotiations with Mervyn's to obtain a lot line adjustment and papers had been sent to Mervyn's for their signature on April 9, 1991. Chairman McNiel asked what would happen if Mervyn's decided not to consent to the lot line adjustment. Mr. Mager stated that Mervyn's had signed a purchase contract, which Western Land Properties believed to be enforceable. He said there was also a development agreement and he felt the issue could be enforced through the courts if necessary. He indicated the worst possible scenario would be that they would break ground and build Building E with the exception of the 225 feet on Mervyn's property. Commissioner Melcher asked where the 225 square foot section is located. Mr. Mager indicated a triangle on the corner of Building E. Commissioner Melcher observed that the phasing conditions were originally placed on the project to satisfy the Planning Commission that the center would be developed as a well-planned center. He felt that was happening. He thought the Commission should try to find a way to work with the developer. Chairman McNiel agreed but felt the Commission should protect the City from a potential gaping whole in the building. Mr. Mager said he hoped the documents that had been forwarded to Mervyn's on April 9 would finally put the problem to rest. Commissioner Melcher felt that carefully placed potted plants could be used to screen the missing 225 square feet if necessary. He said that if the center were an enclosed shopping center it could have opened with an abundance of plywood storefronts. Mr. Mager reported that Montgomery Ward (Major 3) was under construction and they hoped to secure occupancy for it by August 2. He indicated the existing phasing plan tied occupancy of Major 3 to completion of Major 4 and Building M. He reported the tenant for Major 4 had withdrawn and a potential new tenant had been secured, but it would require a redssign of the building in order to add 10 feet in width. He stated they hoped to break ground on Major 4 and Building M in September. He indicated Buildings X and Y were designed for financial institutions and building permits had already been pulled. He said Western Properties is reluctant to begin construction however, because they have no tenants. He requested occupancy for Major 3 be granted before Buildings X, Y, and M are completed and that site work on Phase III be permitted prior to Building E being under substantial construction. There was no further public testimony. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 10, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt the developer was proceeding with the shopping center in arl good faith under current market conditions. He supported granting all the requests. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that if construction had not started on Buildings E, M, and Major 4 within 180 days of installation of the barricades, the plywood should be removed and the pads should be planted with turf. Commissioner Chitlea felt it to be appropriate to allow Big 5 to open. She thought Phase III should be allowed. She agreed that the two financial buildings should not be built as "spec" buildings. Mr. Murphy suggested that a temporary sidewalk be installed in front of the temporary barricades around Buildings E, M, and Major 4. Mr. Buller stated that removing the barricades would expose the side walls. He also suggested a native flowering groundcover might be a better choice than turf in an effort to conserve water consumption. Commissioner Chitlea asked if the side of Building L would be constructed with a finished appearance. Mr. Murphy replied that Western Land Properties had indicated they would stucco the side and it would have a finished appearance. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be appropriate to return Building E to Design Review if it were to be constructed without the 225 square foot corner. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Town Center Phasing Plan with changes to delete the condition requiring Building E be under substantial construction prior to issuance of building permits for Phase III$ allow occupancy of Major 3, 4, or the TBA building prior to completion of Buildings X, Y, and M and prior to Buildings S and P and Pads 2 and 3 being under substantial construction~ require temporary construction barricades and a temporary sidewalk around Buildings E and M and Major 4~ require removal of the construction barriers and planting of groundcover after 180 days if construction has not commenced, and require approval of the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits if any changes are proposed to Buildings E or M or Major 4. Motion carried by the following voter AYESz COMMISSIONERSt CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOESt COMMISSIONERS z NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSt NONE -carried · , · · · Je DISCUSSION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EXTENSION OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE {ENTRANCE TO SPORTS COMPLEX) Planning Con~nission Minutes -11- April 10, 1991 Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #250, Newport Beach, preferred Alternative B but acknowledged Alternative A would be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher stated that Alternative B would result in approximately 13,300 square feet of additional land being taken from the northern property owner. He asked what percentage of that land would have had potential for being leased. Mr. Potter estimated 25 percent of the land could have potentially been leased. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher stated that as the northern property owner was not at the hearing to oppose the alignment, he would support staff's recommendation of Option B. Commissioner Chitiea supported Alternative B. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to support Alternative B for the alignment of the extension of Day Creed Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , · , · COMMISSION BUSINESS K. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Discussion of method of appointment to vacancy. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Tolstoy had previously served on a subcommittee to interview applicants. He suggested the Commission may wish to consider the remaining applicants from when Mr. Bowman was appointed to the Trails Committee. Chairman McNiel said he vaguely remembered the applicants. Commissioner Chitiea suggested the same subcon~nittee could interview the applicants again. Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 10, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy said he would be willing to again serve on the subcommittee ~nd to again interview the remaining applicants. He suggested that the applicants be contacted to see if they were still interested serving. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested staff contact the applicants to determine interest and set up interviews if possible. After the interviews he felt the subcommittee could determine if it would be necessary to expand the recruiting effort. , , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Commissioners discuss the summer schedule. He reported that July 4, 1991, would be a normal Design Review Committee night. It was the consensus of the Commission that the first Design Review Committee meeting in July would be canceled. , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that in the past Planning Commissioners from San Bernardino and Riverside counties have met to discuss common issues and concerns. He said such meetings had been discontinued, but recently the Commissioners had received a letter from Bill Ruh, asking if the West End Commissioners would be interested in establishing a West End group. Chairman McNiel commented that he had discussed the idea with Mr. Ruh. Chairman McNiel felt it would be a good idea to strengthen relationships with surrounding communities and allow for discussion of mutual problems and goals. He felt it would be good public relations for the City. It was the consensus of the Commission that the idea has merit. , , · · · ADJOURNMENT Motion: adjourn. Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to 10=00 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to an April 11, 1991, workshop at 3=30 p.m. in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding establishment of multi-family development standards. Respmctfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 10, 1991