No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/04/22 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 22, 1992 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 Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Shelley Petrelli, Planning Division Secretary; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that Items G and I be discussed at the same time since they are related. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of March 25, 1992. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-0-1, (Vallette abstained) to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 2, 1992. , , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - Resolution of Denial for a request to expand the hours of operation on Fridays for an existing 103,522 square foot indoor wholesale/retail commercial use located within the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-262-28. (Continued from April 8, 1992.) DESIGN REVIEW 14407-1 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 13 single family homes on 1.3 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the west side of Mountain View Drive, south of Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-15. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14365 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 41 single family homes on 5.85 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive west of Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-36. James Page, Carnival Malls, requested Item A be pulled for discussion. Jary Cockcroft, Lewis Homes, Upland, requested Items B and C be pulled for discussion. A. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, gave a brief summary of her previous staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. James Page, Carnival Malls, 6221 Warner Drive, Los Angeles, stated he wished to address the Commission because he felt the Commission may have gotten the wrong impression from the last meeting regarding the reasons why they had asked for expanded hours of operation on Fridays. He pointed out that it was the tenants who had asked for the expanded hours. He stated that the concept behind this mall is to help the small business person get started. He commented that the City of Los Angeles is opposed to swap meets in their city, but they are now promoting this concept for the same reasons as Carnival Malls. With the current economic situation, he stated they are very concerned about what will happen to all the people being laid off from their jobs; and his company stands ready to help by retraining these people. He remarked that facilities of this type are extremely important. He stated that their organization is similar to Fedco, which is not considered a swap meet, and Carnival Malls does not consider themselves a swap meet either. Chairman McNiel asked why they were requesting Friday daytime hours when they are not utilizing Friday evening hours. Mr. Page replied that they voluntarily chose not to utilize evening hours on Fridays because it was not economically sound for the vendors. He stated that the vendors were requesting Friday daytime hours because more women shop by themselves on Fridays. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commission. He asked for comments from the Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 22, 1992 Commissioner Melcher stated that the previous approval for this type of use at this location was based, in part, on the fact that the mall would be open during hours other businesses would be closed. He stated that the remainder of the project is vacant currently, but he was concerned that sufficient parking would not be available when the project becomes fully operational. He felt that, in spite of the applicant's sincere request, it would be inappropriate to allow this extension of operating hours because of the potential parking problems. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher, but he added it would pose a much larger problem than a conflict within the complex; he felt it would pose a conflict within the entire industrial area because of the additional traffic that would be caused by their weekday operations. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with the comments made by Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy. MOTION: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution denying Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , B. DESIGN REVIEW 14407-1 - LEWIS HOMES C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14365 - LEWIS HOMES Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Cockcroft what he wished to discuss. Mr. Cockcroft replied he wanted an opportunity to clarify some of the design review comments made at the last Design Review meeting and he also wanted to have Condition No. 15 of the Standard Conditions deleted because neither project is a homeowner association project. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked the applicant for specific clarification. Mr. Cockcroft stated one of the concerns he has is Design Review Comment No. 1 requiring stucco application on all wood that surrounds the zero lot line windows. He commented he understood the Commission's concerns regarding maintenance of the trim, but he felt it was appropriate to leave the wood trim painted to maintain consistency with the other elevations. He mentioned that Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, would be giving the Commission a new concept to consider for Design Review Comment No. 2 regarding a bay window or similar projection for Plan 303. He commented concerning Design Review Condition No. 3 requiring a more significant moulding be provided on the zero lot line side; he said they would be willing to make all the belly-bands Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 22, 1992 2 inches x 4 inches over 2 inches x 8 inches covered with stucco. He stated the last item of concern was No. 15 of the Standard Conditions requiring City approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project. He asked this condition be removed as this is not a homeowners' association project. Mr. Buller agreed that Condition No. 15 could be eliminated. Commissioner Melcher asked if these were Design Review consent calendar items that were discussed in the applicant's absence. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that was correct, but the items had been discussed two or three times at Design Review, with the applicant present, before being reviewed on the consent calendar. Commissioner Tolstoy commented regarding the wood trim around the windows. He has seen wood plant ons, not covered with stucco, splitting and hanging at precarious angles in Terra Vista. He felt this did not project the appropriate image for our neighborhoods and that the painted wood presented future maintenance problems. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. Commissioner Melcher stated he would abstain from voting on these items as he was not expecting to have this type of discussion on the projects. Commissioner Chitiea also agreed that stuccoing over the wood presented fewer maintenance problems. Chairman McNiel stated, in terms of maintenance, wood covered with stucco made more sense; however, in terms of consistency with design, the painted wood seemed more appropriate. He asked the applicant if all the wood would be a contrasting color. Mr. Cockcroft stated that was correct. Chairman McNiel commented his preference is also for the stucco over wood treatment. He stated the stucco could be done in the same contrasting color as the remainder of the wood on the structure. Mr. Cockcroft stated they will go with the stucco over the wood around the windows because it is hard to match otherwise. Chairman McNiel asked for comments regarding the bay window or similar projection for Elevation 303. Commissioner Vallette stated when this item was initially discussed at Design Review, she thought the bay window would be large and extend down toward the foundation. She did not like the idea of three windows with a pop-out. Commissioner Melcher stated the developer probably wants to do the window this way to add interior wall space for the homeowner. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 22, 1992 Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher's statement. Commissioner Chitiea did not like the proposed pop-out windows because they are unattractive and not what she would consider a "bay window." She felt there may be other designs that are more appealing. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant could provide better drawings of their bay window concept. Mr. Cockcroft replied affirmatively. He stated the reason for the smaller windows is to add space in the dining room area. He stated they could work on this item with staff. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel commented better pictures of the proposed window would be required (as well as a couple of alternatives) and that the project should return to Design Review as a consent item. He also stated that the applicant has agreed to a 2- x 4-inch' over a 2- x 8-inch belly-band which gives a substantial three-step configuration. Commissioner Vallette stated she thought there would be more rounding of the moulding on the band. Chairman McNiel asked if she meant a half-round. Commissioner Vallette replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel stated he wasn't sure that would be consistent with the architecture. The Commission concurred that the item should return to Design Review on the consent calendar. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolutions approving Design Review 14407-1 and Design Review for Tentative Tract 14365 with modifications to require that the bay window and the wrapping of the wainscot return to consent calendar Design Review. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE MELCHER -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 22, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - BAAYOUN DEVELOPMENT - A residential subdivision and design review of 18 single family lots on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked how 18 out of 57 people had not received the original public hearing notice for the previous meeting. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that it was a clerical error; the person sending out the notices thought that two of the rows of address labels were identical because the first two labels in each row were the same name and address. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Debbie Flores, 10121 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she did not receive the original notice of public hearing for the previous meeting that was held. She stated her house was only 37 feet from the property line of the new development. She commented her main concern was her lack of privacy because the proposed house is a two-story. She felt a one-story house would have been a better choice given the close proximity of the houses. She asked the Commission to consider this when they make their decision. Angelo Flores, 10203 South Ridge Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned and rented property approximately 10 feet from the proposed development. He had concerns regarding noise, safety, pollution, and the possibility that he would have a problem renting his property out now because of the lack of privacy that would be created with the new development. He stated he has also experienced problems with the property in its vacant state because it is unkempt and large animals roam there freely. Commissioner Melcher pointed out that if the area were developed he would no longer have problems with weeds and animals. Mr. Flores replied that many of renters preferred the lot vacant because they liked the privacy. Jim Long, 10191 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had concerns regarding aesthetics and views also, but his main concern was with the reliability of the developer. He felt the Commission should be aware that Baayoun is an unethical builder. He commented that his house was built by the same developer a couple of years ago and he is still trying to get them to take care of repairs that should have been done prior to his moving in. He stated they have moved their offices several times and are extremely difficult to reach. He expressed concern that the developer charges for view lots when they know that development will occur later blocking the views. He said that several people in his development have had problems with faulty fireplaces and Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 22, 1992 leaky pipes. He also stated he was lied to about what would be built behind him, but he had contacted Mr. Buller and found out that there were plans to build there. Robert Flores, 10121 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the sign postings for public hearing notices should be larger and more obvious. He further stated that his house almost burned down as a direct result of faulty workmanship by the developer and the claim has recently been settled through arbitration. He also felt the Commission should be aware of the poor reputation the developer has acquired. Regarding the issue of close proximity to other houses, he stated that people moving into the new development will undoubtedly have the same concerns he has regarding their privacy. Commissioner Melcher asked the applicant's engineer if the driveway grades would permit the houses on Lots 8 and 9 to be moved closer to the street. Jerry Wilson, Engineer for Baayoun Development, 223 N. 1st Avenue, Upland, replied there is very little room to move the lots unless they raise them. Commissioner Melcher asked if the houses could be moved closer to the street without making the driveways too steep. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that the home on Lot 8 can be moved, but not the home on Lot 9. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Buller if there were any other items that should be brought to the Commission's attention that they did not hear at the last meeting. Mr. Bullet stated that this public hearing is to give those who did not receive the initial notification of the first meeting an opportunity to speak to the Commission about their concerns. Chairman McNiel asked what has been done to protect the City and potential buyers in the tract. Mr. Buller responded that the Building Department and the City Council have taken a much more aggressive role in the plan checking and inspection process. Commissioner Melcher commented that the proximity of the house on Lot 8 to the Flores property should be looked at more closely. He stated, if you look closely at cul-de-sacs, you will see the garage fronts are 30 feet further apart than other garages on the street. He wondered if it would be appropriate, in the future, to diminish front yards on the cul-de-sac to create more space between houses that back up to one another and also to put the space in the back yard where people use it. He felt that should be considered in this case even though it is not before the Commission this evening. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 22, 1992 Commissioner Vallette agreed that the side and back yards should be larger, as she had expressed at Design Review. She remarked that she did not think it was appropriate in this area, which is designated low residential, to have such small back yards. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented he thought Commissioner Melcher was referring to the Minor Exception process which would allow the front setback to be moved to 29 feet rather than 32 feet. He stated the Commission could initiate a Minor Exception for whichever lots they deemed appropriate. Commissioner Melcher asked if a Minor Exception was already granted for this tract, and if so, which lots were affected. Mr. Coleman replied Lot 2 had been changed already. Commissioner Melcher asked if the homes on Lots 8 and 9 can be moved forward to the minimum front yard setback and also be granted a 3-foot Minor Exception. Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Barrye Hanson stated that there could be some grading differentials created by shifting the setbacks, which in turn may cause the need to increase the height of the back retaining wall. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the retaining wall could be "stepped" to suit everyone's needs. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher suggested continuing the item and asking the applicant to move the homes on Lots 8 and 9 as close to the street as possible (including an application for a Minor Exception for the two lots). Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Wilson if Commissioner Melcher's suggestion was acceptable to him. Mr. Wilson stated he preferred to move ahead with an approval tonight and work out the rest with staff. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette stated that the Commission should start to consider addressing the preservation of view corridors. She also stated the possibility exists to introduce a different product type to address the concerns of the residents and her prior concerns regarding back yard setbacks. Commissioner Melcher suggested moving Lots 8 and 9 to the south to meet the minimum front setback and further suggested that staff, with the applicant's consent, apply for a Minor Exception permit to reduce the maximum allowed under that permit. Additionally, he felt it would be acceptable in this case to increase the vertical separation of these lots from those to the north even Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 22, 1992 if it meant lowering the property grade and increasing the retaining wall on the north side. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14509 as modified. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Commissioner Vallette stated she voted no .for the reasons previously stated. Commissioner Chitiea indicated she abstained because she was not present for the first discussion on the project and she did not feel informed enough to vote either way. Mr. Buller pointed out there was no discussion at the first meeting except discussion between the Commissioners. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-14 - FORREST PERRY - A review of the revised master plan for the Perry's Shopping Center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue - APN: 208-261-119, 20, 22, 37 through 40, and 56. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Since there was no one there to address the item, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he had concerns regarding the project. He expressed concern that the parking lot doesn't work properly because there is one-way traffic in places that could accommodate two-way and there is a mixture of one-way and two-way traffic in areas where he felt it is inadvisable. He did not agree with the phasing plan with regards to the upgrade of the market's facade, the streetscape improvements along Foothill Boulevard, and the parking and driveway improvements in the rear of the building. He commented that the back street and yard areas of the project are in need of improvement and better maintenance. He questioned if Hampshire could be turned into a cul-de-sac street so traffic from the rear of the shopping center will have to use Helms rather than going through the fragile older neighborhood surrounding Malachite and Hampshire. He felt perhaps some of these concerns should be referred back for further study. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the storefronts were being upgraded. Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 22, 1992 Ms. Hernandez replied that Phase 1 is designed with a walkway canopy and Phase 2 includes repainting storefronts and matching materials and treatment with the canopy walkway theme. Commissioner Vallette stated she had noticed a domestic agency sign in the photo booth in the center and she questioned if this was an allowable use. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that staff was not aware of the current use and would look into it. Commissioner Melcher asked if there is a design program for the existing storefront of the Hide A While lounge. Ms. Hernandez replied there is not. Commissioner Melcher asked if there is a sign program for the center. Ms. Hernandez replied there is and the signs will be channel letter signs on the face of the new canopy. Mr. Buller explained that the original plan that approved the remodeling required a master plan to come back to the Commission prior to release of occupancy of Phase 1. He asked the Commission to consider whether an amendment to the original use permit should be pursued to allow more leniency on the percentage of occupancy or complete occupancy with the condition that the master plan be pursued diligently before any remodeling occurs. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt the project should be continued because there were many unanswered questions and the Commission should have a discussion with the applicant. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continue Conditional Use Permit 92-14 to May 27, 1992, and to direct staff to continue to work with the applicant on the issues discussed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-07 - HIDE A WHILE - A request to expand an existing lounge by approximately 500 square feet within the existing Perry's Shopping Center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9469 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-261-40. (Continued from April 8, 1992.) Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 22, 1992 Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. William McIntosh, 9469 Foothill Boulevard, stated he is the owner of the Hide A While cocktail lounge and he hopes to expand the interior of his establishment by 500 feet. Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. McIntosh if he is considering consolidating and modifying the two storefronts consistently during the remodeling. Mr. McIntosh stated he is only responsible for the interior changes and he did not know if Mr. Perry is planning on making changes to the storefronts. He commented that he will be putting new doors on the front and back and he will be painting over the old sign and putting up a new one. He was unsure what will be done with the glass front of the barbershop area. Mr. Melcher commented that when he went to view the site, it was his observation that the lounge represents what Route 66 bars used to look like. He wondered if the Historic Preservation Commission should evaluate the interior of the lounge as they may be consider it an historic site. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the issue pertains to whether or not Mr. McIntosh can expand his establishment. He asked Mr. McIntosh if he would be willing to make arrangements with Mr. Perry regarding upgrading the front of the buildings. Mr. McIntosh stated he would be willing to approach Mr. Perry regarding the matter. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioners regarding the unification of elimination of the glass. He concurred with the other the store facades and the Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt it was necessary to add a condition that the building facades will be upgraded. Mr. Buller stated that the Commission should also consider that there is a possibility that there may be insufficient parking because the two uses (the lounge and barbershop) had different parking ratios. He observed that parking problems could occur should the center's business increase. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would like to continue the item to resolve the issues about the facade and the parking. Chairman McNiel pointed out that the parking is addressed in Phase 3 and he did not feel that parking would be a problem until the balance of the center is complete. Commissioner Chitiea stated she preferred to have safeguards in place rather than trying to second-guess what will happen. She stated she did not feel Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 22, 1992 comfortable with the expansion of a business without having the exterior design issues resolved. Commissioner Melcher stated he did not think there could be much difference between parking for 500 square feet of lounge space and parking for 500 square feet of barbershop space. He remarked that he did not think the amount would be great enough to cause concern even if the master plan is never built. He remarked that the issue of the building facade can handled through conditioning the approval by stating that the entire facade of the space, from east to west and from the top of the sidewalk surface to the underside of the canopy surface, shall be reconstructed into a single uniform design consistent with the intended design of future storefronts and with the architectural style that has been adopted. Chairman McNiel stated if the Commission were to place a condition of approval on Mr. McIntosh's bar so he can go forward, then the storefront treatment could be dealt with at Design Review. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Chitiea and she saw no harm in continuing the item either. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Commission should act on the request with a provision that the storefront needs to return to Design Review prior to expansion. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that Phase 1 is a brand new building and it has a storefront design that will basically set the tone for the remainder of the center. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel that the design of Phase 1 would meet the needs of an establishment such as the bar because a bar does not need a storefront. He also stated that the Commission should give consideration to keeping with the brickwork on the front of the building because it has been known in the area for many years. Mr. Kroutil stated if that was the Commission's intention, they should place a condition and return the item to Design Review. He commented that staff's intention was to match the storefronts as closely as possible to Phase 1. Ms. Hernandez commented that when the Commission approved the 5,000 square foot addition, the direction was to match the Phase 2 storefronts to the Phase 1 storefronts. She gave the Commission a brief description of the Phase 1 storefronts. Commissioner Melcher summarized his understanding that the storefront materials consist of stucco, dark colored aluminum, and glass and he asked if that is the basic palette of materials for the rest of the storefronts. Ms. Hernandez responded affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 22, 1992 Commissioner Melcher suggested that if those design elements will be used to refurbish the existing storefronts of Phase 2, the brick be removed and mixed with new brick of a similar color and reapplied in a new design (in view of Commissioner Tolstoy's wishes to retain the brickwork). Chairman McNiel stated he wanted to act on the current application and then return to Design Review with the brickwork issue. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was willing to move forward if there is a storefront design currently in place, but she was not in favor of the brickwork proposal. Commissioner Vallette stated she thought the item should go back through the Design Review process. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-07 for the expansion of the Hide A While lounge with the addition of a condition requiring the entire storefront of the lease space, from east to west and from the top of the sidewalk surface to underside of the new canopy, be reconstructed in a single unified design consistent with the storefront design that is approved for Phase 1 and consistent with the architecture of the center, also taking into account the possible reuse of the historic materials that are presently on the storefront of the same space, with the design to be submitted to Design Review. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried The Commission recessed from 9:05 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. G® ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11640 AND THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO MOUNTAINVIEW DRIVE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY EAST - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 9.8 net acre parcel for the development of an elementary school in the Elementary School Development District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway East and Mountainview Drive - APN: 227-151-14. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related project Development Review 92-02. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-02 - ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT - A courtesy review of a proposed elementary school on 9.8 acres of land within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Mountain View - APN: 227-151-31. Related Project: Tentative Parcel Map 11640. Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 22, 1992 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked why there was no joint use agreement between the City and the school district. Mr. Murphy stated that staff tried to negotiate an agreement, but the Etiwanda School District does not wish to enter into such an agreement. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jerry Cockcroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated Lewis Homes is working on agreements with the school district regarding landscaping in the right-of-way. He said Lewis will be paying for the off-site improvements but the improvements may be installed by the school district per their landscape plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the landscaping included trees. Mr. Murphy responded the street trees would be included. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he felt the fence line should be established with the developer and put on record at this meeting. Mr. Murphy commented that the state has ultimate control of development, including fencing, on school district property. Mr. Melcher asked if the Commission could condition the parcel map to require the developer to obtain an agreement from the school district regarding fence placement. Chairman McNiel asked the City Attorney his opinion regarding the lack of a joint use agreement with the school district as that is contrary to the Terra Vista Community Plan which specifies that parks and schools are to be mixed uses for the public and the school. He also inquired as to what recourse the Commission may have. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that joint use agreements are generally handled through the Park and Recreation department and the Commission could request more information if needed. Commissioner Vallette recalled that if schools had a certain percentage of acreage, they could be exempt from the joint use and open space requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he was concerned that the lack of open space contradicted the Terra Vista Planned Community concept. Chairman McNiel asked if the other Commissioners agreed that the parcel map should go back to the developer and school district to establish the fence lines and determine why an agreement cannot be reached. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 22, 1992 Mr. Buller suggested a two-week continuance to gather information from Park and Recreation, the school district, and Lewis Homes on any discussions that were held on the project. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask the applicant if he would agree to a continuance. Mr. Cockcroft stated it was his wish to have the Commission vote on the item tonight as both jurisdictions are out of Lewis Homes' control. He stated he would agree to a continuance. Commissioner Tolstoy commented if the issue cannot be resolved, he would prefer that the fencing material be something other than chain link. MOTION: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, approved 5-0-0, to continue Tentative Parcel Map 11640 to May 13, 1992. Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-36 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS (CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT) - A request to construct a warehouse and vehicle maintenance facility consisting of two buildings totaling 37,918 square feet on 5.38 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Eighth Street - APN: 209-231-10. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Max Williams, Architect, 276 N. 2nd Avenue, Upland, stated that generally he agreed with the staff report with the exception of Engineering Condition No. 6. He stated that condition requires Williams Architects to make all street improvements as well as storm drain and flood wall improvements north of their property approximately 150 feet to the adjoining parcel. He felt that had not been the direction given in the Design Review Committee Meeting. He objected to building those improvements without having the ultimate right-of-way in place because it creates a major concern on how the rest of the right-of-way will be improved later on. George Blanchard, Assistant General Manager, Cucamonga County Water District, 9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern over the expenditure of public funds to extend the improvements across private Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 22, 1992 property. He said it was generally against district policy to expend public funds in that manner. Mr. Williams added that when Mr. Blanchard spoke of extending improvements it is understood that they are in the public right-of-way and not across private property but, it is to the benefit of of a single private property owner which leads to questions that must be answered by his board. Regarding the technical aspects, he commented they can construct the curb, sidewalk, and the flood wall but he questioned what will happen to the rest of the parkway and improvements to the ultimate right-of-way line. He suggested the improvements north of their parcel be a condition on future development of that parcel and the remainder of the water district parcel that wraps around behind. Chairman McNiel asked what size drainage pipe is required. Mr. Williams said it is 24-inch. He stated the pipe empties into the channel to the south and then goes back into another pipe that goes under 6th Street and back into an open channel. Bill Angel, 12966 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is an adjacent property owner to the water district property and that he agrees with the City's recommendation for the improvements. He said he submitted plans for preliminary design review last year for his property and he intends to make the improvements himself. He felt if the improvements are not made now by the water company he could be financially responsible for improvements to both parcels at a later date. chairman McNiel stated that requiring the improvements be made now is consistent with Commission policy. He said when development on an adjacent parcel may not occur right away, the improvements are required for safety purposes and a reimbursement agreement can then be entered into to recover some of the expenditures. The Commission concurred with Chairman McNiel. Commissioner Melcher also felt the approval should go forward. He added that he understood this is an industrial area and that the water district tries to make the best use of their funds, but he thought the result of that was a very hum-drum building. He stated that type of building may be appropriate in this location but, in the future, the Commission would be looking for a commensurately higher level of good design. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-36. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 22, 1992 COMMISSION BUSINESS J. DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES AND TIME EXTENSIONS - (Oral report) Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that the Commission had asked staff to bring back policy issues for discussion at the end of each agenda and he suggested they discuss Time Extensions. He stated that typically Time Extensions are non-controversial but recently the Planning Commission has been opening the Time Extension discussions and looking for changes. Commissioner Melcher commented that he finds the re-reviewing of a project at the time of a Time Extension onerous. He stated that when a project complies with a set of development standards, and is still in compliance at the time of a Time Extension, re-review is inappropriate. Commissioner Vallette asked how many Time Extensions are allowable on a project. Mr. Buller responded that maps are approved for two years, with a maximum of four Time Extensions, for a total of six years and Design Reviews are approved for two years with a possible two additional years. He stated that Time Extensions' are required to allow the City a chance to reconsider the project if code changes have occurred that should apply to the project. Chairman McNiel stated that if major changes occur after initial approval of a project while the project is still in the process, the developer needs to understand that conditions may need to be changed to comply with code changes, ordinances, or other major issues. Commissioner Melcher proposed the Commission adopt a policy for standard Time Extensions. He believed that a design approval should be valid until the approval expires with no option for a Time Extension. He suggested that once the approval expires, the applicant should have to start over and resubmit the project. Commissioner Chitiea commented that some changes could occur that were not major and she did not feel it is appropriate for the applicant to have to start the process over again. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Chairman McNiel's statement that the applicant must make the necessary changes if the project is found inconsistent with the current code. She did not want to see an applicant have to go through another entire application process, perhaps with different Commissioners. Commissioner Melcher stated that it is appropriate to ask an applicant to rethink a project at a certain point but he did not like the "crap shoot" atmosphere that an extension creates. He suggested changing the name of the process and publicizing that the Time Extension process is a "currency" review Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 22, 1992 and is subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission. He said he thought that needed to be clear because many people have the feeling that a Time Extension is a routine process. He commented recently a developer had come to the Commission for a Time Extension and was surprised and unhappy about the outcome of what they thought was a routine process. Chairman McNiel agreed and suggested that some language be prepared advising the development community of the possibility that changes could take place during the Time Extension process. Mr. Buller suggested that staff bring back a draft letter to the applicants. Chairman McNiel suggested a two-tier fee, one charge for a standard review and a higher charge for more intensive reviews. Mr. Hanson stated that would require developing a design fee schedule and holding a public hearing. Commissioner Vallette thought if a review was done without additional fees, the applicant could see that the Commission feels the changes are significant enough that they are willing to bear the burden for those changes. Mr. Buller interjected he did not feel this was a good time to increase fees given the current economic situation. He stated he thought it would be best to try and get the language down for the approval letters and bring it back for Commission approval. Commissioner Vallette asked if it was Commissioner Melcher's idea to bring up Design Review policies at each meeting. Commissioner Melcher stated yes. He observed that there needs to be a way of documenting and implementing potential new conditions or ideas that come from the Design Review process so there is consistency when similar situations arise later. Commissioner Vallette asked if new items brought up in Design Review could be marked or highlighted so that the Commission would know they were new and possibly needed the attention of the full Commission. Mr. Buller stated that either staff or the Committee members could suggest that new ideas go before the full Commission for review. Commissioner Melcher suggested distributing, on the agenda following Design Review Committee, a list of any items that have the potential of becoming a condition and may need to be applied to other projects. Mr. Buller asked if the Commission would mind receiving the information on a sheet the night of the meeting. Mr. Kroutil said he understood the Commission to say they thought it would be appropriate to confirm whether a decision being made by the Design Review Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 22, 1992 Commissioners should be applied from now on or if this might be a specific decision relative to an upcoming project. He said on many occasions these decisions need to made almost immediately. Commissioner Vallette stated sometimes that would not be possible because the full Commission would need to be informed of the situation. Commissioner Chitiea commented that the Design Review Committee should go ahead and add a condition to a project at Design Review if they feel it is appropriate and then the full Commission could discuss the condition later and see if it will be appropriate elsewhere. Mr. Buller stated he is willing to try this but he needs the help of the Commissioners to give him specific direction at the end of Design Review as to the items they want to discuss later. Chairman McNiel mentioned that he still wanted the Commission to get together and have a brainstorming and goal setting session. He stated he had been present during the Historic Preservation Commission's goal setting session and felt the Commission had done an excellent job. He asked that a date be set for approximately an hour and a half session for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Melcher suggested collecting the concerns and suggestions ahead of time and having the Chairman review them and distribute the list prior to the meeting. Mr. Buller suggested the Commission give themselves about a month and set the date around June 1. He also asked the Commission to think about the strengths and weaknesses of the Commission and prioritize important issues that should be the focus of the Commission. Commissioner Chitiea asked staff to send out a form for the Commissioners to complete. Mr. Buller agreed he would. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the list be filled out after they return from the APA Conference. Commissioner Tolstoy gave the Commission a brief update on the Route 30 Freeway. He disclosed there are five off-ramps proposed: Carnelian, Archibald, Haven, Milliken, and Day Creek Boulevard. He stated there will not be an off-ramp at East Avenue and that Day Creek had to be complete to Banyan prior to the freeway's construction or it would not be considered for an off- ramp. He commented that Carnelian may be a High Occupancy Vehicle only off- ramp. He stated other issues discussed included freeway elevations, landscaping, truck traffic, and sound attenuation. Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 22, 1992 Commissioner Vallette stated the next meeting will include several local cities and takes place at 1:00 p.m. on April 29. She said neither she or Peter will be able to attend and asked for alternates to attend. Commissioner Melcher stated he would attend. Commissioner Vallette asked that the other Commissioners also receive copies of information regarding the freeway. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT 11:05 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop meeting on May 6, 1992, at 4:00 p.m. in the Tri-Communities Room of the Civic Center regarding Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 (Sahama Investments). That meeting to adjourn to a workshop on May 7, 1992, at 6:40 p.m. in the Engineering Conference Room of the Civic Center regarding Tentative Tract 13717 (Western Properties). Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 22, 1992