Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/April thru December- Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 25, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of December 25, 1991, was canceled because of a lack of quorum. Respectfully submitted, Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting December 17, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned 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: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye.. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer] Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Niesen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff had received a letter from the applicant for Item A, requesting that the item be continued to the next Planning Commission Meeting to be held January 8, 1992. Mr. Buller also stated that the Planning Commission had received a letter from Larry Young, Auotwash Concepts, Inc., requesting a hearing on City Council Ordinance 398 regarding car washes within Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Mr. Bullet indicated that the Lusk Company was interested in setting up a field trip for the Commissioners to visit industrial projects in Ontario. · , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, to adopt the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 1991, as modified. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of November 13, 1991. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 - LUSK COMPANY - A request for a time extension of the design review for building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-081-06. Related files: Minor Exceptions 89-21 and 90-02. Be DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The development of a 128,438 square foot library building on 9.58 acres in the southeast corner of the proposed 100-acre Central Park project, located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 076-591-01 through 11. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 13912. Ce DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565, PHASES 6 AND 7 - STANDARD PACIFIC.. - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 6 and 7 of a previously County-approved map consisting of 82 single family lots on 43.1 acres of land, located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27. De TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14263 - TRIDER CORPORATION - A residential subdivision and design review of 32 condominium units on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Ee SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF MILLER AVENUE AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD EAST - WILLIAM LYON CO. - A request to summarily vacate a portion of Miller Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard east, located south of Base Line Road between Rochester Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Melcher requested that Item B be pulled for discussion. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously approved, to adopt Items C, D, and E of the Consent calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to continue Time Extension for Design Review for Tract 13280 to January 8, 1992. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05 Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated that the Planning Commission had dealt with the project on a number of occasions. He felt the Planning Commission had never received full information on such an enormous project. He stated that the Planning Commission did not have responsibility for the escalation in the size of the project and had only dealt with the superficial exterior of the building. He felt the project to be worthwhile and recommended approval. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS Fe ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the. San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from November 11, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from November 11, 1991.) He ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontaria, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from November 11, 1991.) ' Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested that the items be continued to January 8, 1992. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 17, 1991 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to January 8, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13759 - FU MAI LIMITED - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring preliminary FEMA approval prior to the Final Map for a residential subdivision of 56 single family lots on 14.01 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 1076-301-17. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette commented that some residents had expressed an interest in tree preservation on the site. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff had met with the neighbors and the developer and it is the intent of City staff and the developer to preserve as many trees as possible. He reported that the final landscape plan is subject to City Planner review and approval which will give staff the opportunity to be sure as many trees as possible are preserved. Commissioner Vallette asked if the City was assured that the trees identified at last year's meeting would be preserved. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Don Edison, J. F. Davidson Associates, 3880 Lemon Street, Riverside, stated he represented the developer. He said four to five trees had been designated for preservation at the north property line. He indicated the grading plan will be revised to reflect the preservation of those trees. He requested approval of the modification. Eldon Moon, 10399 Monte Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented a few of the neighbors. He asked what kind of dwellings will be built. He questioned the size of the dwellings, market value, type of elevations, and plotting on the lots. He asked if existing property walls will be replaced. Mr. Buller stated that the design review of the project was processed separately from the tract. He said the homes will be single family and the developer was conditioned to work with adjacent property owners in an effort to build a common block wall. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 17, 1991 Mr. Moon said the existing fences and block walls are not in a straight line. Me asked where the common fence would be built. Chairman McNiel stated the fence would be built at the property line which would be determined on a legal basis. Mr. Buller suggested that Mr. Moon contact the Engineering Department regarding the lot lines. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13759. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , Je ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13912 - CITY OF RANCMO CUCANONGA - A subdivision of 100 acres of land into two parcels in the Parks Development District, located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-591-01 through 11. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Development Review 91- 05. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. She stated that if the City did not receive the library grant, the parcel map would not be recorded. Commissioner Melcher requested clarification of Condition 8 regarding payment of an in-lieu fee for one-half width street improvements on Milliken Avenue. Ms. Miller responded that Miller Avenue has already been constructed full- width and the Condition is an agreement to repay the developer for those street improvements. Tarry Smith, Park Planning/Development Superintendent, stated that the City is rated in the top 30 of the grant applicants. He said the grant funding would be announced on December 19, 1991. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group, 27285 Las Ramblas, #250 Mission Viejo, thanked the Planning Commission for their cooperation. He stated that the Planning Commission had not had any impact on the size of the facility because that had been based on the grant application prepared by the library consultant. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 17, 1991 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher commented that the conditions appeared to have been written to enable the project to be built without making all of the improvements which would normally be required of other developers. He said that normally when a portion of a site is developed the City requires minimal landscaping improvements on the balance of the site. He did not support the conditions because he felt they were minimal. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group, 27285 Las Ramblas, #250 Mission Viejo, stated that the funds requested from the state amount to $13 million but the total project budget amounts to $30 million. He said the plans submitted indicate some improvements beyond the parcel map area. He said there will be a significant amount of landscaping, particularly around the building. Chairman McNiel agreed the conditions may be somewhat inconsistent with normal requirements, but he felt the project is designed to enhance the community and living conditions of the residents. He thought the park will eventually be built and he felt it would be proper to approve the project even if it meant deferring some of the improvements. He said that in the past similar conditions had been used for churches. He asked the timetable for the.. construction of the library and park. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there is currently no money allotted in the budget for construction of the park and the City was attempting to secure the grant funding for the library. Commissioner Chitlea felt the project will be a marvelous addition to the community and she felt it would be appropriate to get moving as quickly as possible even if everything could not be done at once. Commissioner Melcher stated he had no quarrel with the idea of the library, but he would vote against the project because of the decision to postpone the improvements. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13912. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Ke DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the definition of Massage Establishment in Section 17.02.140 of the Development Code. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 17, 1991 Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked why the definition was being changed. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the change was requested to make the definition consistent with a description being included in the business license regulation in the process of being adopted. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chairman McNiel closed the hearing. There was no testimony and Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 91-05. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-34 - INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOUR SOUARE GOSPEL - A request to establish a church in a leased space of 2,928 square feet within an existing industrial park on 3.6 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10373 Trademark Parkway, Suites F and G - APN: 210-381-19. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Michael Edwards, International Church of the Four Square, 10822 Yolo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval of the conditional use permit. He felt it would be an asset to the community. Chairman McNiel asked if the facility would be large enough for the congregation over a period of time. Mr. Edwards responded that they believed it will meet their current needs. He said they may split into multiple services as the congregation grows and would then look to establish elsewhere if the growth is significant. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many churches have started up in the industrial 'area. He hoped the church would eventually be able to find an appropriate piece of property out in the community when the need arises. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 17, 1991 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-34. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Me ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-04 - MIKE SIMS - A request to conduct live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located at 10877 Foothill Boulevard in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, as follows: disc jockey doing vocals, playing records, and videos; live acts such as comedy, magic, dancing, and fashion shows; live bands (5 members or less); lip syncing; special promotions such as talent night contest, promoting sports teams, major sports events through satellite TV, college bowl, and trivia questions contests - APN: 208-351-75. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She suggested wording clarification defining fashion shows. Commissioner Melcher expressed concern about how the valet parking will work. He asked if patrons would pull up on the east side of the restaurant. Ms. Fong replied that a condition had been added to require approval of any valet parking area by the City Planner prior to commencement of use. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Duane Dennis, General Manager, 10877 Foothill Boulevard, Cucamonga, stated the tentative name of the proposed restaurant is Backwater's. He said the proposal was based on the applicant's desire to provide upscale dining. He stated they were aware of the problems which existed in the past but they felt their operation would be successful. He proposed having a duly licensed guard. He said they would like to offer light entertainment after 2:00 a.m. and they would be serving food throughout the evening. Chairman McNiel noted that the facility had previously been operated by two separate owners. He said the first owner had proposed a fine restaurant but the night club activities soon overshadowed the restaurant and required an inordinate amount of services from the fire and police departments. He said the City needs more nice restaurants. Mr. Dennis felt the majority of problems experienced in the past had been the result of overcrowding and fights because of the age level the entertainment had attracted. He said they wish to raise the age level of the patrons. He indicated they want to provide an atmosphere more conducive to an older crowd and would select their entertainment accordingly. He said they planned to provide adequate security from within and would count patrons at the door to Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 17, 1991 avoid overcrowding. He said they want to avoid the stigma of the previous owners. Chairman McNiel asked what other facilities Mr. Dennis had managed. Mr. Dennis responded he had managed Cask 'N Cleaver and Lord Charley's restaurants. Chairman McNiel asked if someone in a suit and tie would satisfy the requirement for a uniformed security guard. Mr. Dennis replied he was thinking of a uniform that would resemble a policeman's uniform. Commissioner Melcher noted that staff had recommended the entertainment end at 2:00 a.m. instead of the requested 4:00 a.m. He asked if the applicant would object to such a condition. Mr. Dennis said they would not object. He said the objective had been to serve colas and coffees and not have the patrons leave at 2=00 a.m. when other bars close. George Dynes, 1378 Fennel Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works vice Claremont and the proposed operation sounded similar to a previous establishment which had a lot of problems. He felt the use will require extra patrols and there will be narcotics traffic in the parking lot. He requested that restrictions be placed on the business and that talent contests be restricted to exclude such events as legs contests. Mr. Dennis stated he understood Mr. Dynes' concerns. He said they did not intend to conduct any T-shirt or legs contests or have male dancers. He requested a chance to prove he could operate the business in a manner which would please the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt uniformed security should be provided but he felt someone with a tie, coat, and name badge and a proper job description could be sufficient. Commissioner Melcher stated that a previous applicant had objected to the full uniform and had requested a suit and tie with badge. He felt that it had been clearly demonstrated that non-uniformed guards were not sufficient to avoid problems. He did not feel the City should back off on requiring uniformed security guards. Chairman McNiel felt there should be at least one uniformed security guard. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the resolution called for two security guards, one on the interior and one in the parking lot and adjoining outside areas. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 17, 1991 Co~unissioner Melcher agreed with staff's recommendation. Mr. Bullet felt it would be helpful to clarify the term "uniformed." He said the previous owners were permitted to utilize people with blazers with the name of the restaurant located on the blazers. He said they did not have to utilize "peace officer" uniforms. Commissioner Chitlea felt that a "police officer" t~e uniform would be appropriate for the exterior area. She was willing to consider a dressier look for the interior guard. She thought that the City could later require "peace officer" uniforms for the interior security guards if problems develop. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that a blazer and identification would be acceptable but said he was willing to go along with the remainder of the Commissioners. Chairman McNiel felt that troublemakers would go elsewhere if they saw a "police officer" type uniform. He discussed the after hours operation. Commissioner Chitlea stated she felt Mr. Dynes' comments were enlightening. She supported closing at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Bullet stated that the restaurant could be open 24 hours per day without a conditional use permit, but that the Commission could restrict the entertainment permit to prohibit entertainment after 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Chitlea felt the entertainment permit should be restricted to a 2:00 a.m. cessation and the proposed changes to define fashion shows were appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the condition should be changed to require the exterior security guard have a "police officer" uniform. He requested clarification on the term "licensed" security guards. Mr. Bullet responded that staff's interpretation was that the guard would have received some training. Chairman McNiel felt they may need to be licensed to carry a gun or baton, but he was not sure the guards should be armed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hoped the City did not have an image that armed security guards are needed in parking lots. Mr. Bullet suggested adding "certified or trained" would clarify the intent of the condition. Chairman MCNiel agreed that would be satisfactory. Commissioner Melcher noted that Condition 9 required replacement of the landscaping in accordance with approved plans. He felt the applicant should Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 17, 1991 be given an opportunity to submit revised landscaping plans because there have been recurring problems with the existing landscaping. Commissioner Chitiea agreed. property. She felt it may improve the appearance of the Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Entertainment Permit 91-04 with modifications to define fashion shows, to permit the applicant to submit revised landscape plans for approval by the City Planner, and to specify that the security guards would be certified or trained and the exterior guard would be attired in a "police officer" uniform. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , · The Planning Commission recessed from 8:20 p.m. to 8:35 p.m. , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Street System Map of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to change the portion of Miller Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue from a collector to a secondary arterial. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the engineering staff had completed both Parts I and II of the Initial Study. Ms. Krall responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would not be better to have the planning department complete Part II on projects that are being advanced by another department. He said that would give the appearance of two different sets of eyes having looked at the environmental considerations. He wondered if the planning department is not the caretaker for the CEQA process in the City. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the CEQA administration guidelines are currently being reviewed. He said it would be appropriate for planning staff to complete Part II of the Initial Studies if the Commission should so desire. He said he would work with the City Engineer. Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 17, 1991 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. closed the public hearing. There were no comments and he Commissioner Vallette concurred with Commissioner Melcher's idea. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Oe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 - U. S. HOME CORPORATION - A request to amend certain development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan as described below: 1) To allow single family detached residential development within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) utilizing.. Basic Development Standards; and 2) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,900 square feet within the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards; and 3) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards. Related file: Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette stated she realized that related Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 was a separate issue, but she questioned the smallest lot size and minimum setbacks proposed on that tract. Mr. Hayes replied the tract had been designed to meet the minimum basic standards of 7,200 square feet minimum lot size, a net minimum 25-foot front yard setback from the property line, a corner side yard setback of 25 feet, a combined side yard setback of 15 feet, and a rear yard setback of 20 feet. Commissioner Melcher asked why the City would consider items i and 3 of the proposed amendment if the application for the tract map no longer required those changes. Mr. Hayes stated that staff felt it would be appropriate to address the issue to keep the hierarchy of the zones in line. He said the amendment request shed some light on the overall development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated he had had an opportunity to tour the City recently and felt that current development does not seem to be retaining the rural character of Etiwanda as defined under the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He felt the result to be more of a typical suburbia, even on the larger lots, with a few historical references such as front porches and use of stone. He questioned why the City would do anything to downgrade the denser zones. He felt it may be appropriate to determine that the plan was correct as adopted. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when staff first was approached regarding an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, a question was raised about the potential for allowing single family homes in multi-family zones. He said staff felt it was reasonable to allow a developmr such an option in this case. He noted that such an option is permitted in other areas of the City. He said in looking at the standards for Items 2 and 3, it was felt there was room for modification, but the Co~nission did not have to take action on any provision other than Item 2 because it relates to the Vesting Tentative Tract. Commissioner Melcher thought that the plan already permitted single family development in some of the zones at the lower end based on lot size requirements. He said if the developer wanted to obtain a higher density, it required an innovative approach. He thought the amendment would just permit more density under the basic standards. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that currently single family development is permitted in Medium zoning under optional standards. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that all development standards in the tables are related to one another as certain incentives were built into the density ranges in each category to attempt to get the developers to build under the optional standards. He felt that If the standards were amended, they should be changed in more than one density range because all of the ranges are interconnected. He thought the relative relationship between the ranges should be kept in a logical sequence. With respect to allowing single family homes in the Medium Residential district, he said that on projects which had been submitted to the City the direction from City Council was not to object to single family development in areas zoned for multi-family. He thought that was consistent with City Council policy to have a proper mix of single family versus multi-family units. Commissioner Melcher asked if the amendment would then permit the building of a single family detached product according to the basic standards. Mr. Coleman said that the proposed amendment also includes provisions to change the minimum average 10,000 square foot lot size. Mr. Kroutil said the 10,000 square foot lot size is larger than the minimum average lot' size in the next district. Commissioner Melcher ~uestioned density calculations. He asked if the 10,000 square foot lot size maximum density yield of 4.36 dwelling units per acre for Planning commission Minutes -13- December 17, 1991 conventional single family residential developnent would include land dedicated for local streets. Mr. Kroutil stated only private streets can be used in the calculations. He said at the time the Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted there was a debate as to whether streets would be public or private. He said there was a desire to have a rural co~ununity and there was a strong pressure to allow private streets with non-public type standards such as rolled curbs, rock curbs, etc. He said development under the optional standards would probably not be a conventional lot subdivision and would probably rely on private circulation. Commissioner Melcher did not feel a density of 4.36 dwelling units per acre could be obtained if there were public streets. Mr. Kroutil agreed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher stated that if the minimum average lot size were changed from 10,000 to 8,500 it would increase the density. Commissioner Vallette stated she was concerned that a lower minimum lot size would not meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. She did not feel a 7,200 minimum square foot lot would meet the intent. Commissioner Melcher said the plan already has an established minimum. He said the Commission was being asked to reduce the average, not the minimum. Commissioner Vallette stated the amendment would affect the remainder of the land throughout Etiwanda Specific Plan, including more northerly sites. Mr. Bullet stated that the only other Low Medium is just north of the area of Vesting Tentative Tract, just north of the freeway. Mr. Kroutil stated that the focus of the Etiwanda Specific Plan was on the core area north of Base Line and further away from the core there was less emphasis on the protection of the rural atmosphere, hence, the Medium and Low Medium designations. He said the Commission should consider if the City would prefer a multi-family project at a density of up to 14 units per acre in a Medium designation or a single family subdivision with 8,000 square foot lots. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Charles Schultz, Reid & Hellyet, 599 North Arrowhead, San Bernardino, stated he represented U. S. Home Corporation. He requested that the Commission proceed with action on Item 2 of the proposed amendment to reduce the minimum average lot size in order to proceed with Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Hayes commented that since the project was advertised, the City Council had changed the entire area of Tentative Tract 14211 to a Low Medium designation. He said the advertised request to reduce the minimum average lot Planning Commission Minutes -14- December 17, 1991 size to 8,900 square feet and 8,500 square feet for the Low Medium and Medium areas respectively were now recommended to be 8,500 square feet and 8,000 square feet respectively in order to meet the needs of the Vesting Tentative Tract. Commissioner Melcher stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan currently calls for a minimum average lot size of 10,000 square feet for both the Low Medium and Medium designations and he questioned why the Medium now needed to be less than the Low Medium. Mr. Hayes stated it was merely recommended to maintain a hierarchy between the designations. Commissioner Vallette stated that in previous discussions regarding the redesignation of land in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area a suggestion was made regarding limiting the amount of allowable buildable space on different lots. She feared that the City will end up with 7,200 square foot lots with 2,000 to 3,000 square foot homes. She felt it would be possible to maintain the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan if the buildable area of the lots is limited. She felt that would also help provide affordable housing. Mr. Buller stated that the lot coverage is limited to 40 percent in the Low Medium and Medium designations and no change was suggested to that percentage... Commissioner Melcher stated that 40 percent coverage is a great deal of coverage. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Commissioner Melcher agreed that smaller lots-would be acceptable with modest houses, but he feared larger houses will still be built and felt that would hurt the intent of the Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel felt that interesting questions had been raised. He said he understood the philosophy of encouraging single family developement over multi- family development. However, he was concerned that the City may be giving up more than necessary. He thought a workshop to discuss all the issues might be helpful. Commissioner Vallette felt there is nothing wrong with well-designed multi- family development and she thought there could be more attractive multi-family development than crowded single family homes. Mr. Buller stated that the Commission has the discretionary authority to deny a project if the Co~mission feels it does not meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said projects can be denied whether they are single family or multi-family. He questioned if 40 percent coverage on a 10,000 square foot lot would not give potentially the same image as a 40 percent coverage on an 8,500 square foot lot. commissioner Melcher stated the initial application had been submitted in 1989 and he asked why the lot size question had not already been considered. Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 17, 1991 Mr. Bullet stated that it was thought if the project was considered at the same time as the specific plan amendment, it would give the Commission an opportunity to see how potential development might look. He thought that if the amendment had been forwarded to the Commission without a project proposal, the Commission may have asked staff to provide several scenarios to show what type of development might occur. Commissioner Chitlea agreed with the idea of allowing single family detached housing in place of multi-family development, but she was uncomfortable with lowering the lot sizes. She felt the amount of coverage is an important integral part of the planning. She thought that a rural character was envisioned for Etiwanda. She noted that lowering the size of parcels generally does not result in smaller houses being built. She was only comfortable with Item i of the request. Chairman McNiel stated he was not anxious to proceed. Commissioner Melcher asked the ramifications of not acting on the amendment with respect to actions on Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. Mr. Buller stated that proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 would need approval of Item 2 of the amendment in order to make the finding that the tract is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said the Etiwanda. Specific Plan Amendment involved a land use decision independent of any other proposals before the Commission. He said the decision needed to be based on the merits of the specific plan amendment, not on a specific proposal or project. Commissioner Vallette felt that if Item 2 were approved, it would permit a 7,200 square foot lot with a 3,000 square foot home unless the Commission specifically addressed what was expected. Mr. Buller stated that every design review process has a multitude of checks and balances. He said the code establishes a minimum, but the discretionary review process allows the Planning Commission to determine if the project is appropriate or not. Commissioner Vallette asked what staff's suggestion would be for how the Commission should proceed if the Commissioners did not feel comfortable with the amendment. Mr. Bullet said that if the Commission did not feel comfortable or find conclusive evidence to Justify approval of a change, it should deny the amendment or continue the amendment for further review. Chairman McNiel felt that if the Low Medium standards are changed, the Medium standards should also be changed in order to maintain continuity. He said that would' apply to balance of the community wherever the designations are located. He wanted to see where else the zones are located and questioned the eventual result for the community. Planning Commission Minutes -16- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher questioned the park requirement for Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. He said it was his understanding that the number of houses would draw a population that would require a 2.33 acre park dedication. Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the other 10.6 acres which will be put in as an interim detention basin and later become park land would be over and above what would be required for the project. He said that if that were true, the 10.6 acres divided by the proposed 226 lots would represent about 2,000 square feet per lot. He noted that if the future park land were to be associated with the individual lots, the lots would then meet the 10,000 square foot average minimum lot size. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners felt they wanted to act on Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 or if they would feel more comfortable continuing the item. Commissioner Chitlea felt comfortable with acting on the amendment. Commissioner Vallette said she could act on the amendment as presented. Commissioner Tolstoy was lowering the lot coverage. the intent of the plan. concerned about lowering the lot size but not He felt large houses on smaller lots would defeat' Commissioner Chitlea supported Item I but did not support Items 2 or 3. Commissioner Tolstoy supported giving developers the option of developing single family detached housing in Medium designations, but he wanted a reduction of lot coverage on the smaller lots. Chairman McNiel was concerned about reducing the size of the dwellings. did not feel the City really wants tiny houses. He Commissioner Vallette felt that a smaller house on a 7,200 square foot lot would result in an average or smaller home on an average parcel. She said she could not visualize how allowing Medium Residential areas to develop as single family development would meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. She did not support any portion of the amendment. Mr. Bullet stated that the Development Code permits 5,000 square foot lots with a maximum 50 percent coverage under basic standards. He said the Etiwanda Specific Plan only allows 40 percent coverage as the maximum. He reiterated that all codes are minimums, but it is discretionary on the part of the Commission to deny development if it only meets the minimum and is not compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that generally development is proposed at the minimum standards. Planning Commission Minutes -17- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt that perhaps the City should also consider establishing floor area ratios because two story houses potentially double the size of the homes. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Planning Commission could deny the application and allow the applicant to return with a proposal that would also address the amount of coverage or if it would be better to workshop the item. Chairman McNiel stated he would feel more comfortable if he had an opportunity to look at the balance of the community where this might apply. He suggested the item be continued to allow for further review. Commissioner Vallette did not see any benefit to continuing the item unless a workshop were held. Mr. Buller said that if the Commission were to choose to continue the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment, the Commission would have to either continue or deny Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 because findings could not be made that the tract is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy felt he needed more information. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Schultz stated he did not realize there were so many concerns about the impact within the remaining area of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He requested that the Commission limit Item 2 of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 to only apply to the property contained within Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. He said that would then allow the Commission to later address the issues for the remainder of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said they would like to proceed with the tract. He did not feel there were any concerns regarding the design of the tract other than some of the street design. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller cautioned the Commission about an action such as described by Mr. Schultz. He said if the Commission were to make the change for the applicant's land only and not allow similar standards for the adjoining parcels, it may create some situations that may not be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the whole situation requires further analysis. He felt the image of the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan should be revisited. Chairman McNiel felt the item should be continued to permit a workshop to consider the remainder of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Bullet suggested the Commission may wish to continue the matter to January 8, 1992, at which time they could then perhaps adjourn to a workshop at the end of the regular meeting and discuss this matter further. Planning Commission Minutes -18- December 17, 1991 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 to January 8, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U. S. HOME CORPORATION - A proposed tentative tract map and design review for the development of 226 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential Districts (8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Devore Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN= 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 325 227-191-15, 227-181-24; and 227-261-11. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated negative declaration. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. Chairman McNiel asked how to proceed on Item P since Etiwanda Specific Plan.. Amendment 89-03 had not been approved and it was his understanding that it needed to be approved in order for the Commission to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the Commission could continue or deny the project because it is inconsistent with the existing Etiwanda Specific Plan. He suggested that the Commission may wish to see if the applicant would like to request a continuance. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Charles Schultz, Reid & Hellyet, 599 North Arrowhead, San Bernardino, stated he had been instructed by his client to advise that they did not wish a continuance. He requested that the Commission deny the project rather than continue it. He said the applicant believed it to be a good project. He said the applicant had requested that Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 be heard together. Mr. Hanson stated he understood the applicant's frustration and their eagerness to get the project before the City Council. He said that if the Commission denied the tract as being inconsistent, the matter could then be appealed to City Council. He said that if the Planning Commission were to subsequently approve the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment before the Council had heard the appeal, the matter would then be moot and the Council would in all likelihood return the matter to the Planning Commission because the merits had not been reviewed. He suggested that may delay the project even further. Planning Commission Minutes -19- December 17, 1991 Mr. Hellyet felt the Commission should consider Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 this evening based upon whether the map and proposed conditions of approval, but not necessarily the design, are appropriate. He agreed the Commission would be denying the project because it is inconsistent with the existing Etiwanda Specific Plan but he requested that the Commission consider the merits of the project and consider whether the improvements were necessary on Miller. He felt the project would eventually be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Vallette asked for clarification that it had been the applicant's desire to have the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment and the tract run concurrently. Mr. Schultz responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel suggested the applicant comment on the project. Mr. Schultz stated that the engineer and designer, Keith Dagostino, L. A. Wainscott, was available to answer questions. He said the proposal now calls for 220 to 222 lots, instead of the 226 lots requested because of proposed redesign and elimination of the cul-de-sacs. He felt that improvements to Miller Avenue should only be half-street instead of full-street because the transportation generated by the pro~ect should not necessitate full-street improvements. He did not feel the project was large enough to justify having.. to reconstruct the Etiwanda Avenue/Miller Avenue intersection under the freeway, which he said would cost between $1 to $3 million. He said they were willing to pay their portion and share based on the development in the area. He discussed the park site. He said as the first developer within the San Sevaine drainage plan area, they were required to design a drainage plan that would work for 928 acres. He said their proposed plan consists of a 10.5 acre drainage basin. He said originally the conditions required the applicant to dedicate only that portion of the basin impacted by their project and the remainder of the site would be held in reserve so that other developers would then pay for the improvements and purchase the site from them. He said the current proposed conditions require dedication of the entire area. He proposed that they dedicate the 2.33 acres of park land and only the portion of the detention basin necessary to support their project with the balance held in reserve to be purchased by subsequent developers as needed. He requested that they only be required to bear a portion of the additional cost of the increase in the cost of the master planned drainage facility based on the percentage that their 81.2 acres is of the total 928 acres. Commissioner Chitiea requested clarification on the applicant's proposal for the park and the Park Commission's request. Mr. Schultz stated the Park Commission could only require that they dedicate 2.33 acres and had requested that it be separate from the drainage basin because the Engineering Department had determined it needed the entire detention basin area for a detention basin. He proposed that they be permitted to locate the park in a portion of the 10.5 detention basin site. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if no other land was available for the detention basin. Planning Commission Minutes -20- December 17, 1991 Mr. Schultz said that the City would have to ensure that subsequent developers purchase the land necessary and that the design works. He said they were willing to dedicate the whole 10.5 acre site to be used for the detention basin to the City as park land to build a park later, but the Park Commission had indicated they want the park now and Engineering had indicated they wanted the detention basin now. He did not feel their project should have to dedicate 10.5 acres for the detention basin plus 2.33 acres for the park. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Com~issioner Tolstoy had identified the down side of the applicant's proposal~ i.e., how does the City identify the other property to be used for the detention basin if 2.3 acres of the detention basin site is used for the park. He said there is currently vacant property including property on the north side of Foothills however, the owner of that property objects to any proposal to use their property. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that even though there was a possibility of later identifying the additional 2.33 acres needed for the detention basin, the area should be identified now. Barrye Hanson proposed a condition of approval that the developer must identify the alternate property prior to recordation of the final map if the Commission agreed with U. S. Home that they should be allowed to use part of the 10.5 acres for the park. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Hanson meant identify and make available or just identify. Barrye Hanson replied identify. He said the Etiwanda Drainage Policy requires that the first developer design and identify all the land needed for the basin but that developer only has to actually provide the land which is needed to support the proposed project. He said that staff was recommending full-width construction of Miller Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue. He felt that was consistent with approval of other projects within the City for the sake of safety and convenience. He stated that conditions require off-street improvements on Etiwanda Avenue to Miller Avenue and staff feels the intersection must be reconstructed because work is needed under the interchange in the northeast quadrant to make the two streets function properly. He commented that U. S. Home is the largest property holder in that quadrant and he felt it would be appropriate for them to do the improvements. Mr. Hanson felt that if the developer can Justify that the $1.3 million increase in costs between the original and revised master drainage plans is unnecessary, there is flexibility in the condition as written to allow the developer to pay less. He said it would be addressed during the plan revision process. Mr. Bullet suggested that if the Commission wished to adopt the resolutions of denial for the project, they add a condition that the project does not meet minimum average lot size as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said that condition should be added because the Commission had not taken action on amending the specific plan.. Planning Commission Minutes -21- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated he was not comfortable in making all of the findings indicated in the resolution. Commissioner Tolstoy felt some of the other problems should be discussed. Chairman McNiel stated the City has permitted half-street conditions in the past and generally they create problems. Commissioner Vallette said she knew the applicant wanted a decision tonight. She did not feel comfortable denying on all the various issues. She asked if it would be possible to deny on only the issue that the project does not meet the minimum average lot size of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel recommended the project not be denied on that basis only, because it might imply the project was otherwise acceptable. Commissioner Chitiea stated there were a number of issues. She said she would have difficulty approving the project without having the park site defined so that the issues of appropriate access and design could be addressed. Commissioner Melcher felt that the Commission had not fully discussed all of the findings contained in the proposed resolution, such as the inappropriate grid street pattern, and the finding that the architecture and related design.. elements were inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He felt that at the most recent design review of the project, the committee had suggested that the entire Commission look at the grid street pattern. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the grid pattern is a problem, as one of the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan is a curvilinear streetscape. He said on three separate occasions the street pattern had been discussed with U. S. Home and they had indicated they did not have enough money to redesign the tract. He said they had also discussed that the architecture was not consistent with the goals of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and policies of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Melcher thought direction had been given to the architect which, if carried through, would make the project acceptable. Commissioner Chitlea commented that the architect had not submitted anything to show they had followed the committee's suggestions. Chairman McNiel felt the staff report satisfactorily discussed the conditions within the text. He said a key reason for denial was the fact that the tract is not consistent with the current Etiwanda Specific Plan in respect to minimum average lot size. He said that although the project had been in process for a long time, the application was not completed until approximately six weeks ago. He did not feel it to be the responsibility of staff or the Commission that the project was in process for so long. He felt the project had been sufficiently discussed and he was comfortable with all of the findings in the resolutions of denial. Planning Commission Minutes -22- December 17, 1991 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolutions of denial for Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 with modifications to indicate that the project does not meet minimum average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 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 10:43 p.m. to 10=55 p.m. , · , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The development of Fire Station No. 4, Phase II, consisting of a 24,030 square foot maintenance and training facility, a 3,432 square foot training tower, a 120 square foot pump test enclosure, and an emergency helispot on 7.08 acres of land in.. the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-111-23. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea asked what final colors were selected by the Design Review Committee for the roof elements of the training tower. Mr. Grahn responded the three primary colors were selected$ red, green, and blue. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when Jersey Boulevard will be completed to the west to the railroad track. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the applicant had submitted an application to the railroad and it could be as long as a year. He said Milliken should be opened by next October. Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing. Max Medina, Wolff/Lang/Christopher, 10470 Foothill Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Boulevard, Rancho Commissioner Melcher was concerned that the construction may be broken into two additional phases. He commented that construction seems to have been underway for a long period of time and he feared that phasing would extend the construction period even longer. Planning Commission Minutes -23- December 17, 1991 Mr. Grahn responded that the project was being constructed in phases because of economics and he said that temporary landscaping would be installed in those areas that would be delayed. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that a study was done to assess the needs of the Fire Department based on projected development patterns, response time, etc. He stated the study identified certain improvements and a priority list was established. He said as a result, this project was split into phases to accommodate the funding and construction of Station 3. He said the Fire District Governing Board had determined that the training tower and training facilities should be deferred until after construction of Station 3. Commissioner Melcher was concerned that the exact location and design of the household hazardous waste collection site had not yet been established. He thought that determination should be made prior to approval of the project because he wanted an opportunity to assess how it will impact the use of the site. He felt public ingress and egress for dropping off wastes should not interfere with traffic flow for the remainder of the site. He said in addition to fire suppression activities, the City will be performing maintenance on fire equipment and conducting training. He felt the hazardous waste collection site should be integrated into the design, and not added as an afterthought. He felt it may be more appropriate to continue the matter until the last element had been designed. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Mr. Medina stated the hazardous waste collection site is currently only planned as a 15 x 30 foot storage container. He said the wastes are dropped into the container, which is then removed from the site for cleaning. He did not feel it would be a big visual impact on the site. Chairman McNiel stated the concern was how the activity would impact the other activities on the site. He wanted to be sure that vehicles lined up to drop off waste would not interfere with any emergency traffic. Mr. Medina stated that all emergency traffic would be only using the response driveway on the right and the public would be limited to the left entrance. He said the training activities would occur to the south and he felt the waste container could easily be placed along the edge of the curb away from the training area. Co~nissioner Tolstoy asked if the container would be similar to a dumpster. Mr. Medina responded it would be similar to a shipping container. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the container would be placed behind a decorative wall. Mr. Medina responded that it could be. He said it is required to have a concrete slab under it and a concrete curb around it in case there is spillage. He thought the walls around the project could easily hide the container and the container could be painted to blend in with the ~roject. Planning Commission Minutes -24- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a need for the Commission to approve the project before the hazardous waste facility was incorporated into the design. Mr. Medina stated approval was not necessary this evening. Commissioner Melcher stated that at the Design Review Meeting questions were asked of Mr. Jones and there did not appear to be satisfactory answers. He said there appeared to be no systematic approach to the project. He suggested the location be pinned down prior to approval of the project. Commissioners Chitlea and Tolstoy concurred. Chairman McNiel noted that the Design Review Committee had referred the plaza design to the full Commission. Commissioner Melcher thought the plaza design does not seem to unify the site and does not appear to have much clarity. Commissioner Chitlea thought the plaza design appears rather peculiar with an unfinished, awkward appearance. She thought the left over space was disconcerting. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed there appeared to be no reasoning to the design. Chairman McNiel agreed but noted that it is an awkward site. Commissioner Vallette felt it would be confusing for visitors to find the entrance because there is no direction. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the architect should be directed to look at what has been submitted after listening to this evening's remarks. He suggested alternate plans should be submitted for the Design Review Committee to consider. Commissioners Chitiea and Vallette concurred. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the hazardous waste receptacle placement and access to it should be defined. He thought that someone from the Fire Department or someone with background in hazardous waste handling should attend the Design Review meeting and explain why the facility should be placed where it is determined it should be placed. Chairman McNiel did not think that would be a problem. Commissioner Chitlea thought that as it would be household wastes, the matter could be handled at the Design Review level. Commissioner Vallette felt that the site planning is very important, particularly with the hazardous waste collection facility. She did not feel the Commission would approve the project without such concrete site planning issues resolved if the project were not a City project. Planning Commission Minutes -25- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher agreed and expressed disappointment that the City's project manager was not at the meeting. Commissioner Vallette felt some changes may be needed to the site plan. Chairman McNiel asked why the location had not already been determined for the hazardous waste collection facility. Mr. Kroutil stated the hazardous waste facility was originally to have been located at Fire Station 3, but the City Council recently determined that the hazardous waste facility should be located at this station. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 89-23 to January 22, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , Re ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-09 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The development of Fire Station No. 3, consisting of an 11,787 square foot fire station and an emergency helispot on 2.75 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of the proposed Day Creek Boulevard, approximately 800 feet north of Base Line Road - APN: 227-091-18 and 19. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked if there were any questions about the written staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was concerned that the landscaping that had been selected for the perimeter of the property may be in conflict with visibility for the hellspot. He suggested that the landscape plan be reviewed with that consideration in mind. He was also concerned that there would only be one avenue of ingress and egress for the facility. He thought fire stations should have two ways to access the site. He said it appeared that one of the problems is that Day Creek Boulevard does not extend north to Highland Avenue, but instead terminates at the railroad track. He noted that the engine will have to go south and then east or west in order to respond to a call north of the site. Otto Krout~l, Deputy City Planner, stated staff had asked the Fire District the same question because the standards normally require two points of access. He said the site will have the same access problems as the existing station located a few hundred feet to the west. He said the District Planning Commission Minutes -26- December 17, 1991 responded the new facility would not create any new problems but will make an existing problem better because at least the facility will be adequate. He said the site itself does not need more than one entrance because initially only one engine company will be located at the site. He said the Day Creek Boulevard project would not be completed north of the railroad tracks until probably 1993. He stated the Commission could condition occupancy of the building pending completion of Day Creek Boulevard, but that would delay the construction of the fire station which is a great improvement over the existing facility. He said the Commission could also require an interim paved access to the site if they felt that to be necessary. He said normally the Fire District determines if a second access point is necessary, and the district feels the facility is satisfactory for now. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the Fire District needs the new facility. He felt it should be noted that the access is not satisfactory. Commissioner Melcher agreed but said the problem would only be temporary. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. closed the hearing. There were no comments and he Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and. Conditional Use Permit 91-09 with modification to provide for a review of the landscape plan in relation to the use of the hellspot. Motion carried by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , · , Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13859, AND THE VACATION OF RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RMDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - A subdivision of 7.23 acres of land into two parcels in the Medium High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of the proposed Day Creek Boulevard between Base Line Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks - APN: 227-091-18 and 19. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the project would create the parcel map for the fire station which had just been approved. Planning Commission Minutes -27- December 17, 1991 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. closed the hearing. There were no comments and he Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment, Tentative Parcel Map 13859, and the Vacation of Railroad Avenue South. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - A request to establish a gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.31 acre parcel in the Medium Residential designation, (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 13987. (Continued from October 9, 1991) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the plans provided at the meeting reflected the requested adjustment in the property line to include the driveway off Rochester. He said the new plans provided a minimum 10-foot landscaped area within the service station site. He reported that the Design Review Committee had suggested a non-buildable easement be recorded for the property located to the south and west to provide a minimum building setback of 50 feet. He said the Design Review Committee also requested that noise attenuation methods be explored for installation with the service station. Chairman McNiel questioned if there had been discussions regarding possibly moving the vacuum stalls away from the residential area. Mr. Murphy replied that the Committee had discussed moving the air and water stand. He suggested that the Commission may desire to also move the vacuum location. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. George Theodorou, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Shell Oil. He reported changes had been made to the site plan based upon review at two Design Review Committee Meetings subsequent to the last Planning Commission review of the project. He said they had incorporated an easement into Shell's property and had revised the site plan boundary on the southwest portion to include a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping between the curb and property line on Shell's property. He said they also increased the height of the overall screening from a 6-foot wall to Planning Commission Minutes -28- December 17, 1991 a 6-foot wall over a 4-foot berm to effectively yield a 10-foot height. He said Lewis has been cooperative in agreeing to provide whatever is needed on the residential property to the south and west to provide the combined 35-foot landscaped buffering. He believed that would be sufficient to provide the screening. He stated they had discussed the potential elimination of the mini-market with Shell, but Shell requires the mini-market. He said it was his understanding that the mini-market would be allowed to remain. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the vacuum stalls would be moved. Mr. Theodorou stated their movement had never been discussed. George Dynes, 7378 Fennel Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had not talked at the last Planning Com~ission Meeting. He said there are residents to the east of the proposed service station in the Rochester tract. He stated the wind blows from the west to the east and anything that spills at the station will probably go to the east. He said he had lived close to a service station in the past and when you drive into a service station you can smell the gas. He reported that the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) had notified his neighborhood of the project and had indicated the chances of getting cancer because of the service station would be 1 chance in a million. He objected to the increased chances of cancer. He indicated that a lot of the neighbors are upset by the prospect of a service station. He felt a mini-market is.. unacceptable because it would increase crime. He said he investigates crimes in Claremont and they most often occur at mini-marts. He objected to a 24- hour operation of a mini-market. He did not feel a service station belongs in a residential area. He thought that there would be increased traffic on Rochester and commented there is a school bus stop at Rochester and Ironwood. He felt a service station should be located at Foothill because the wind would then blow into an area zoned for Com~ercial. Chairman McNiel stated that on September 4, 1991, there was a neighborhood meeting and no one came. Mr. Dynes stated he had not heard about the neighborhood meeting. He said he did not know anything about the service station until he received the AQMD notification. He said a sign went up after that time. Chairman McNiel asked how far his house is located from the proposed site. Mr. Dynes responded that it is two blocks to the east. He thought a service station should be placed on Milliken in a Con~nercial zone, not a residential area. Larry Ross, Shell Oil, 19 Quiet Hills, Pomona, stated he is the individual who will be responsible for running the service station. He said he would like to discuss the concerns of gasoline vapors. He said in the last two to three years there have been major changes in the construction of service stations, including precautions such as double walls for tanks and lines, vapor recovery nozzles, vapor recovery areas, and spill containment units around the drop fills. He said that security is a big concern and Shell Oil installs total Planning Co~unission Minutes -29- December 17, 1991 video surveillance units which are tied in with their manager's units and a unit at his home. He said the station will be run as a salaried station, not a leased station. He said the station will be a $2 million operation including service station, free car wash, and mini-market. Commissioner Melcher asked how many locations Mr. Ross currently runs. Mr. Ross replied that he has 10 stations under his direction, including one that is just coming on-line in Palm Springs. Commissioner Melcher asked how many crimes had taken place at those locations during the past year. Mr. Ross replied that during the past three years there have been two hold-ups at the nine stations which have been operating. He said they provide brightly lit locations and their security cameras are easily seen by the public. Co~nissioner Melcher asked if there had been any other crimes of any sort. Mr. Ross responded that graffiti is the only other crime and they constantly paint out any graffiti which appears. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they experience loitering from the neighborhood.. people. Mr. Ross said they have very little loitering. He reported that Shell Oil does not allow pay telephones, which cuts down on loitering. He said they also do not have video games. Chairman McNiel asked if the station will always be a salaried station. Mr. Ross stated that they open stations as salaried stations and then search for dealers to run the stations. He said in his three years they had turned over one station to a dealer. Chairman McNiel asked if Lewis Homes was in agreement with the buffering. Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they concurred with the requested buffering. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they were proposing a non-buildable easement. Mr. Murphy stated there would be no habitable structures within 50 feet. He said it could be detached garages. Mr. Mager agreed with the understanding. Chairman McNiel asked if a lighting layout had been received. He was concerned about the lighting effect to the streets and surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes -30- December 17, 1991 Mr. Murphy stated lighting is typically handled through the plan check process. He said the photometric diagram is reviewed by staff and the sheriff's department to be sure there is adequate lighting on-site and there is not a spillage of light onto adjoining properties. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what District (SCAQMD) permit entails. placed on the station. the South Coast Air Quality Management He asked what type of restrictions were Mr. Ross stated the SCAQMD considers the plans and precautions and issues the permit to dispense gasoline with no restrictions. He said that neighbors are advised as part of the SCAQMD process. He said he had heard that some residents thought a refinery was going to be built there instead of a service station. Mr. Murphy stated that he had received several telephone calls from people wondering why the City was going to allow a refinery to be built. Mr. Ross stated they meet or exceed every guideline of SCAQMD. Mr. Dynes stated that they had received only one letter from AQMD which indicated that a certain amount of ga~ particles would be emitted. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette commented that at the October 9, 1991, Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission had voted by a 3-2 vote that the use is appropriate if certain factors were considered including the project's making an adequate contribution to the buffering. She stated that the plans indicated approximately 10 feet of buffering and she did not feel that was a substantial contribution to the buffering. She said the motion also called for the deletion of the mini-market and the present proposal still called for the mini-market. Commissioner Melcher asked how many other service stations in the City have mini-markets and what experience the Sheriff's department has had in relation to crime. Mr. Murphy responded that almost all of the service stations in town have some form of mini-market in varying sizes. He did not know about the Sheriff's experience. Commissioner Vallette asked how many of the other service stations are surrounded by residential on all sides. Mr. Murphy did not know of any that are surrounded by residential. Commissioner Chitiea stated she appreciated working with the people from Shell and their securing cooperation from Lewis on the driveway aspect. However, she still felt that the station is too intensive of a use to be placed in an exclusively residential neighborhood. She was concerned about vapors, light, Planning Commission Minutes -31- December 17, 1991 noise, and security problems. She did not feel the location is appropriate. She said that even though the applicant had gone to great lengths with the design, she still had site-specific objections. She agreed with the concerns of Mr. Dynes. Chairman McNiel felt the facility was fine for a gas station. He said there had been some discussions about whether such a use would be appropriate at this location. He indicated that Rochester and Base Line is a fairly major intersection and he did not feel the use is inappropriate. He did not feel the potential problems associated with a service station are so critical that they cannot be mitigated. He felt the applicant had contributed substantially to the buffering for the back side and noted that the City had received assurances from the adjacent residential property developer of a willingness to work with the City with respect to the balance of the mitigation measures. He saw no reason that a mini-market should be allowed to go elsewhere and not be permitted in this location. He thought the community is in dire need of service stations. Commissioner Melcher stated he supported the application. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at the October 9, 1991, Meeting Commissioner Melcher had suggested deletion of the mini-market. He questioned if Commissioner Melcher had changed his mind concerning the deletion of the mini- market. Commissioner Melcher stated that at the October 9, 1991, meeting he had pointed out to the Commission that in the Terra Vista plan change that enables this use the Commission had the power to regulate whether or not there was a mini-market in this location. He said his remark at the October 9 meeting was in an effort to get some sort of decision made. He said he did not personally have a problem with the mini-market. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the City certainly needs more service stations and he felt that neighborhood service stations are appropriate. He stated that Base Line and Rochester will be a major intersection in the future and he felt there is a whole area of the City which is not currently served by gas stations. He stated he still had great reservations about the mini- market. He said that although Shell has indicated mini-markets are economically necessary, he thought the City currently has two stations without mini-marts which seem to be doing satisfactorily. He supported a gas station and car wash so long as the vacuum station were moved, but he was not convinced a mini-market should be permitted. Commissioner Vallette questioned if the proposed buffering was to be 35 feet or 50 feet. Mr. Murphy stated there was a proposed 50-foot building setback from the property line for residential use and a combined 35-foot landscape buffering area. He said the service station was proposing 10 feet of landscaping, so a 25-foot landscaped area would be placed on the residential property. Planning CommisSion Minutes -32- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Vallette stated that the original motion of October 9, 1991, called for deletion of the mini-market. She asked how the project had proceeded in the process to include a mini-market. Mr. Murphy stated that the direction from the October 9, 1991, meeting was to return the project to Design Review. He said the Design Review Committee reviewed the project and the feeling of at least one member of the Committee was that the mini-market was not a concern and there was no clear consensus from the Committee. He said it was therefore returned to the full Commission for their consideration. Commissioner Vallette asked the future configurations for Day Creek Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that Day Creek Boulevard will be a six-lane divided highway and Rochester is termed a major arterial, which will be a four-lane undivided highway. Commissioner Vallette asked if there are Commercial sites on the corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road. Mr. Murphy stated that the closest c6mmercial area is at Highland. Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Tolstoy's concerns regarding mini-markets. Commissioner Tolstoy responded loitering, the potential for crime, and people leaving their car radios turned up while running in to buy something. He said the potential problems could be controlled by good management, but he did not feel those problems should be near residential areas. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-20. Motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -failed Commissioner Tolstoy stated he voted ~o because he felt that a service station is needed in that location even though he did not feel a mini-market should be permitted. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if conditions could be added to address the concerns of Commissioner Tolstoy. He suggested the Commission may wish to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with conditions including perhaps limiting the hours of operation for the mini-market or the entire facility. Me stated that staff had not yet prepared a resolution of approval and perhaps staff could discuss the conditions with the applicant to see if concerns could be adequately addressed. Planning Commission Minutes -33- December 17, 1991 Chairman McNiel objected to limiting the hours of operation because he felt it would be a restriction of life style. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with appropriate conditions for the January 8, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow the Commission to discuss the conditions on January 8, 1992. , , , , , Ue ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 1.31 acre parcel for the Development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and.. Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 91-20. (Continued from October 9, 1991) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, stated that staff recommended that the item be continued to January 8, 1992, to permit the Commission to handle it concurrently with Conditional Use Permit 91-20. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, discussed the condition requiring the extension of all off-site improvements along Rochester from the intersection of Base Line Road down to Church. He thought that placed an excessive burden on the project and asked that the site be viewed in connection with future residential development in Planning Area 7. He felt the impact of a one-acre development at the corner will have negligible drainage effects and the off-site drainage improvements of Rochester could be deferred except that the Tetra Vista Planned Community Street Improvement and Drainage Improvement Implementation Policies adopted in September 1989 require that any development at the corner would trigger the extension of the off-site improvements down to Church. He asked that the applicant be permitted to deal with engineering staff to solve any potential problems that there could be as they relate to the one-acre parcel development and defer the complete off-site improvements. Chairman McNiel requested that Engineering consider Mr. Mager's comments and consider not only potential drainage problems but also safety with respect to how the road would widen or narrow coming off the service station property. Planning Commission Minutes -34- December 17, 1991 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that staff had already considered the applicant's position. Commissioner Melcher stated that the two policies were adopted at the City Council level and he did not feel it would be within the Planning Commiseion's purview to make modifications although the Commission may make recommendations to the Council. He said he was the developer's representative at the time the Street Improvement Implementation Policy was adopted. He recalled that the policy was advanced by the City Engineer because of the City's experience in dealing with the developer at that time with piecemeal development in the area and the intent was to get the improvements completed in an intelligent fashion on a larger scale basis. He did not believe it was the intent, nor did he believe it appropriate, to place the burden on the service station. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13987 to January 8, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , NEW BUSINESS Ve ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-07 - HIMES PETERS ARCHITECTS - The development of three industrial buildings totaling ~ 538,450 square feet on 27.5 acres of land within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located generally at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 229-111-31, 32, 33, 48, and 49. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. James Westling, O'Donnell Armstrong Partners, 2201 Dupont Drive, #100, Irvine, stated they were willing to accept all of the conditions except for Condition 5. He requested that they not be required to delete the most westerly driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard. He said when they combined the lots to construct a building, they designed in the westerly driveway for ease of access for the trucking traffic. He requested that the condition be modified to allow the developer to work with staff on the details. He suggested extending the railroad crossing median so that truck traffic would not be coming east on Jersey and trying to make a left turn into the driveway. He said that would still allow vehicles to turn right into the site. He presented a sketch of the proposed median layout. Planning Commission Minutes -35- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Chitlea stated the applicant had made a lot of modifications to the project to make the corner more attractive and she felt the project will improve the area. She supported the request to extend the median and allow the applicant to work with staff to arrive at a satisfactory solution. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Co~unissioner Melcher felt that the driveway is necessary for the site plan to work properly. He questioned if the off-site traffic safety could be dealt with successfully. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, felt the applicant's proposal may be acceptable even though it is not as safe as not having a driveway. He felt it would be reasonably safe and an extended median all the way across the driveway would considerably diminish the problems. Chairman McNiel asked if the medians would be put in on both sides of the tracks. Mr. Westling thought the railroad plans indicate construction on both sides of the tracks. He said the applicant would be constructing 50 feet of Jersey on the east side of the tracks and 25 feet on the west side after the railroad has completed installation of the crossing. Chairman McNiel asked if the same problem would not be created for people traveling west and turning south into the driveway to the property on the south side of Jersey. Mr. Westling said that property had never had access from the east because there is a barrier across Jersey. Chairman McNiel felt the same conditions would apply to the western side. Mr. Hanson agreed that median should probably also be extended. Mr. Westling said he did not object so long as they could get approval from the City to construct it even though it is not adjacent to their property. There were no further public comments. Mr. Hanson felt the other property owner should be notified. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 91-07 with modification to extend the railroad crossing median across the most westerly project driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard and to extend the median on the west side of the railroad crossing across the nearest existing driveway on the south side of Jersey Boulevard. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -36- December 17, 1991 AYES .. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried DIRECTOR ' S REPORTS W. TREE PLANTING DETAILS Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that the matter be continued. Commissioner Vallette asked that it be placed on the January 8, 1992, agenda. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item to January 8, 1992. COMMISSION BUSINESS X. ANNUAL DESIGN AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE (Oral report) Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented a list of all projects completed in 1991. Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested the Commissioners contact either him or Dan Coleman with any comments or suggestions. Commissioner Vallette asked if staff would like a list of nominations. Mr. Coleman stated that would be helpful. Chairman McNiel felt it helpful to go out with someone else in the group to discuss the project. He suggested that the Commissioners determine at least which projects they felt should be dropped from consideration. Mr. Coleman suggested that staff could visit the projects with the Commissioners rather than doing a series of slide presentations. He thought the list could be cut down to a manageable size. Commissioner Melcher suggested that residential and institutional be listed as separate categories. , , , , Mr. Bullet asked for comment from the Commissioners regarding potential dates for the Lusk field trip. He suggested a Saturday in January may be the best time and it may be possible to combine the trip with a preliminary visit to some of the design award nominees. Planning Commission Minutes -37- December 17, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated he had gone to see the Lusk projects. He said he had looked at the documents which had been submitted by Lusk and there were virtually no architectural guidelines. He said he thought Lusk had indicated they wanted to develop architectural guidelines but no plans for their proposed project. Mr. Bullet said that minimal guidelines were used in the project they were scheduled to visit. He said the field trip was to determine if the guidelines were clear enough that they produced a project that the Commission felt was good or what additional guidelines should be developed to add to what the developer felt was successful in Ontario. Chairman McNiel felt that each of the Commissioners should participate in the field trip or at least drive through the project. He felt that in some instances the entrances look good, but the remainder of the building is not good. Mr. Buller stated staff would talk further with the Commissioners regarding potential dates and interest. , , , , Mr. Bullet suggested that the Commissioners schedule a discussion of Ordinance.. 398 regarding car washes within Neighborhood Commercial Districts be set for discussion on January 22, 1992, in response to Larry Young's request. Chairman McNiel agreed that would be a good date. , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12:52 a.m. - Planning Conm~ission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -38- December 17, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 11, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 1991, was canceled because of a lack of quorum. Respectfully submitted, Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 27, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 1991, was canceled because of a lack of quorum. Respectfully submitted, Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting November 13, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitlea STAFF PRESENT: PROJECT PROPONENT REPRESENTATIVES: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner Dick Dahl, Mike Scandiffio, Scandiffio Company; John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects; Byron Pinckert, Hill Pinckert Architects , , , , , An introduction was provided by Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, who indicated that the applicant was referred to the full Commission by the subcommittee of Commissioner Melcher and Chairman McNiel. He said the purpose of the workshop was to allow the full Commission to give direction as to which architectural scheme the applicant should pursue. He stated that after an architectural style is chosen, the applicant will resubmit the project for completeness check. John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects, reviewed the two schemes with the Commission. Mr. de Frenza indicated that site plan changes have been made also. He indicated that the plan had been opened up through the middle and that a more distinctive type of architecture was being provided. He wanted to focus at the meeting on what was happening on Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. He requested that the Commission comment on the architectural concepts. He indicated that two architectural styles were being presented; one which he considered to be contemporary and the other a classic style. He commented that the classical style picked up some of the more traditional elements of the Terra Vista Town Center. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he preferred the classical style but felt that the flat elevations presented were reminiscent of older town storefronts. He liked the cornice detailing on top of the classical style architecture. Regarding the new site plan, he indicated that he felt the Foothill Boulevard frontage looked like a retail parking lot for a supermarket Planning Commission Minutes -1- November 13, 1991 and that bothered him more than anything else about the project. that there was too much change in the site plan. He thought Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding her preference for the classical architectural style. She liked the piazzas and focal points on the previous site plan and indicated that she felt there was too much parking adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that there should be some type of compromise between the old and new site plans. Chairman McNiel stated that site plan modifications were made by the applicant in response to his concern with parking availability adjacent to the restaurant pads. He indicated that the Commission should focus on the architectural concepts since the subcommittee reviewed the two schemes at their last meeting and decided that the full Commission should be consulted for their input. He indicated that this was the beginning of the development review process and that direction should be provided to the applicant. Mr. Kroutil reported that he had received comments from Commissioner Chitiea. He indicated she did not have an opportunity to see the colored elevations. He stated Commissioner Chitiea had expressed reservations about both of the schemes but that she felt that the classical scheme was more in keeping with the area. He said she felt that the detailing on the project was reminiscent of the Deer Creek Shopping Center. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Deer Creek Shopping Center could be used as an example of what not to do. Mr. Kroutil felt the craftsmanship was weak on the Deer Creek Shopping Center and that the framing was not substantial enough. Commissioner Vallette preferred the classical styling. Commissioner Melcher indicated that the classical style had prospered since their last meeting and he felt that this should be pursued for those buildings north of the alley way and east of Masi Drive. He also thought elements from these buildings should be picked up on the smaller buildings. Commissioner Vallette questioned what was going to happen with the grape logo that was originally proposed. Mr. de Frenza replied that it would be provided in certain locations on the site and that these locations would be noted on the site plan. Commissioner McNiel questioned the location and design of the wind chimes tower. Mr. de Frenza responded that it would be a focal point and could be viewed from both Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 13, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy felt that a combination of front and side-on buildings was preferable along Foothill Boulevard, as was presented on the original site plan, rather than side-on buildings only, which were presented in this iteration. Mike Scandiffio, Scandiffio Company, felt that Buildings 8-12 demand high visibility since they will contain such uses as building supplies and office equipment stores. He said the desire for visibility led to the change in the site plan. Commissioner Vallette felt that berming should occur along Foothill Boulevard in order to screen the parking lot. Mr. Kroutil responded that the activity center located at the corner of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard would rely on bardscape elements between the first two driveways. He indicated the bardscape elements were planned to be flat and there may be low hedges and low walls but no berms. He said berms would occur in the transition zone (or suburban parkway) which would be adjacent to the activity center. Commissioner Vallette suggested that trees be planted in groupings in the lot in order to provide greater visibility for Buildings 8-12. Commissioner Melcher felt the cornice detailing should wrap around the sides of the buildings. Mr. de Frenza indicated that variation would be provided and a tiered massing would occur. Commissioner Melcher questioned the location of the light fixtures on the building and wondered whether or not they were appropriate to the style of architecture. Chairman McNiel commented on the glass and mullion pattern. He questioned whether something else could be done which would be more consistent with the proposed style of architecture. He suggested that perhaps the wainscot material be carried across the bottom instead of glass all the way down to the ground. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the applicant look at different storefront types in the context of this architectural style. Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that the storefront for Buildings 8-12 would be quite dark since they face north and would not receive a lot of sunlight. He also indicated the City's concerns regarding screening of roof equipment. He said the City did not want the appearance of a box on top of the roof and he suggested that a raised parapet could be used to screen the roof equipment. Byron Pinckert, Hill Pinckert Architects, questioned the Commission's comments about the architectural detailing and whether objections were to the geometry of the detailing or the execution. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 13, 1991 Chairman McNiel felt there was a prejudice on the part of the Commission because of the Deer Creek Shopping Center, but indicated their objection was with the massing, detailing, and execution. Commissioner Melcher felt that more variation was not necessary but that there should not be less articulation than what had been presented. Mr. de Frenza indicated that a plaster finish would be provided with a combination of both smooth and rough finishes. He said a stone base would be provided around the building and pre-cast concrete detailing would be utilized as a transition material between the stone base and the plaster. Commissioner Vallette questioned if it was possible to use a concrete tilt-up material. She felt that this could blend well and provide a new look similar to the Nixon library building. Commissioner Melcher felt that the "floating rectangles" might be better if they were concrete. He thought they should have a smooth plane and not a lumpy stucco finish. Mr. Kroutil questioned whether or not some parts could be done in tilt-up concrete. Mr. Pinckert indicated that the use of concrete tilt-up would be limited because of the sizes of the panels proposed. He felt that the scale of the building would not be appropriate for tilt-up concrete and that plaster surfaces which are articulated well are much more successful and would provide a richer building than concrete tilt-up. He indicated that it was hard to get elegance of detail when using concrete tilt-up and that it was not a fine method of construction. Mr. Bullet concluded the meeting and indicated that the next step would be for the applicant to prepare a submittal and submit a full package to the Planning Division in order to be reviewed for completeness. , .* * , , ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 13, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 13, 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 Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Loyd Goolsby, Principal Plans Examiner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner;. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Secretary Shelley Petrelli had been honored as the November Employee of the Month. He stated in addition to her other duties she is also Secretary to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 19, 1991. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the Minutes o~ the Adjourned Meeting of September 25, 1991. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 5-0, to adopt the Minutes of October 9, 1991, as amended. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of October 16, 1991. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of October 23, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11067 - BENNETT CONSOLIDATED - A subdivision of 40 acres of land into 18 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, to the north and south of 7th Street - APN: 209-211-13, 17, 30, and 31. Related file Development Review 87-49. Be TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a time extension to the master plan for a church consisting of a sanctuary, administration building, education/nursery building, and family center totaling 11,520 square feet on 8.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the west side of Haven Avenue north of Hillside Road - APN: 1074-271-01. ALLEY VACATION - PAT VERNOLA - A request to vacate an alley located between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, east of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-113-18 through 24. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-038 to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from October 9, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from October 9, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 13, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from October 9, 1991.) Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that staff was requesting that the item be continued to December 11, 1991. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vailerrs, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to December 11, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Ge MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A request to modify a previously approved conditional use permit (Siam Garden Restaurant) to allow for the expansion of a restaurant and bar from 2,160 to 3,240 square feet and to permit live entertainment in conjunction with the restaurant and bar located within a commercial center in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN: 1077-621-34. Related file: Entertainment Permit 91-03. (Continued from October 23, 1991) He ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A request to conduct live music and entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant and bar (formerly Siam Garden Restaurant) within a commercial center in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN: 1077-621-34. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 88-45. (Continued from October 23, 1991) Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report and stated that a letter had been received from the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 13, 1991 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Skip Nelson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had listened to the tape of the previous meeting and read the minutes. He commented that the applicant had referred to the establishment as an upscale dinner house. He asked if Mr. Nelson felt it is appropriate for a dinner house to have a stand up comedian or a disc jockey for entertainment. Mr. Nelson commented that a disc jockey would not be appropriate because disc jockeys usually play rap music or rock and roll. He did not feel stand up comedy would be appropriate during the dinner hour, but felt it could be appropriate if it were conducted after 9:00 p.m. and did not include "x-rated" material. Me thought comedy in good taste might be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant felt a dinner house would need to stay open until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Nelson stated the later hours were requested because the entertainment would not begin until after 9:00 p.m. He said it would not be economically possible to capture the cost of the entertainment from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He said he did not intend to have entertainment seven nights a week. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the business would be primarily a dinner house and not a bar. Mr. Nelson responded affirmatively. continuing and expanding the menu. He said there would be an emphasis on Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Nelson had consulted with the shopping center owners regarding the problems associated with the young people congregating in the parking lot when frequenting the pizza parlor and record store. Mr. Nelson stated he had contacted the property owners a year ago in June with respect to the noisy clientele of the pizza parlor and record store. He said they had told the property manager they would request their lease be canceled if the problems were not handled. He said the situation improved but over the last several months, there have again been problems. He said he had again written a letter to the property manager and he felt the manager was trying to address the problems. He requested that the City write a letter to the shopping center tenants requesting that employees park in the rear of the center. He said employees park in front of the stores and then congregate with the patrons and agitate each other. He felt if the pizza delivery van and employees were forced to park in back of the center, it would help alleviate the problem. Chairman McNiel stated the City did not have the power to tell business people where employees could park. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 13, 1991 Mr. Nelson felt the clientele of the other tenants were hurting his business because his patrons did not wish to pass through a large crowd of kids. Uria Nelson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had never seen a business run like the pizza parlor. She said it is managed by a 21 year old who just seems to want to have fun. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he took exception to the applicant's letter inferring that the Planning Commission discriminates against handicapped people or minorities and that the Commissioners are trying to be moral judges. He did not foresee any problems with the parking or neighborhood compatibility issues. He did not feel the location is comparable with other locations in the City where problems have been experienced. He had reservations about the request for a disc jockey and a stand up comedian as he did not think such entertainment is dinner house entertainment. He questioned the need to close at 2:00 a.m., stating that 2:00 a.m. is probably an appropriate hour for a bar but the establishment was being presented as a dinner house. He supported the applicant's request. Commissioner Melcher stated that after the last meeting he had dinner at the restaurant and the clientele was disappointingly small and very subdued. He felt the applicants were business people who have a significant investment in their liquor license and were asking for a chance to capitalize on it. He felt the location was appropriate and the construction work in the expansion area appeared to be quality work. He supported the application on the terms requested, including closing at 2=00 a.m. Con~nissioner Vallette commented that the Commission had received a petition with a number of signatures indicating the surrounding residents are concerned. She felt the Commission should take the residents into account and she opposed the application. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Co~nissioner Vallette. She said her opposition was because the site is adjacent to a residential area and there was nothing personal in her objection. She said that past Commission actions had indicated that bar and residential uses do not belong adjacent to each other. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the shopping center has a management problem. He said he had visited the site on Monday evening at 8:30 p.m. and the pizza parlor and record store had a crowd of young people congregating outside who were playing their radios loudly. He hoped the applicant could use some leverage against the shopping center managers. Chairman McNiel stated he visited the restaurant on Friday evening and the atmosphere was subdued. He did not feel the restaurant is a source of problems for the neighborhood and felt the problems were being caused by other businesses in the center. He supported the application as proposed and did not feel the type of facility would encourage problems. He indicated that if Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 13, 1991 problems occur, the application could be reviewed for possible revocation of the conditional use permit. He was not comfortable with the entertainment request for disc jockeys and stand up comedians. He reopened the public hearing. Mr. Nelson stated he was agreeable to deleting the disc jockey and stand up comedian uses. He said they realized the burden of proof would be on them to prove where noise is generated from if the noise problem persists. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 with modification to delete the approval for disc jockeys and stand-up comedians. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , NEW BUSINESS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 91-34 - LARSON - An appeal of staff's decision to deny a tree removal permit for the removal of two Liquidamber styraciflua within the public right-of-way, located at 7208 Marine Avenue - APN: 1076-321-09. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel commented that he is a member of the same church as the applicant and he asked the City Attorney if he should excuse himself. Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, stated that Chairman McNiel would not need to step down because he did not have a legal or investment interest. He said it would be a judgment call on Chairman McNiel's part as to whether he felt he could be objective. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. L. Chris Larson, 7208 Marine Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the seed pods that fall from the tree are sharp. He said when the pods fall on a sidewalk, it is like stepping on a marble. He reported that his wife had fallen off the sidewalk over a year ago and had already had two operations costing over $25,000 to correct her foot. He requested that the tree be replaced with a tree that would not be so messy. He indicated that his wife and daughter suffer from a congenital bone defect known as brittle bones and he was therefore concerned for safety reasons. He commented that the roots of Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 13, 1991 the tree have started to lift the sidewalk and are cracking his driveway. He said there have been three other places in the tract where the City has had to repair the sidewalk and the sidewalk has been lifted 5 inches in one location. Me thought that the trees could be replaced with other trees which would be mature trees within 15 years. He felt that trees should no longer be considered as windbreaks because the houses . in the City now act as windbreaks. He said that when the trees in his front yard mature they will be 60 feet high and they could then fall on the house in a strong wind. He suggested that the trees be replaced with trees that would grow to a maximum of 35 feet high and he felt a root barrier could be installed with new tree plantinge to avoid damage to the sidewalks. Commissioner Melcher asked how long Mr. Larson had lived on the street and when hie wife had the accident. Mr. Larson responded they had lived there ten years and his wife's accident was in April 1990. He said hie wife has broken other bones in the past because of her disease. He stated the tree drops seed pods all year long and he was trying to minimize the danger. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher commented that a compelling reason for staff's denial is that the trees are part of a significant parkway planting creating a windrow effect on both sides of the street. He felt that was a proper planning goal. He thought it was appropriate to uphold the staff's denial with a suggestion that the applicant may wish to appeal to the City Council or Public Safety Commission. He did not feel the issue to be a planning issue. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He said one of the goals of the City is to have neighborhood tree continuity and common street trees provide such continuity. He said the Liquidamber tree is commonly used not only in Rancho Cucamonga, but also in many other cities. He did not feel it was a planning issue. Chairman McNiel asked if another appeal would require payment of an additional fee. Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded affirmatively. He said a City Planner's decision is appealable to the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel asked if there would be any way to waive the appeal fee. Commissioner Melcher asked if the appeal fee could be appealed. Mr. Bullet stated that fees cannot be appealed. Chairman McNiel agreed that from a pure planning perspective he could not support the appeal. He said he was sympathetic to the applicant's situation. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 13, 1991 Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, indicated the Commission could make a part of their recommendation that the City Council consider refunding appeal fees if the decision were further appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Chitiea indicated she had a great deal of sympathy for the applicant and his family, but from a planning perspective she felt the trees should remain. She did not feel removing the trees would solve the problem. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to uphold the City Planner's denial of the tree removal permit and to recommend that the City Council consider refunding an appeal fee if the applicant chose to appeal the decision to City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Je MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23 - MBWJ PROPERTIES - An appeal of certain conditions of approval for the reconfiguration of a parking lot within the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN: 202-381-36. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if there had also been an appeal of an undergrounding condition several years ago on the same project. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the undergrounding requirement was relieved because of a technicality, in that the approval they were requesting at the time had already been granted under the County approval for the shopping center. Commissioner Melcher requested some background on the history of the center's remodeling. Mr. Buckingham reported that a conditional use permit was approved to modify the center with some of the modifications being similar to what was later proposed in the current Minor Development Review. He said permits were issued and bonds were posted under the conditional use permit, but only a small 1,000 square foot addition was actually built. He stated construction was suspended following a legal challenge from Stater Bros. and it is now unlikely that the conditional use permit will be completed. He said a determination is still needed regarding the disposition of the bonds. He said the applicant is now pursuing a separate application. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 13, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the applicant was now proposing. Mr. Buckingham stated this was a separate application regarding parking lot modifications. Chairman McNiel asked if the addition of the 1,000 square foot portion was not predicated upon the assumption that the entire center would be rehabilitated and the from would then be incorporated architecturally. Mr. Buckingham agreed. Chairman McNiel stated that the addition now looks architecturally out of place. commissioner Tolstoy commented that since the remodeling was never accomplished, this application appeared to be a new attempt to make some changes. Chairman McNiel requested public comments. Garth Sheriff, Sheriff & Associates, 3440 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles, stated he was the project architect. He said that the applicant had contracted with him to reconfigure the parking lot only. He said the remainder of the rehabilitation work on the center was stopped by a court order. He indicated they appealed the conditions of approval on the basis of financial necessity. He said they agreed with Condition la but they did not have the legal right to do it. He said they would request that Carl's Jr. construct the landscape planter but they could not force them to do so. He reported that when they planned the parking lot they knew they could not afford to move the light standards. He therefore objected to Conditions 3 and lb. He said that Conditions lc, 2, and 3 were economically intolerable. He indicated their proposed plans conformed to the required amount of landscaping, but staff was requiring that landscaping was needed in each parking area. He felt that the north parking area is used only for employee parking and truck deliveries and he did not think landscaping should be required. He stated the applicant could not afford to put in the irrigation system that would be required to install a planter in the north parking lot. He objected to relocating the light standards in the front parking lot and said that would require the addition of a third light. He suggested that instead they be permitted to landscape around the existing light standards, so they would not be parking spaces. He said that no architectural changes were proposed for the building. Commissioner Melcher asked that the applicant explain the reasons for remodeling the parking lot. Mr. Sheriff responded that the only approved parking lot configuration plan includes compact parking spaces. He said the applicant wanted to reelurry the lot and they were told by City staff that new standards were being considered. He stated they proposed stripping the lot in a manner consistent with City standards as of the summer of 1991. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 13, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if the City could require improvements if the applicant chose to slurry and restripe the lot in its current configuration. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded negatively. Sally Forster Jones, partner of MBWJ Properties, 1600 Ventura Boulevard, #409, Encino, stated they had purchased the center five to six years ago. She said at the time they had planned to renovate the center with a new architectural concept but because of litigation with Stater Bros., they could not proceed with the plans. She stated they decided they would like to paint the buildings and repair the parking lot. She indicated they want to do as much as possible to make the center viable but funds are tight and their vacancies are up. She reported they budgeted for paint and slurry, and the cost of the additional planters in the front of the center would be $10,000. She said if they had to change the lighting, the cost would go up many thousands of dollars. Chairman McNiel expressed his dissatisfaction with the maintenance of the entire center. He said there are potholes throughout the parking lot and there had not been any effort made to coordinate the new building with the remainder of the center. Ms. Jones stated they also are very frustrated. She said they had financing available to refurbish the center, but Stater Bros. blocked their plans and they now wanted to do all they possibly can. She said they are only allowed to redesign the parking lot, paint the buildings, and change the signage. She commented that those restrictions are eternal until Stater Bros. moves or changes their minds. She indicated Stater Bros. had finally agreed to the painting scheme. She said they had fixed the potholes in the parking lot and they were now ready to slurry. She stated they had spent excessive amounts on architects and attorneys and they would be forced to restripe the lot in its present configuration if the requested condition changes were not approved. Commissioner Melcher asked why the applicant was motivated to stripe according to the proposed new parking standards, eliminating compact spaces. Ms. Jones responded they felt it would be more efficient. Mr. Sheriff stated they were congregating the employee parking in the rear of the stores. Ms. Jones said they proposed no compact parking spaces. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher stated the site is a problem property. He felt the proper planning decision would be to hold out for the best improvements but he realized the applicant may choose to not upgrade the property at all in that case. He felt they should uphold staff's decision. Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 13, 1991 Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to uphold staff's decision and deny the appeal on Minor Development Review 91-23. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission skip to Items E and M and then adjourn to a conference room to conduct a workshop on Item K. He said Item K would be to discuss the architecture only, not the site plan or use. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS L. CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE/PRIVATE SYSTEMS - Discussion on City policy. Brad Bullet, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Bob Yoder, Hix Development Corporation, 437 South Cateract Avenue, #3, San Dimas, felt that strict application of the basic policy developed during the hearing for Tract 14139, is unfair and costly when not in the hillside area. He thought that in the absence of an ordinance, any sound engineering solution should be considered. He felt that if alternate means of drainage in case of failure of the pipe is provided, drainage should be permitted to be installed at capacity, even if it meant a 6- or 8-inch pipe. He discussed Lots 26 and 27 of Tract 14192-2 and objected to the requirement to provide two side-by- side 12-inch pipes for drainage to Onyx Avenue. He felt that because only half of each of the two lots would be using the drain and one 8-inch pipe should handle the flow, they should be permitted to utilize only one 12-inch pipe and that would still constitute gross over design. Chairman McNiel asked what the alternate means of drainage would be if the one 12-inch pipe were to become clogged. Mr. Yoder said in that case the water would flow to the wall and work its way through any weep holes. He believed that in the worst case scenario the water would have to go back to the street before flooding the house. He felt the liklihood of failure to be minimal. Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 13, 1991 Chairman McNiel asked what study indicated only an 8-inch pipe would be necessary. Mr. Yoder replied that 8 inches was a conservative guess based on the slope. He said their engineer indicated both lots would generate only 1/2 CFS. Chairman McNiel asked if the calculations were based on a lO0-year storm. Mr. Yoder responded affirmatively. He said the City's design was based on 1-1/2 to 2 CFS per lot with a total area of 15 to 20 CFS. Ernest Hix, Hix Development Corporation, 437 South Cateract Avenue, #3, San Dimas, said that if the one pipe that they wished to install for Lots 26 and 27 of Tract 14192-2 were to break, the water would flow into an alternate catch basin and flow out. He said the two 12-inch pipes actually join and enter the curb as one pipe. He said the projected 100-year storm is .6 CFS for the two lots and one 12-inch pipe would handle 2 CFS. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it appeared the developer was trying to appeal specific conditions of approval for a specific tract rather than merely questioning the City's standards. Mr. Hix stated the conditions were imposed with a conceptual grading plan. He said that as the finished grading plan is fine tuned changes may be made. He said they were not trying to appeal every condition. He stated staff had indicated the policy calls for a 12-inch pipe and when pressed for details it was learned there is no written policy but rather staff has used the parameters utilized for the Ahmanson tract. He said the Ahmanson tract has not yet been built and it is a hillside project, whereas their project is not hillside. He commented that the Ahmanson design did not have alternate methods of draining the water. He said the Ahmanson tract also included surface drainage. He reported that Mix Development is currently finishing up a project they purchased from another developer. He said that project does not utilize a 12-inch pipe even though it has cross lot drainage, sometimes across several lots. He did not feel the 12-inch pipe should apply to their project. Mr. Yoder said that there is no ordinance. Commissioner Tolstoy responded there is a policy. Mr. Yoder felt that in the absence of an ordinance, any sound engineering solutions should be considered. He said the examples were merely to show that the policy may not be applicable. Mr. Bullet stated that when the issue came up it was project specific, but Mr. Yoder had made it clear that their appeal was not project-specific. He said the Commission was not being asked to reconsider absolute conditions. He reported that the developer has expressed a feeling that staff has not been given any guidance to grant any leeway. He said the developer felt staff should be given discretion to look at other options. Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 13, 1991 Mr. Hix stated they have three different situations. He said they have an historical house with a 12-inch pipe designed to drain from it. He said in other situations they were being asked to place two 12-inch pipes side-by-side and they felt that was overkill. He commented that in some situations they have other means of drainage (i.e., concrete swale along the back). He said he would feel more comfortable if easements were placed on the lots so that the swale could not be blocked by a wall without leaving an opening at the bottom to allow for flow through the swale. Loyd Goolsby, Principal Plans Examiner, stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel asked if the 12-inch pipe requirement is a realistic application. Mr. Goolsby responded affirmatively. He said a lot of time and thought went into making the decisions on the Ahmanson tract. He stated the previous City Engineer had indicated that he had only seen rear lot drainage allowed where pipes were grossly overdesigned. He said the motivation of bringing the Ahmanson project to the Commission was an inordinate amount of staff time was being spent on custom designed systems. He said battery drainage along the backs of lots had been previously discussed in the Ahmanson case and it was determined it was not a viable solution. He indicated the safety valve mentioned by Mr. Hix had previously been considered on lots with potential for overflow directly to a parallel acceptable point such as a street. He said the City has allowed downsizing of pipes on an individual lots to 8 inches on one tract, but every lot on the tract had direct access to Etiwanda Avenue. He felt that maintenance would be an issue in the Hix proposal. He did not feel two lots should be permitted to drain in a combined pipe. He said in the Ahmanson tract it was discussed that in the upper lots' ultimate Q (cfs) once built with pool, slabs, barns, outbuildings, etc. could increase to a certain amount. He said that was causing a great difference in quantity emanating from the two tracts. He stated the sizing was specifically discussed and conditioned in Grading Committee. He said the application made by Hix Development Corporation was for conduit drainage and those conditions were available at the time the tract came through. Chairman McNiel commented that it appeared that Mr. Goolsby felt that the current policy is sound from an engineering point of view. Mr. Goolsby stated he felt strongly that the Commission made the correct decision on the Ahmanson tract. He said time will show if it was a correct decision after a project is built under those criteria. He said if any changes are required as a result of the functioning he thought it may be to increase the size, rather than decrease it. He said a greater slope of the ground would mean higher velocities achieved and would mean the pipe would not run as full or as slow as it would on more level ground. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 13, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is always opposed to cross lot drainage because it causes problems in the future. He said it is too common for a homeowner to move into a house and reconfigure the yard without considering the effects of a rainy season. He felt each lot should have its own separate drainage system so that one property owner could not jeopardize the drainage of any other owners. He felt that in Mr. Yoder's example of the drainage from Ledig Drive down to Onyx Avenue through existing lots, it would be critical to look at the existing residences to the south. He thought each drainage system should be so designed so that it would not affect any other lot. He did not feel the 12-inch pipe size to be excessive because it would become clogged by leaves or silt over several years of use. He said it is much easier to clean a large pipe than a smaller one. He agreed with the conditions of approval on the particular project. Commissioner Chitlea felt the applicant's arguments sounded good, but she felt that Mr. Goolsby and Commissioner Tolstoy's arguments were compelling and she deferred to the wisdom of the City's professional staff, stating she was not an engineer. Chairman McNiel stated that he was involved in previous years when it was necessary to sandbag everything that was freestanding in an attempt to salvage houses. He did not feel the policy requirements are excessive but felt it would be better to be excessive, than not enough. He did not recommend any changes to the policy. Commissioner Vallette stated she had lived in an area with cross lot drainage and she understood the problems. She supported the past decisions. Commissioner Melcher stated he lives on a lot which shares cross lot drainage with several other lots. He did not feel cross lot drainage is an altogether satisfactory solution and thought it is not understood by many property owners. He said he had recently consulted with two engineering firms while trying to solve a nuisance on-site water problem and they both advised that he should not consider anything smaller than a 12-inch pipe because pipes generally are not maintained properly. He supported the policy and felt the policy should be a written one. Mr. Buller said the policy is a reflection of the minutes of the action on a previous project. He said the policy could be returned to the Commission as a formal policy statement if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Melcher stated that unwritten policies are extremely difficult for developers to deal with. Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission accept staff's recommendation from the staff report. He asked if that would be sufficient for staff to develop a written policy. Mr. Bullet said staff could formulate a written policy and it could also be added to the residential guidelines. He said he understood the Commission's direction to avoid cross lot drainage wherever possible. He reported that staff's general direction to developers is to avoid cross lot drainage. Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 13, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the most bitter conflagration he had ever seen was between two neighbors who had cross lot drainage when one person's house and yard were inundated with water. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to reaffirm their current policy on cross lot drainage, that 12-inch pipe would be the minimum size, and that the policy should be applied on a City-wide basis. , , , , , M. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS - Oral Report Brad Buller, City Planner stated that Commissioner Melcher had raised the issue and asked that it be placed on the agenda. He said~at the November 6, 1991, City Council meeting, the Council had tabled second reading of the ordinance to allow time for a field test to consider both an 8-1/2 foot and a 9 foot parking stall width. He said the field test was scheduled for November 22, 1991. Commissioner Chitlea stated that she noticed that all of the parking lots selected in the past tended to be in the planned community areas and not in the northern area of the City where people with larger vehicles are congregated because there are more semi-agricultural uses. Commissioner Melcher stated he had gone to the November 6 City Council meeting because he did not realize that at their first reading they had changed the size which had been recommended by the Planning Commission. He felt the Planning Commission's recommendation had been based on hours of staff work and input from the developers. He felt that the 8-1/2 foot width deserved a test before being discarded. He thought that if the 9 foot wide space were adopted perhaps a narrower space could be considered for long term parking situations, such as employee parking lots. He said employee parking lots generally do not involve a lot of in-and-out parking nor bulky items and carts being used to load items into or out of the vehicles. He thought that would allow for some efficiency of land use. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned that standards allowing smaller spaces would be adopted for an industrial area and then the use would change to commercial business, such as the indoor swap meet located in the industrial area. He felt it would be difficult to determine where the smaller size would be appropriate. He thought it might be considered for the heavy industrial area, but he did not think the smaller sizes would be appropriate in an office area because many offices have a lot of traffic. He said the developers would then approach the City and indicate their office areas would be designed for little public traffic, but when the tenant changed there may be a lot of public traffic. He did not see how it would be possible to discern where the smaller stall would be appropriate. Commissioner Melcher agreed that they were valid concerns. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that it is a desirable goal to cut down on parking lots because they are an inefficient use of space and generate heat because Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 13, 1991 the surface retains the heat, but he did not feel it would be possible to foretell that the type of operation would not change. Commissioner Melcher agreed. He thought it would be fairly easy to identify where retail would be a principal use and there would likely be shopping carts. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that patrons of building supply stores sometimes require a flat bed type of conveyance for building materials. He did not think parking lot configurations should be designed strictly for the use. Commissioner Melcher agreed it may not be possible to define any areas where the smaller space should be allowed with an assurance that the use would remain forever. He said he simply asked that the concept be discussed. He felt that the elimination of the compact spaces and the reduction of parking stall length are both impressive gains that have been reached. He thought the reduction in length is appropriate because of the size of today's vehicles. Chairman McNiel thought the concept of smaller spaces for long term parking may be valid, but he was not sure putting it into practice will be possible. He did not object to the City Council's decision to retain the 9 foot width. He thought the Planning Commission had made a reluctant compromise to the 8-1/2 width in order to eliminate the compact parking spaces. He did not have a problem with the size of parking lots so long as they are treated with landscaping. He thought eventually the City will have parking structures and below-ground parking. Commissioner Melcher said he was motivated to speak to the City Council because he felt a great deal of effort had gone into the study conducted at the Planning Commission level. He stated it occurred to him that there still may be some potential for smaller spaces in certain applications, but now felt that may probably not be true. Chairman McNiel stated that currently the Commission at times make provisions for employee parking lots and then the employees do not use them. · , , , , Commissioner Vallette requested that information on the City's required tree root barrier systems and deep root watering and moisture sensor systems be discussed at the next meeting. Brad Bullet indicated he would, with assistance from the Engineering Division, provide some material from which the Planning Commission could discuss the matter. He said he would put it on the next agenda as a Director's report. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the actual standards be included in the packets. Mr. Bullet stated that some of the drawings are being updated, but those which are available would be in the agenda packet. Planning Commission Minutes -16- November 13, 1991 Mr. Buller reminded the Commission that there would be no Planning Commission meeting on November 27, 1991. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adjourn. 9:40 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following in the De Anza Room regarding Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-24. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -17- November 13, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 23, 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, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated a petition signed by residents and a letter from an adjoining tenant in the shopping center had been received regarding Items F and G. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Minutes of September 25, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae VACATION OF A PORTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE - A request to vacate a portion of Etiwanda Avenue, located north of Whittram Avenue, 10 feet wide and 330 feet long - APN: 229-151-15. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14548 - ALLMARK - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities for a residential subdivision to convert 328 apartment units to condominiums on 29.51 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11. (Continued from September 25, 1991) Chairman McNiel announced that no action would be taken because the item had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-31 - PROFESSIONAL EVENT ORGANIZERS - The request to establish a private meeting hall in a leased space of 3,423 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial complex within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9559 Center Avenue, Suites A and B - APN: 210-381-25. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned the division of the floor area in the parking calculations. Mr. Grahn responded that the assembly area usage had been calculated separately from the office area usage. Commissioner Melcher noted the Fire Department's comments regarding requirements before the space is used for public assembly. He felt the requirements could result in significant new construction in the space. He said the building code would allow up to 153 people for a sit-down type of event and up to 328 people for a dance. He was concerned that additional air conditioning would need to be added and he requested a condition be added to require proper screening of the equipment be approved by the Design Review Committee. He also thought that the restrooms should be expanded because of the potential number of people who may use the facilities. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Eileen Nichols, Professional Event Organizers, 13675 Westwood Drive, Fontana, stated she had been in the business for a little over three years. She commented that she shared some of Commissioner Melcher's concerns. She said at present there is no air conditioning and she had submitted a Title 24 package to obtain air conditioning for the building to accommodate 300 people. She said as a rule she does not typically handle dances, but mostly business conferences. She said generally there is not a lot of drinking and the functions do not last for hours and hours. She did not anticipate a problem with the restroom facilities. She indicated she had worked hard to build her company's reputation. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 23, 1991 Chairman McNiel asked if they had facilities elsewhere. Ms. Nichols responded she currently works out of her home and has rented and leased locations in various parts of the Inland Empire. She said part of the market she was pursuing is business conferences. She said some of the hotels around the airport do not have larger halls but have company representatives staying there who want to have banquets in the evenings. She anticipated the hotels will even offer shuttle service to and from the facility. Chairman McNiel asked if there would be a problem with midday conventions. Ms. Nichols responded that midday conventions would probably be in the range of 50 .to 80 participants and they would most likely be shuttled to the facility from the hotel. She said there would be no entertainment at the daytime meetings so there should not be any noise to bother other tenants in the complex. Chairman McNiel commented that limitations had been placed on the hours. Ms. Nichols agreed to the limitations. Commissioner Melcher asked if in previous events she had ever had crowds the size that could be handled at this facility with toilet facilities as limited as those proposed. Ms. Nichols stated that the majority of the functions she handles average from 150 to 250 people. She said they had held a function with 1,800 people with only two restrooms. She commented that because of her past experience, she did not anticipate a problem with the restrooms. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher requested that a condition be added to require that the roof-mounted equipment for any additional air conditioning be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. He also requested that the Building and Safety Department review the adequacy of the restroom facilities when the project is processed through plan check. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Municipal Code requires that all roof mounted equipment be screened and architecturally integrated. He said staff has performed such reviews in the past. He felt the minutes could reflect that the Commission raised a concern about the adequacy of restroom facilities and requested that the Building and Safety Department review the matter during the tenant improvement plan check process. Commissioner Melcher preferred that the screening be reviewed by the Design Review Committee because of the amount of air conditioning equipment needed. Commissioner Vallette felt the location was good even though the area may not have been intended for the use. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 23, 1991 Chairman McNiel agreed. He also felt the screening should be approved by the Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-31 with modification to require that the screening of the roof-mounted equipment be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14858 - J. M. WILSON & ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 6 single family lots on 5.48 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less that 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Carnelian Street, north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 1062-041-024. Related Tree Removal Permit No. 91-03. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned the meaning of non-vehicular access dedication to the City for Carnelian Avenue. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the terminology as used in the industry means that people can not use the street for access. Commissioner Melcher stated he discussed the project with the applicant's engineer prior to the meeting and the engineer had expressed concern about using the local street for ingress and egress to the fire station site to the south. He asked if that had been discussed with the Fire District. Mr. Hanson stated the access could be vacated in the future if necessary. He said the site to the south was not definitely a fire station site. Commissioner Melcher asked if the site were to become a fire station, if the station would access Carnelian directly. Mr. Hanson responded he had not seen any potential designs as yet, and they may use the local street. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jerry Wilson, President, J. M. Wilson and Associates, 223 North First Avenue, Upland, stated they were the engineers for the applicant, Dick Harding. He said he had some questions prior to coming to the hearing, but they had been Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 23, 1991 answered by staff. He appreciated that the access rights could be vacated in the future if they were not needed. He agreed to the conditions as presented. Jim Pendleton, 8789 Beechwood Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives across the bridle trail from the project. He asked how much fill would be brought in and what types of homes would be built; i.e. one- or two-story. He said if a lot of fill were brought in and two-story homes were built, he would lose his view. He stated a 15-foot bridle trail had been taken from his property and he felt that if another 10 feet were dedicated, there would be more vehicular .traffic on the 25-foot wide trail. He said he has already called the Sheriff's office because people drop off trash in the wash and he feared a fire hazard. He did not want the developer to bring in a lot of fill and build the houses right in front of his property. Mr. Wilson stated the conceptual grading plan indicates a street coming off Carnelian that will drain to the east. He said they would be installing a catch basin and draining into the Demens Channel. He did not feel the lots would need be elevated, but stated that the lots would be custom lots and the individual buyers may wish to change the elevations of the lots. He thought the lots sloped about 8 feet from the rear of the lots to the street. Commissioner Melcher felt a reasonable development of the lot would result in a grading configuration where a one-story house would be approximately 5 feet above the grade at the rear of the lot and a two-story house would perhaps be 10 to 15 feet above the grade. Chairman McNiel suggested that staff look at the debris in the wash. He said there is no guarantee to the right of a view and the legitimate way to protect a view would be to own the property. Mr. Pendleton stated that when they bought their house they were told there would be no changes inthe land now being considered for subdivision. He said that was one of the reasons they were told they had to give up 15 feet for the bridle trail. He said that was one of the deciding factors for buying their property. He did not feel the buyers would grade down, but would build up to the top of the slope. He thought a retaining wall would be needed at the edge of the bridle trail. Chairman McNiel stated a pad would have to be created to hold the house. Mr. Pendleton asked if any thought had been given as to where the houses will be placed and the effect upon the views of those houses located to the north. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the development is a custom lot subdivision. He suggested that Mr. Pendleton meet with staff to discuss the grading review process. Mr. Pendleton stated he was sure the people who buy the lots will build nice homes, but he did not want to look at their house all the time, he wanted to be able to still see the Chino Valley. He felt it would take away from the value of his property. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 23, 1991 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing Commissioner Vallette stated she was concerned with the potential layout of the homes and the view from homes to the north. She asked if it would be possible to require the homes be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Buller stated that would be an option for the Commission to discuss. Commissioner Melcher stated that the General Plan designation for the property is Very Low Residential. Therefore, he felt that since 1981 the eventual development of the property had been anticipated. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, reported that in 1978 the City adopted an interim General Plan which showed the same designation. Commissioner Melcher felt the proposed tract layout appeared to be properly laid out. He felt that if the Commission wanted to review the view corridors and the effect on the properties to the north, that such review should be conducted now on the basis of an assumed development scenario because once the lot lines were drawn, the house locations would be limited. He thought an exhibit could be prepared showing the relationship of the existing houses to the north to the map. However, he thought that was beyond the Commission's normal purview. Commissioner Vallette asked if the project could return to the Design Review process to show the relationship of the view corridors. Mr. Buller suggested that concept building envelopes and deed restrictions could be placed on the property. He said restrictions could be imposed beyond the standard side yard setbacks and maximum height allowed by Code. Chairman McNiel thought that to restrict the height of the building to salvage a view corridor for the benefit of a resident who has no entitlement would diminish the value of the properties and the community in total. Commissioner Vallette stated the area is zoned Very Low, and she felt the houses could be placed so as to maintain as much as possible of the present view corridors for the homes to the north. Mr. Buller stated that it is not usual for a custom lot subdivision to have building envelopes imposed. He said in the past the Commission had always assumed there is no inherent right to view corridors. He said if they wished to place such a condition, that the proposed building envelopes for each of the proposed parcels could be processed through the Design Review Committee prior to the recordation of the tract. Commissioner Vallette asked that the Commission be given documentation as to what the applicant had done to be sensitive to the view corridors. Mr. Buller suggested that such envelopes be placed with the recorded map as deed restrictions. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 23, 1991 Commissioner Vallette stated she understood the resident's concerns. She felt the Commission should do their best to preserve as much as possible of the view corridor. Commissioner Melcher stated that once the map is approved, the lot lines are cast and their very existence would begin to establish the envelopes. He felt it would be better to make the analysis before approval of the tract. Commissioner Chitlea stated that the proposal would affect many view corridors and she felt that could be addressed by the Design Review Committee. She thought that side yard setbacks would provide views between the homes. She did not favor limiting the homes to single-story houses and felt better view corridors would be provided if two-story homes were built with more open space between them. Chairman McNiel suggested a recess to allow time for wording of the proposed modification. The Planning Commission recessed from 7:52 p.m. to 7:58 p.m. Mr. Buller suggested wording to require that the proposed building envelopes for Lots 2 through 5 be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to recordation, particularly with respect to view corridors for houses to the north with appropriate deed restrictions recorded. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Wilson stated they would accept the condition. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette felt the condition would address her concerns. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14858 with modification to require that the proposed building envelopes for Lots 2 through 5 be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to recordation, particularly with respect to view corridors for houses to the north with appropriate deed restrictions recorded. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried Commissioner Melcher felt the tract should have been approved as presented and did not need additional review. , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 23, 1991 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-30 - TOMS - A request to establish a carpet store in a leased space of 1,500 square feet within an existing industrial building on 0.51 acres in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8714 Lion Street - APN: 209-013-28. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Michael and Michelle Toms, 9155 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they wished to relocate their business and scale down its size. They said they currently are located at in an industrial area and wish to remain in the General Industrial area because they need warehousing more than commercial. they agreed to the conditions. Commissioner Melcher asked if the installers take their vehicles home at night. Mr. Toms stated that was correct and there would be no overnight parking at the site. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-30. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried , , , , , Fe MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A request to modify a previously approved conditional use permit (Siam Garden Restaurant) to allow for the expansion of a restaurant and bar from 2,160 to 3,240 square feet and to permit live entertainment in conjunction with the restaurant and bar 'located within a commercial center in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN: 1077-621-34. Related file: Entertainment Permit 91-03. G® ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A request to conduct live music and entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant and bar (formerly Siam Garden Restaurant) within a commercial center in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN: 1077-621-34. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 88-45. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 23, 1991 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that a letter objecting to the project had been received from Play Co. Toys, another tenant in the project and a petition opposing the expansion and Entertainment Permit had been received from 50 residents of the Rancho Villas Apartments. Commissioner Vallette asked how the City would enforce the condition that restricted parking in the rear of the building to employees only. Mr. Coleman stated that customers were to only use the front door and the rear doors would be used only in an emergency. He said the use would be subject to monitoring and in answer to any complaints. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Fred "Skip" Nelson, 5514 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the owner and operator. He said he was available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Nelson agreed with the conditions of approval. Mr. Nelson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if any live entertainment was currently being offered. Mr. Nelson replied negatively. Gracie Whitefield, 8033 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lived at the Rancho Villas Apartments. She said the tenants were opposed to the expansion. She complained that on the previous Friday loud music could be heard until 1:00 a.m. Mr~ Nelson stated that under his current conditions of approval they can only operate until 11:00 p.m. and he closes his restaurant at 9:30 p.m. He said the music did not come from his restaurant and he only has a background music system. He said they did not have any open doors. He indicated there is a record store in the shopping center and during the last two months a lot of people have been congregating in the parking lot outside the record store and in front of the market. He said he had been told that the police had been called. Urai Nelson, 5514 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that one night recently her husband heard loud music coming from a party at a house to the northwest of the restaurant. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to comment on an article that appeared in the newspaper. He said the article appeared to indicate that because nearby residents live in an apartment, the effect would be less than elsewhere in the City. He said that if the application were approved, it Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 23, 1991 should be indicated that the Commission did not feel the effect would be less merely because it was adjacent to apartments rather than homes. He felt that apartment dwellers have the same rights as homeowners with regard to disturbances in the neighborhood. Chairman McNiel felt the floor plan was arranged well with the stage located in the front. He supported the application. Commissioner Vallette stated that the closest apartment building is approximately 110 feet from the rear of the commercial building. She agreed there was buffering provided by the garages, but noted that the garages are not continuous. She felt noise would reach the second story apartments. She said she would not want live entertainment and a bar 110 feet from her home. She did not feel the use was appropriate adjacent to a residential area. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the use was not appropriate because of the proximity to the apartments. She also felt the use was not appropriate near a toy store because of the children who frequent the store. Commissioner Vallette stated that as the City develops, larger commercial areas are being constructed. She felt the use would be appropriate adjacent to a business office use. She thought there should be a differentiation between a dinner house offering light entertainment as opposed to a night club. Chairman McNiel stated it was his understanding that the use will remain a dinner house. He reopened the public hearing. Mr. Nelson stated they operate as an upscale restaurant, not a bar. He said they will be changing the name from Siam Garden to Skipper's Grill and Bar in order to highlight the expanded menu which will include steak and seafood. He said they wanted to operate the bar as a convenience to their customers. He commented that the entertainment application was incidental to his business and they were not interested in loud, rowdy entertainment. He said they had not yet determined what type of entertainment to offer but it would not be rock and roll. He stated they had been in business for four years with no complaints. He felt that because they were located in a commercial zone they should be given an opportunity to show that they would continue to run a good business. Commissioner Melcher asked if it was necessary that both the modification to expand the business and the entertainment application be approved simultaneously. He thought perhaps the Planning Commission might approve the modification to the conditional use permit and get used to the facility operating until 2:00 a.m. and then later consider the entertainment permit. Mr. Nelson said that if he had to resubmit the entertainment permit at a later time the conditional use permit would again have to be modified and it is expensive and time consuming. He said he is first a restaurant operator and the other uses are incidental, but he felt he deserved a chance to prove himself. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 23, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked what a tie vote would mean. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that a tie vote would leave the matter open for another motion, including a motion to continue the matter until the absent Commissioner could be present. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He felt several issues needed to be considered. He felt that if drinking should not be allowed near a toy store because children congregate, then beer and wine should not have been permitted in Chuck E Cheese. He also stated that Chuck E Cheese is closer to residences and not as well buffered. He said the restaurant has already been selling alcoholic beverages, but they are prepared in the kitchen. He said that with a conditional use permit, the Commission would have an opportunity to review the use and possibly revoke the permit if the use were determined to be a problem. He did not feel the Commission should prejudge the applicant without giving him a chance. Commissioner Vallette stated she was not passing judgment on the applicant, but she was only addressing the compatibility of a bar and entertainment adjacent to a residential area. She felt it was not fair to impose the use upon the residents of the community. Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a bar at Noble House. Chairman McNiel responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher commented that a residential area is located immediately across the street. Mr. Buller said a preschool is located immediately north of the Noble House. Commissioner Vallette stated that Noble House is a dinner house atmosphere, which she felt is different from a bar with entertainment. Mr. Buller stated that Michael J's has a bar with entertainment and is located adjacent to a residential area. He suggested the Commission may wish to continue the matter in order to have all five Commissioners present. He stated the Commission could take separate action on the conditional use permit modification application by adding a condition that entertainment could be added by processing a separate entertainment permit without additional modification to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette stated she was opposed to the entertainment permit. She said she would not oppose the modification to the conditional use permit if the hours were restricted to a closing time of 11:00 p.m. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 with modifications to delete Condition 3 and change Condition 5 to prohibit entertainment unless an entertainment permit were separately approved by the Planning Commission. Motion failed to carry by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 23, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -failed Motion: Moved by Melcher to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 to November 13, 1991. .Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to see if the applicant would oppose continuance. Mr. Nelson questioned if the Commissioners would be willing to approve the expansion of the facility including the addition of the bar if he dropped the entertainment permit application. He said they had applied for a 2:00 a.m. closing because if they were to have entertainment, they may on occasions want to be open until 2:00 a.m. He said if they did not have the entertainment, it would not be necessary to have hours until 2:00 a.m. He said he currently has 11:00 p.m. as an acceptable closing time, but he closes at 9:30 p.m. He asked if the Commission could vote on the approval of the expansion if he were flexible on the entertainment. Commissioner Vallette asked if the applicant would like the Commission to vote on eliminating the entertainment and limiting the bar operating hours to ll:00 p.m. Mr. Nelson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher commented that if the applicant later re-applied for the entertainment permit, he would need to again modify the conditional use permit to extend the hours. Mr~ Nelson said he would like to be able to proceed with the expansion and have the entertainment permit voted upon when a full Commission was available. Mr. Buller said that the entertainment permit could not supercede the conditional use permit. He said that if the applicant wanted to extend the hours beyond 11:00 p.m. because of entertainment, the conditional use permit would have to again be modified. He did not recommend separating the two items if the applicant wanted to have later hours for entertainment. Mr. Nelson asked if the Commissioners would feel comfortable with a closing hour of midnight. He said Play Co. Toys had objected to the expansion and entertainment because they felt there would be noise and impacted parking. He stated that although parking is provided in the rear of the building for all of the shopping center employees, Play Co. allows their employees to park in the customer parking lot in the front. He said that Play Co. Toys closes at 9:00 p.m. and the entertainment would not start until 9:00 p.m. He said he had already been serving alcohol for the last three years and he now only wanted to add a physical bar. He said he would like to have the Commission vote on his expansion if at all possible and he requested that he be permitted to remain open until midnight. Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 23, 1991 Chairman McNiel did not feel the Commission should negotiate a different closing time. He felt that if the item were continued, the applicant could meet with staff to discuss closing time. Mr. Nelson requested that the items be continued. Chairman McNiel seconded Commissioner Melcher's motion to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 to November 13, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT , , COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NONE TOLSTOY -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.12,040 regarding bicycle storage requirements and Section 17.08.070 regarding trail maintenance requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from October 9, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III, Section IV.F regarding bicycle storage requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from October 9, 1991) Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He said that even without adoption of the amendments, many companies already have to provide storage facilities for bicycles because of Air Quality Management District (AQMD) requirements. Chairman McNiel asked if bicycle racks are currently reviewed in the Design Review process. He asked if there are are any code requirements with respect to bicycle racks. Mr. Coleman stated that currently staff handles the requirements at the plan check stage. He said the proposed amendments would establish City Code requirements so that the bicycle storage spaces would then be reviewed in the Design Review stage. Commissioner Melcher discussed the permitted reduction of automobile parking at a ratio of one space per every four bicycle spaces provided. Mr. Coleman responded that the reduction would apply only in the Industrial Specific Plan area. Commissioner Melcher felt the City should also encourage people to ride bicycles to offices. Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 23, 1991 Mr. Coleman stated that there is currently a provision in the Industrial Specific Plan and the wording would merely expand upon the requirements. He said that most of the office development is located in the Industrial area. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would not be possible to expand the requirement to other areas where there are office/professional buildings. Mr. Coleman stated that in some of the communities that staff studied, there was no distinction between commercial and industrial areas in terms of allowing the reductions. He said the Commission could adopt a similar provision for commercial zones. Commissioner Melcher did not feel it was appropriate for shopping centers except for possibly employee parking areas. Mr. Coleman stated that most of the parking in the commercial areas serves the customers, rather than employees. He said an exception would be the mixed use projects. He suggested that if the Commission wished to adopt a similar provision, that they lower the percentage of reduction. He recommended that the reduction only be used for office type complexes rather than general retail establishments. He said the City was trying to encourage bicycle commuting, which could also mean trips to shopping, schools, the library, etc. Commissioner Melcher felt that office uses outside of the Industrial area should qualify for a reduction but should not necessarily receive the full reduction where there are expected to be visitors to the office. He asked how much of a reduction staff felt would be reasonable. Mr. Coleman responded that staff had not considered the issue. He suggested a range of 5 to 10 percent for office development outside of the industrial area. Commissioner Melcher responded that if it had not been considered, he felt the idea should be further studied. He felt that bicycle parking will help induce the use of the bicycle trails. Mr. Coleman stated that one of the changes proposed in the Industrial Area Specific Plan was the requirement to provide locker rooms and showers for the employees in order to qualify for the reduction in automobile parking spaces. He said that would be difficult to do in the commercial areas. Commissioner Melcher felt the burden of providing showers may be excessive. He thought it could be done in an office building. He suggested the Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments, but still consider what else could be done. Mr. Buller suggested that, as time permits, staff could consider how office developments outside of the Industrial area could take advantage of the same provisions. He said staff would be addressing a lot of air quality issues in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 23, 1991 Chairman McNiel stated the City was trying to encourage the use of bicycles by mandating the provision of bicycle parking spaces, but he said the bicycle use itself cannot be assured. He questioned if it may be wise to maintain the number of automobile spaces because the bicycle spaces may not be used. Mr. Coleman stated that the surveys had indicated that most communities have a bicycle storage requirement above the automobile spaces without providing a reduction in automobile spaces. Commissioner Melcher stated the reduction would only be permitted when showers and lockers are provided. Mr. Coleman said that AQMD regulations are starting to have an effect because many companies have to provide plans indicating how they will cut down on the number of commuter trips to the office. He said some companies are purchasing bicycles and loaning them to employees or setting up programs for reduced price purchases, etc. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. closed the hearing. There were not comments, so he Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 91-04 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 91-05. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS J. MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS - (Oral Report) 1991.) (Continued from October 9, Commissioner Melcher stated it had been his idea to charge for individual meetings with developers on specific projects. He said upon further evaluation he was not sure it was a good idea but he felt it could be discussed. He said such meetings are now performed as a service to the developer when the Commissioners can accommodate such meetings. He thought perhaps a fee could be established for such meetings with the funds to be available for education of the Commissioners so they would become more proficient. He said that after further thought he did not with to continue to pursue the matter. Chairman McNiel agreed it was not something he could support. He thought the perception may not be good. Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 23, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea agreed and thought that people may not feel they receive their money's worth. She felt it could be misunderstood by the general public and the individual developers. Commissioner Vallette agreed. It was the consensus of the Commission to drop the idea. K. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the proposed pre-application review process had been discussed at the September 25, 1991, meeting. He said it was now necessary for the Subcommittee to report back to the full City Council. He asked if the process as outlined was something that the Commission was willing to support. Commissioner Chitiea thought the demands on the Planning Commission are already significant with one scheduled meeting per week and she felt that additional meetings requiring a quorum would be excessive. She felt staff has a very good grasp of the policies and past directions of the Commission and can give sufficient direction to applicants. She thought the process is unnecessary and she was opposed to the institution of it. Commissioner Vallette stated she understood why there was a request for pre- application reviews; however, she agreed that time is critical. She said a lot of time is spent by the Commissioners in not only attending meetings but also preparing for them. She questioned if a full Commission would be necessary. She suggested that only three Commissioners attend the pre- application review meetings and they do so on a rotating basis. Mr. Bullet stated there was nothing in the guidelines to mandate that all five Commissioners attend. He said staff intended to schedule the meetings in conjunction with Design Review Committee Meetings or Planning Commission Meetings. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if the reviews could be incorporated into the regular Design Review process, that would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel indicated the Subcommittee felt the program is experimental and should be tested. He said there should be no time spent by the Commissioners in preparing for the meeting because there would be no application and only concepts would be presented at the meeting. Commissioner Vallette asked if the workshop with Lincoln would be similar to what would be happening. Mr. Buller stated it may be similar. Commissioner Vallette stated she had to take time to prepare for that workshop. Planning Commission Minutes -16- October 23, 1991 Chairman McNiel stated that Lincoln had submitted plans and he did not feel plans would be submitted in advance for most pre-application projects. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the program was structured so that if an applicant submitted a fully developed set of plans, staff would advise them to pay the fees and make a formal application. He said the pre- application review would only be to review conceptual sketches. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there will be fees for the pre-application review. Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Commissioner Chitiea felt it was important that fees be collected because staff time would be needed. Commissioner Melcher stated the procedure will be optional. He felt that it will often happen when staff is at odds with the applicant and staff recommends that the applicant take advantage of the process. Mr. Bullet agreed that may be true. Commissioner Melcher felt that developers who have worked in the City on similar projects will probably never use the process. Mr. Coleman felt Lewis and Lyon would both use the process on their housing tracts, at least for multi-family projects. Commissioner Vallette asked if staff felt the direction on Lusk was sufficient. Mr. Buller fel~ that both the Lusk and Lincoln workshops appeared successful. He thought the Commission did well in indicating positions and issues. He felt those were good examples of how he would expect the pre-application process to work. Commissioner Chitiea asked about the Masi workshops. She felt they have become long, drawn-out sales pitches from the applicant. She thought workshops are not productive when applicants refuse to take direction. She did not feel such meetings are worthy of staff time outside of the process. Mr. Buller stated that one of the critical concerns is that there should be clear clarification as to what is expected of the reviews. He felt a disclaimer should be included with the reviews that they are only for concept and details would not be discussed. Commissioner Chitiea felt the reviews should not be a series of debates. She requested that a certain time be devoted to the applicant's presentation followed by a certain time for the Commission's response. She did not feel the applicant should then be returning to argue because they did not like the direction that was given. Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 23, 1991 Mr. Buller said the first goal was to limit the reviews to a half hour, but Lusk and Lincoln both took one hour. He thought perhaps a one-hour timeframe was more realistic. Commissioner Vallette felt there is sometimes too much negotiation during workshops. She liked using an outline and thought it is better if the Commission listens to the applicant's presentation and then comments. She did not feel each issue should be dissected and debated. Commissioner Melcher felt the outlines provide good discipline for the Commissioners as well. Mr. Buller said it is staff's intent to keep the meetings structured. He felt having a more formal setting would also give the meeting more structure. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there will be a limit on the number of times a project can go through the process. Mr. Buller said staff's intention is once. Commissioner Vallette suggested increased fees if an applicant wished to avail themselves of the process more than once on the same property. Chairman McNiel suggested that the process be limited to one pre-application review and then the applicant should submit a full application and pay the appropriate fees. Mr. Coleman stated it was written up as one pre-application review within a twelve month period. Commissioner Chitiea stated that otherwise an architect may want to return more often at the expense of the owner of the property. Mr. Coleman stated that applicants would still have the option of going through staff's preliminary review. Commissioner Chitiea said she had every confidence in staff's ability to relay the Commission's views. Commissioner Vallette felt that sometimes staff needs to have the backing of the Commission in order to get the point across to the applicant. Chairman McNiel stated that some applicants will not accept what staff says but want to hear direction from the next higher authority. He felt the Commission should refer the applicant back to staff in those instances. Mr. Buller asked if the Commissioners felt the approach of a pre-application review would be worth a six- or twelve-month trial with notation made of the concerns raised. Planning Commission Minutes -18- October 23, 1991 Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission review the process in six months to see if the process is worthwhile. He felt at that time a report should be made back to the City Council. Commissioner Chitiea felt that if the process were continued beyond six months, another report should be prepared in a year. Commissioner Vallette reiterated that the pre-application reviews should not be scheduled when it would require that the Commission meet two times in one week and that the scheduling time would be at the Commission's convenience, not necessarily the applicant's. Chairman McNiel agreed they should be scheduled in conjunction with other meetings that have light agendas. Commissioner Chitlea agreed that she was strongly opposed to additional meetings. Mr. Buller asked if the Commission wanted to give certain parameters on what types of projects the Commission would be willing to discuss. He questioned if the process should be used for such items as discussing an easement versus a flag lot on a two-lot parcel map. Commissioner Chitlea felt it should only be projects of a certain size. Mr. Bullet. suggested that wording be included in the intent section to establish that the process is meant for projects in key locations or those which make a significant impact on the character of a neighborhood. Commissioner Melcher suggested it also be used for projects which propose directions different from those of similar projects. Chairman McNiel felt size, unique characteristics, and the applicant's prior experience with the City should be considered. Mr. Buller said it would be difficult to exclude an applicant just because they had prior experience in the City. Chairman McNiel said that a developer who has extensive experience in the City and wants a pre-application review on a run-of-the-mill apartment project would be wasting the time of staff and the Commissioners. Mr. Buller said that the fee is expected to cover the costs. Commissioner Chitlea said it would not cover the Commissioners' time and she felt they give an enormous amount of time. Chairman McNiel felt the process should be used wisely. Mr. Buller suggested that the process be used if the application is departing from normal trends of previously approved projects or previous actions, policies, and goals of the Commission and City. Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 23, 1991 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. 9:45 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -20- October 23, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 17, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer , , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE - Review of architectural details and on-site amenities for a 60-acre commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevarc: Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Jim Bickel, Strock Architects, explained the elements of the design booklet prepared for the commissioners. These elements will establish the theme for the remaining buildings of the center. After much discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the elements proposed by the applicant were unacceptable and that significant revisions should be made to address the following concerns: A. Architecture 1. Form and Mass - ae While the diagonal placement of the towers elements was unique, the Commission questioned how it would attach to the main buildings. Plan view drawings should be provided at the next workshop. The proportions of the tower elements should be completely reworked. The massing of the upper and lower portions of the towers did not coincide. c. The same level of quality detailing should be provided on the towers as was used on the main buildings. d. The design of the major buildings did not provide sufficient architectural relief, especially the front elevations. 2. Materials - a. A color board should be provided for the next workshop. B. Landscaping 1. Pedestrian scale amenities should be provided across the entire site to "tie"' the center together. 2. One consistent style should be established for the street furniture. 3. The design of the activity center should be reviewed at the time of design review for the building. 4. Detail plans should be submitted to define the hardscape elements (i.e., sandblast finish, smooth finish, colored concrete, etc.). 5. A Eucalyptus tree should be utilized along the southern edge of the site. C. Amenities 1. Plans for the trash enclosure and parking lot lighting should be provided at the next workshop. The information provided to address the integral public art was referred to staff for further review and presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 17, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 16, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT: Bill Alexander STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-14 - LUSK - The development of a 97 acre industrial master plan within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 16) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 26, 31, 32, and 33. OTHERS PRESENT: Lloyd Zola and Candida Neal, Planning Network; Opanyi Nasiali, The Lusk Company; Tom Blessent and Albert Blessent, Tom Blessent Associates An introduction to the project was provided by Lloyd Zola who explained that the concept for the project consisted of a custom lot sales program. He explained that a master plan based on a relatively detailed site plan would be a problem for The Lusk Company. He said it would be difficult for them to relate such a detailed plan to a user who is not present at this time. Mr. Zola questioned whether or not the Planning Commission would be comfortable with written guidelines rather than a "drawn picture" and whether or not the land use limitations proposed would be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned how a potential buyer would know if he would be compatible or fit in with the center without more guidelines than those proposed. Mr. Zola indicated that he felt the written guidelines would be adequate for this purpose. Brad Buller, City Planner, questioned the applicant if this type of concept had actually been implemented anywhere else so that the Commission and staff could actually visit a site. Mr. Nasiali indicated that the project east and south of Ontario Airport (California Commerce Center) was an example. He said an association now .enforces the guidelines, but the guidelines were formerly enforced by California Commerce Center. Chairman McNiel indicated he felt that strictly written guidelines would be difficult for the inexperienced buyer/builder to visualize and implement. Mr. Nasiali indicated that the guidelines were intended to be descriptive yet clear. Chairman McNiel felt that the future owners could be frustrated by the guidelines proposed. Mr. Zola indicated he was sensitive to-this problem and that the guidelines for the California Commerce Center and Commerce Center South were very general and they needed to go a step further. Chairman McNiel questioned if a parcel map would be submitted concurrently with the master plan. Mr. Zola responded in the affirmative and indicated that the use of the building and the square footage requirements would identify for the user what parcel would be appropriate for various uses. Chairman McNiel indicated that inexperienced builders would need more specificity in the guidelines than what had been presented. Commissioner Vallette questioned whether it would be possible for a builder to put parking only on one parcel. She felt that this would not be appropriate and the City needed assurances that it would be a flowing center. She thought each lot should be looked at as a whole unit. Mr. Buller questioned whether the lot sizes proposed are similar to the lot sizes at the California Commerce Center. Mr. Nasiali indicated that they were similar. Mr. Buller suggested that the applicant submit a parcel map of the California Commerce Center and the corresponding guidelines so that the Commission could compare this with how the site actually looks on the ground and in turn contrast it with the project site at Archibald and 4th Street. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 16, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy felt it was important that the "Not A Part" parcels be considered as well as the triangular piece of land to the west. Commissioner Melcher felt that there were two big issues facing the Commission: He felt it was appropriate that development be approached in this manner but that a clear set of documents was needed to provide sufficient guidelines. He felt that this document was a long way from providing the necessary information. He also felt that the master developer should be required to provide the necessary information and that all streets, infrastructure, and landscaping should go in upfront. Commissioner Chitiea thought the entire circulation pattern should relate to each individual parcel and that the project should not be piecemeal. Mr. Nasiali indicated that he would provide a tour of the California Commerce Center if the Commissioners were interested. It was the consensus of the Commission that a field trip would be a good idea. It was suggested that the applicant submit the requested material identified by Mr. Buller and that Mr. Buller then contact the Commissioners to arrange a field trip. Commissioner Melcher suggested it might be appropriate to place a requirement that each lot be designed by a registered architect. Mr. Buller reported that the Industrial Specific Plan has minimum requirements for master plans which must be met. He conveyed the Commissioners' collective reluctance to buy off on something written rather than illustrative. He felt that an actual site visit of built projects might help. Commissioner Chitiea felt the location was significant and, therefore, must be cohesive and attractive. She felt this was not the appropriate location to try something experimental. She did not want too many of the design decisions postponed to some future date. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the building architectural guidelines were too vague and did not provide specific enough information regarding entry and facade articulation, building materials, mass, and form. Chairman McNiel indicated he felt that what had been presented thus far would be advantageous to the developer but less than advantageous to the City, because there were no assurances as to how the site would actually be developed. Brad Buller introduced Albert and Thomas Blessent, who are adjacent property owners. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 16, 1991 Mr. Blessent indicated the following concerns with the proposal: 1. The guidelines appear unclear, and the City may not get what it wants in this instance; Small lots are not desirable in this location; Circulation portion of the master plan needs work in order to relate to adjacent properties; 4) He and other adjacent property owners were not notified by The Lusk Company of the proposal. , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15359 - LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of 264 apartment units on 15.09 acres of land within the Medium and Medium High Residential Districts (8-14 dwelling units per acre and 14-24 dwelling units per acre, respectively) in the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. OTHERS PRESENT: Scot Sellers and Kevin Hampton, Lincoln Property Company; Jamie Starck, Bowlus, Edinger and Starck Architects; Dan Richards, Stephen Daniels Commercial Brokerage. Brad Buller, City Planner, briefly stated the purpose and objectives of this pre-application workshop and provided a background on the status of the proposed land use amendment for the southern 10 acres of this site. Mr. Bullet indicated that the density of this portion of the site should be addressed in redesigning the project, in conjunction with the direction given by the commissioners during the course of the workshop. Scot Sellers, Lincoln Property Company, summarized the history of the project and explained how the project was redesigned to address the issue of transition of density with adjacent single family detached residential projects. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any single story buildings were included in the revised project design. Mr. Sellers responded that there were not. Jamie Starck, Bowlus, Edinger and Starck Architects, presented an overview of the revised site plan, emphasizing how additional common open space was created within the project. He attributed the extra open space to the use of tuck-under garages and plotting buildings at the project's perimeters, thereby providing open parking areas and common open space within the interior of the project. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the applicant about the perimeter fencing material. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 16, 1991 Mr. Sellers stated a preference for open fencing wherever possible along the Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue frontages. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, clarified that the ultimate wall design will be determined by a final noise study, which may require portions or all of the streetscape walls to be of solid material and of considerable height for noise attenuation. Mr. Starck summarized the main elements and details of the new architectural concept and indicated the location of all three-story buildings on the site plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Starck to explain what he felt were the outstanding assets of the project, separating it from the typical apartment project. Mr. Starck replied that the outstanding assets were the tuck-under parking for all units which allows for a greater amount of open space and a major recreation area; the perception of the project from the perimeter which mitigates views of parking courts and creates an internal "village" atmosphere. Chairman McNiel questioned the proposed color scheme for the buildings. Mr. Starck stated the proposed color scheme was depicted on the elevations as closely as.possible. Commissioner Chitiea asked Mr. Starck to explain the relationship of the proposed architectural scheme to the California Bungalow architectural style. Mr. Starck referenced material use, such as the roof material, exposed open beams, and rafter tails and porch/patio locations for examples comparable to California Bungalow architecture. Also, he noted the overall simplicity of the architectural scheme was consistent with California Bungalow style architecture. Commissioner Tolstoy summarized his concerns with the proposed project design. He objected to the large and long parking courts, which create large hot asphalt areas on the interior of the project. He was concerned that the large recreational area was not centrally located for all residents, but he understood the reasoning for its placement with the current plan (for density transition). He also felt the straightness of the buildings as seen from Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue would appear mundane. Commissioner Tolstoy recommended that the development team review the proposed plans for buildings within Central Park, paying special attention to detailing, material use, color and building form. He also reiterated his desire to see water used in the open space area of the plan. Mr. Sellers stated that the plans for Central Park were taken into consideration with the current project design. He also expressed concern with evaporation created by the use of a water element. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 16, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that he felt the site plan was too rigid. Commissioner Vallette expressed her concerns with the project. She did not feel it was appropriate to have a drive aisle adjacent to the single family development east of the project. She thought the massing of the buildings is not in proportion with adjacent single family residences. She also felt a more substantial entry statement should be incorporated into the Milliken Avenue project entrance. She suggested that greater attention be devoted to clustering and angling of the buildings and that the architecture be more compatible with the Central Park Library. Commissioner Vallette liked the variation of the roof planes, the tuck-under garages, and the screened open parking area concept. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested a more curvilinear plotting of parking areas to reduce the apparent length of the parking courts. Commissioner Chitiea shared similar concerns with the site plan design ae did Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette (i.e. straightness of buildings, massing next to single family residences, etc.). She suggested that single story buildings be incorporated into the project design adjacent to single family development and that large areas of open parking should be split into smaller, more equally accessible parking courts. She felt the architecture had a somber, austere appearance and an overall institutional feel and more movement of the buildings should be created along Baseline and Milliken. She suggested that the architect look closely at the traditional elements of California Bungalow architecture if this style is pursued. Finally, she agreed with Commissioner Vallette that a more substantial Milliken Avenue entry statement should be provided. Commissioner Melcher offered suggestions to improve the proposed project. However, he felt there were elements incorporated into the project that have merit and the physical configuration on the interior of the project was unique to the City. He compared the "simple" architecture to prairie style architecture and appreciated the architect's attempt to do something different. However, he suggested that the color scheme was too dark and somber and should be lightened to be similar to the color scheme for buildings within Central Park. He liked the interior streetscape concept, but acknowledged the trade off for less landscaping between buildings and felt the concept became convoluted in the southern portion of the site. Finally, he was concerned that specific patios will have views of parking court areas only. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher that the general approach to the design of the site plan was refreshing, since it allowed for opportunities to create an open environment inside the project. He favored the stepped garage/drive concept, which helps reduce the "sterility" of the garage side elevations. Chairman Melcher clarified that he too liked the stepped garage/drive concept, but noted the tradeoffs mentioned earlier for the record. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 16, 1991 Chairman McNiel reinforced that the issue of building movement along Base Line and Milliken should be studied. Also, he agreed that the color scheme appeared "drab" and the buildings were void of significant detail. He appreciated the move away from the spanish style architecture typical of a majority of apartment projects in the City. Mr. Buller summarized the main issues from the meeting and briefly explained that a master plan for the 5 acre property to the north will be required, which, if access through this project is necessary, may change the site plan. He felt that the general direction from the Commission was to look closely at the architecture for buildings within Central Park and other developments within Victoria in close proximity to the project. Commissioner Melcher asked the architect to pay special attention to building scale when redesigning the buildings. Commissioner Chitlea agreed and felt that the human scale the buildings present was important. Mr. Buller suggested the use of three story buildings be limited to the interior portions of the site. , , , , ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 16, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 9, 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: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren Associate Planner , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that Items G and Q would be considered at the same time. Mr. Buller stated that the meeting should adjourn to a Workshop to be held at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 16, 1991. · , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of September 11, 1991, as amended. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae SUMMARY VACATION OF ORCHARD AVENUE - A request to vacate Orchard Avenue from Tetra Vista Parkway East to approximately 220 feet south westerly - APN: 227-151-27. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS Be ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-038 to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991.) Ce ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991.) Chairman McNiel stated that the City would like to continue the items until November 13, 1991, because of a pending lawsuit. He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak who would not be available on November 13, 1991. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-038, Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 9, 1991 Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to November 13, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-29 - DR. SHAMSELDIN GOUDA, DVM - A request to establish a veterinary hospital in a leased space of 2,673 square feet within the existing Vineyards Marketplace on 12.79 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan located at the southwest corner of Woodruff and Highland - APN: 227-011-25. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the applicant was planning to be open on Sunday. Ms. Hernandez stated the applicant had not requested hours of operation on Sunday; however, the resolution stated a request had been made to have hours of 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sundays. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it would be appropriate to delete the reference to Sunday hours from the Resolution. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dr. Shamseldin Gouda, DVM, 1245A North Grove, Ontario, stated he had been practicing veterinary medicine in Ontario since 1983. He said he would like to open another office in Rancho Cucamonga because a large number of his clients come from the City. He said the office would eventually be his main branch. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated it should be understood that if the resolution were changed to delete the Sunday hours, the office would not have the flexibility to be open. Dr. Gouda stated that he would be going to the office on Sundays only to treat any animals. He said he did not plan to have office hours on Sundays. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-29. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 9, 1991 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28 - WASHINGTON - A request to establish a furniture refinishing business within a leased space of 3,475 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial complex within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9497 9th Street, Suite A - APN: 209-032-24. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the applicant would be utilizing a spray paint booth. Mr. Grahn replied that the Fire District had reviewed the operation, but the applicant subsequently indicated they would not be using spray paint. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have to issue permits for the use of solvents. Commissioner Vallette questioned which space the applicant will occupy. Mr. Grahn stated the applicant had originally requested a different suite, but the latest information that staff had received indicated the facility would be located in the northeast corner of Building A. Commissioner Melcher questioned the provisions for disposing of waste materials resulting from the operation and if the facility will comply with the City's Air Quality Element. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the City's Air Quality Element has not yet been adopted by the City Council. He stated another furniture refinishing facility had recently been approved and he recalled that the Building & Safety Department checked for compliance with AQMD and EPA regulations. Commissioner Melcher asked if the four additional parking spaces that were to be created had been established and if the use which required the spaces existed. Mr. Grahn responded that the parking spaces had not yet been created. He said tenant improvements permits had been issued for the office but it was not in use as yet. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 9, 1991 Cornelius Washington, 3348 Stoddard, San Bernardino, questioned if his Conditional Use Permit was approved. Chairman McNiel stated a question had been raised about whether the firm had to comply with regulations from AQMD or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Washington stated that he was under the impression when he applied for his Conditional Use Permit that the Conditional Use Permit was needed to have a spray booth. He said when they were informed of the requirements for a spray booth by the Fire Department, they decided not to use a spray booth, but to do all work by brush. Chairman McNiel asked if the materials being used are all authorized by the AQMD. Mr. Washington stated that as of last year it was permitted to use the products so long as a spray booth was not used. He was not sure if there were any new requirements. He said they would not have much waste. He indicated they have a linen service which takes the soiled rags away. Commissioner Vallette asked for clarification on the address. Mr. Washington thought the address is 9495 Ninth Street. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that staff determine who is responsible for seeing that AQMD regulations are met and how the waste materials are disposed of. He asked that if any similar activities are considered, that those questions be answered in the staff report. Chairman McNiel stated that new products are being developed every day. Mr. Bullet suggested that staff forward a memo to the Commissioners regarding the processing of this type of facility regarding AQMD and EPA regulations. He stated that even gas stations are subject to similar requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission would like to know that such requirements have been investigated. Commissioner Melcher suggested adding a condition requiring compliance with AQMD standards. Chairman McNiel did not feel such additional language was necessary because he felt the AQMD keeps close tabs on businesses. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that the Commission should obtain a report from the Fire District or Building & Safety staff on the process such an application must go through. He said it is normally handled as part of the Fire District review. He indicated that there are also Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 9, 1991 requirements for Hazardous Materials Business Plans and inventories, so that the AQMD has several ways of determining what is being stored or used. He reported that any language added to the resolution would not be stronger than the AQMD's regulatory powers. Commissioner Melcher felt it would be appropriate during the process to alert applicants that they must investigate AQMD regulations. He suggested it may be handled as a public information item at the counter. Me felt that would be supportive of the City's efforts to provide cleaner air. Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Melcher felt a condition needed to be added to the resolution. Commissioner Melcher did not feel that was necessary. Chairman McNiel felt information should be provided at the counter and also returned to the Commission. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-28. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES= COMMISSIONERSt CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT= COMMISSIONERSt NONE -carried , , · , , Ge VARIANCE 91-10 - RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER - A request to allow a third monument sign and a combined total of four signs within the existing Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street within the Tetra Vista Planned Community - APN: 227-771-01. AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER - A request to amend the sign program to add a third monument sign within the existing Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street within the Tetra Vista Planned Community - APN: 227-771-01. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Bill Neuman, Administrator for Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, 7777 Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff for their assistance and requested approval. Chairman McNiel stated that when signs had previously been considered by the Planning Commission, it was the general concurrence that the entire sign program, including the directional signs, needed reworking. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 9, 1991 Mr. Neuman stated they felt there is adequate signage on site, but he was concerned about driveway signs and easy identification from the street. He requested a corner sign to allow southbound travelers on Milliken to have easier identification. He felt the building has sufficient signage from the south side, but not from the north side. Chairman McNiel stated he needed to know the justification for the request. Mr. Neuman stated they had treated several individuals in emergency situations · and he feared people may have difficulty in finding the hospital. Commissioner Melcher asked if the horizontal ribs depicted on the exhibit will be added to frame the sign. Mr. Neuman responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher commented that he understood the sign will consist of 9-inch tall letters, which are painted and will be illuminated by low fluorescent lights. He said that appeared to be a different sign from what had previously been requested. Mr. Neuman stated that they had originally requested two signs including an urgent care sign. He said they now feel it is more important to identify the center as a medical center. He introduced Paul Eaton from Ontario Neon to discuss the sign. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Buckingham stated that the sign design was conceptual and will be reviewed in detail by staff and approved by the City Planner for its consistency with the sign program. Commissioner Melcher supported the request and he felt the sign concept was acceptable. Commissioner Chitiea felt the sign would be appropriate because of the distance of the present signs from the intersection and the difficulty in identifying the center when proceeding south on Milliken. Commissioner Tolstoy also supported the request. Commissioner Vallette stated she supported the sign. She asked what would be placed in the planters by the sign. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the design called for annual flowers. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 91-10 and to approve the sign program amendment. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 9, 1991 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried He MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 - PITASSI-DALMAU - A request to modify the previous approval to provide for the phased development of a 45,150 square foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of land in the Recreation Commercial designation of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located on the' east side of Milliken Avenue north of Church Street - APN: 227-151-13. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and showed slides depicting the proposed phases of construction. Chairman McNiel asked if the phasing program would alter the ultimate structure of the building. Mr. Murphy responded negatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the ultimate build-out of the structures will be the same as originally approved. He said they had broken the construction phases into five phases to make the project feasible. He thanked staff and the Design Review Committee for additional clarification that the applicant will have complied with the intent of the .time limit restrictions once building permits have been issued for Phase 1. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the temporary exterior of the building would be treated where a subsequent phase would eventually be joined to the building. He said he hoped it would not be covered with plywood. Mr. Pitassi responded that plywood would not be used. He stated that a temporary stud and plaster wall will be finished with stucco to match the same banding and color scheme as the rest of the building. He said that when the temporary wall is taken down, a permanent tilt-up wall will replace it. He said all temporary walls will have a finished appearance. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the facility is needed in the City and the City should do anything possible to accelerate the process. Chairman McNiel felt that once building has begun, the funding will increase. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 9, 1991 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-42. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - A request to establish a gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.083 acre parcel in the Medium Residential designation, (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 13987. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 1,083 acre parcel for the development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 91-20. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if there was access to the housing development through the southern driveway. Mr. Murphy replied that the plane depict an emergency access. He said the master plan shows two points of access coming off the future street, which the Fire District feels is sufficient, and therefore the access from the service station driveway will be an extra access. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be access from Rochester. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated staff had suggested an access from Rochester but the applicant had not proposed one. Mr. Murphy stated the master plan is purely conceptual and any proposals would have to processed through the Planning Commission. Mr. Hanson stated that staff would be concerned about mixing residential traffic with the service station traffic. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 9, 1991 George Theodorou, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Shell Oil. He stated the design of the service station is atypical of a retail service station and was the result of many months of working with the Planning and Engineering staff. He said they had provided the reverse station design in conformance with the City's policy. He stated the architecture was meant to coordinate with Terra Vista as a whole and also with Central Park Plaza. He indicated the gullwing design for ingress/egress was selected to mitigate traffic impacts with right-turn lanes provided into both driveways to provide safe ingress/egress. He stated they were working with the adjacent property owner and it did not appear it would be necessary to provide access to the residential area. He said the gullwing design had provided enhanced landscaping area. He said the pump islands are approximately 100 feet from the property lines and high density shrubs would be placed along the perimeter of the property. He stated the topography and landscaping would screen the view from the street. He reported there was an approximate 3-foot grade separation between the property and the adjacent future residential area. He proposed dense, tall trees adjacent to the future residences. He felt the station will serve a need in the community for increased competition. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the applicant had considered a traditional station with the pumps facing the street for this site. Mr. Theodorou responded negatively. He said they felt the reversed station design would be appropriate in light of other stations in the community. Commissioner Melcher stated that across the intersection there is an existing walled residential project which provided separation from the site. He felt the future residential projects would also be walled. He thought it may be appropriate to turn the station around to face the street and screen it from the adjoining future residential use to the south. Mr. Theodorou stated they had been directed to reverse the station. He felt that with residential projects on the adjacent three corners, the proposed design may be visually more harmonious with the other corners. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission has given direction that service stations should not face streets. Commissioner Vallette stated that one of the concerns raised at the Design Review Committee meeting was the south property line. She commented that the driveway crosses property which is not owned by the applicant. Mr. Theodorou stated there had been extensive negotiations between Shell and Lewis Homes and Shell will be obligated to maintain the easement in perpetuity. Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they had been working with Shell Oil over the last year and had worked closely under the direction of staff. He felt the Base Line and Rochester intersection will be a high-traffic intersection. He thought there is a shortage of service Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 9, 1991 stations in the City, particularly in this area of the community, and the need will grow over time. He stated they did not plan to construct the neighboring residential area until at least 1993 and the residential parcel could be conditioned to provide additional barriers, architectural, and landscaping details to further buffer the site. He stated that Lewis is by nature a residential developer and they would not sacrifice the character of the residential area for a 1-acre service station. He felt the land use is compatible and that all of the concerns could be mitigated. .Chairman McNiel commented that once the service station is approved, the developer may pursue a change of zoning on the adjacent property to make it more compatible. He stated that he would not support such a land use change and buffering would be crucial from both parcels. Mr. Mager felt there was adequate buffering proposed from the Shell property, but they expected buffering would also be addressed when they processed the residential property. He stated Lewis Homes had no desire to change the surrounding land use from residential. He said that the Terra Vista Community Plan amendment in 1988 defined Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road as key arterials and the plan required service station uses to be adequately buffered. Chairman McNiel questioned the proposed emergency driveway access and the southern driveway. Mr. Mager responded that Shell Oil had originally proposed a 3/4-acre service station site. He said they determined it would not be possible to design a project the Planning Commission would support on such a small parcel and therefore, the proposed parcel is now slightly larger than 1 acre. He said they did not want a shared driveway with the residential area and they had proposed an emergency access at the request of the Fire District. He said Shell has indicated they cannot afford to also purchase the land containing the proposed southern driveway and had proposed an easement which they would be obligated to maintain in perpetuity. Chairman McNiel asked how much land would be added to the Shell parcel if they purchased the land containing the proposed driveway. Mr. Theodorou replied approximately 1/4 acre. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be appropriate to address by minute action the future relationship between the service station property and the adjoining residences. He felt it should be noted that the Commission would be looking for adequate buffering and the Terra Vista Specific Plan requires separation by a street, additional landscape setback, or other buffer. He felt the Commission should require a separation equal to the width of the wider of the two streets on which the service station fronts plus the normal residential setback between the service station property line and the nearest residential unit. He felt that Lewis Homes should be required to completely solve the access problems, including emergency access for the residential area, irrespective of the service station site so there would not be gates or Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 9, 1991 any other means of ingress or egress on the southerly driveway. the applicant felt such conditions were acceptable. He asked if Commissioner Vallette asked if the Fire Department had seen the site plan with the driveway. Mr. Murphy said the Fire Department had indicated the emergency access from the service station would not be needed. He said there were two other access points for the residential tract on the master plan. Mr. Mager stated they did not object to deletion of the emergency access from the service station to the residential area. He suggested continuing the matter to permit Lewis Homes to look at the number of units that may be lost if the Commission were to require the setbacks suggested by Commissioner Melcher. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the setback suggested by Commissioner Melcher would probably equal 120-150 feet. He said he would like Lewis's design people to look at the project. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that it would not be acceptable to move all of the open space for the residential project to this location. Mr. Oleson agreed, and stated the residential parcel would be subject to multi-family standards. He requested that the Planning Commission recommend an exception to the Terra Vista Planned Community Street Improvement Implementation Policy to exempt the requirement for construction of the west half of Rochester Avenue from Base Line Road to Church Street. Michael Roberts, 7349 Fennel Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated there are currently residences in place on the southeast corner of Rochester and Base Line. He commented that unfortunately most of the residents were not told of the meeting. He appreciated the Commission's concern for future residential development. He felt Base Line and Milliken would be a more logical site for a service station. He said there are three school bus stops on Rochester. He stated that the neighboring residents would be subject to fumes from any gasoline spills. He indicated there is a proposed future high school in the area and he did not think the site is appropriate for a service station. He requested that all residents in the neighborhood be given announcements of any future meetings. Chairman McNiel stated that the legal notifications had been sent to the property owners within a 500-foot radius. Mr. Roberts stated his house should have received a notice, but he had not. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy stated the Planning Commissioners had three options: (1) If they felt comfortable with the land use, they could continue the item to revise the plans, return to Design Review, and the full Commission; (2) If they agreed Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 9, 1991 with the land use and felt the conditions could address the Design Review Committee's concerns, they could direct staff to return with a resolution of approval for adoption at the next meeting; or (3) if they did not feel comfortable with the use, they could direct staff to return with a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had been on the Design Review Committee and had expressed some concerns. She felt it would be appropriate for the more intense user to provide the major mitigation measures. She questioned if such an intense use should be adjacent to residences. She felt it would be difficult to mitigate intermittent noise from radios and vehicles. She did not feel it would be appropriate to turn the station around to face the intersection in order to provide additional buffering to the adjacent neighborhood. She agreed that service stations are necessary, but did not feel this particular location is appropriate. Commissioner Melcher stated he was greatly concerned about the question of land use. He said service stations, along with related uses of mini-market and car wash, are conditionally permitted according to the 1989 amendment to the Terra Vista Community Plan. He questioned the appropriateness of a mini- market because of the proximity of shopping facilities less than 3/4 mile away. He also questioned the need for a car wash, but stated he understood the need for competitiveness. He indicated he had visited the Shell station in Moreno Valley that had been referenced at the Design Review Committee Meeting and he thought the station was well done but may experience traffic problems. He did not feel the project was ready for final action, but thought it should return to the Design Review Committee before returning to the full Commission. He agreed the City needs additional service stations and felt the location was good. Commissioner Vallette thought that if the station were approved, it should carry the major burden of providing a buffer to the future residential area. She did not feel the site is appropriate because of visibility from a residential area, light, and noise. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the location was appropriate because it is a major intersection and he agreed that the City needs more stations. He thought both parcels should be involved with the buffering. He commented that the applicant had reported there was not enough money in Shell's budget to provide enough land to support the station. He thought it was necessary to provide a large enough property to contain all of the driveways, uses, and adequate buffering. He felt the design still needed a lot of work. Chairman McNiel asked the width of Rochester. Mr. Hanson replied it is 72 feet from curb to curb in a 100-foot right of way. Chairman McNiel stated he was not convinced the location is inappropriate for a service station; however, he felt it is a sensitive area. He was puzzled that Shell Oil was not willing to purchase an additional 1/4 acre to accommodate the driveway because he felt the current plan may lead to problems Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 9, 1991 in the future. He thought adequate buffering may be possible, but wanted it shown on the plans. He was not sure the applicant knew what buffering would be needed to mitigate effects on future residences. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there appeared to be two Commissioners who felt the use was not appropriate for this location, two who felt the use was appropriate, and one who felt the use may be appropriate but there were major design issues. He said it would be a judgment call on the part of the applicant as to whether they should proceed. Chairman McNiel asked if any of the Commissioners agreed with the proposed easement for the driveway. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that the concept was not acceptable. Chairman McNiel stated that the City needs service stations, but he felt the design problems for the site must be addressed. Commissioner Vallette felt the plan called for too much on such a small site and she felt it was too close to a residential area. She felt the applicant should seek a larger site. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed a larger site would be better. Commissioner Chitiea felt the site would have to increase significantly. Commissioner Vallette asked if the other Commissioners agreed the proposed parcel is not large enough. Chairman McNiel felt there was such a consensus. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about a mini-market and thought a full- service station may be more appropriate for the location. Mr. Murphy stated a full service station would introduce other noise factors, such as jacks, equipment, etc. Commissioner Melcher felt it should be noted that a site at Base Line and Milliken had been previously considered for a service station, and it was determined that was not a suitable site. He suggested a finding that the use is appropriate subject to adequate size, having all ingress/egress on site, making a substantial contribution to the buffering, and deletion of the mini- market. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Melcher suggested the item may have to be readvertised. Mr. Buller stated that a neighborhood meeting had been held but no one showed up. He thought it may be appropriate to send out additional notices. He said staff would be sure that the residents in the Rochester tract are notified. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 9, 1991 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to find that the use is appropriate subject to adequate size, having all ingress/egress on site, making a substantial contribution to the buffering, and deletion of the mini- market and to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91- 20 and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13987 to December ll, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried The Planning Commission recessed from 9:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-20 - RANCON REALTY FUND III - The development of a 31 acre office park master plan within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Civic Center Drive between White Oak Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 208-352-23, 24, 25, 49, and 50. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP 13611 - RANCON REALTY FUND III - A subdivision of 31 acres of land into 18 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Civic Center Drive between White Oak Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 208-352-23, 24, 25, 49, and 50. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and showed documents depicting the conceptual pedestrian plaza as previously approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel asked if the deletion of the monument signs had altered the entries in terms of landscaping. Mr. Grahn stated the design changed somewhat. He said the grading plan and parcel map do not indicate a significant grade change between the corner and the street. He stated the applicant had been asked to prepare the additional exhibits shown on page 36 of the design guidelines showing increased landscaped setbacks and buffers to be included at the intersections. Commissioner Vallette asked if a building would be constructed right behind the plaza. She indicated one was shown on the master plan for the plaza but was not shown on the site plan. Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 9, 1991 Mr. Grahn stated the original application provided for the development of the medical complex, but phase II was developed at the same time the second master plan was submitted which provided for a three-story building immediately behind the plaza area. He reported that the new master plan submitted by Rancon reestablishes building orientation and layout and does not depict the three-story building. Commissioner Vallette asked if current plaza designs were requested at the last Design Review Committee meeting. She felt the layout of the plaza will be affected by the building layout. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that one of the goals for including the concept drawings for the plaza was to highlight the original quality which was approved. He said the intent was that there will be a decorative wall treatment to enclose the plaza area and a high-quality fountain/art area. Chairman McNiel stated the screen wall was required to conceal the truck activities and a tank located behind the plaza area. Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to see updated plans. Mr. Grahn stated the conditions of approval require the applicant to submit specifics of the plaza design for approval by the design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. Buller stated the Commission was being asked to approve the design guidelines and master plan which would establish the guidelines for the actual submittals of the various phases. Commissioner Melcher commented that the conditions require completion of the pedestrian plaza prior to occupancy. He stated that would necessitate construction on property which the applicant did not control. He asked if the applicant had agreed to the condition. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the parking stall dimensions would need to be revised if the City Council adopted the Planning Commission recommendation to delete compact parking. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any proposed building to the north would not be cut off from the plaza by the screen wall. Mr. Buller stated the applicant was no longer proposing a building to the north. He said there was a potential that the building configuration will change with the building to the west of the existing hospital project, but the tank, storage area, and the area behind the existing hospital will not change so there would still be a need for a screen wall. He said the Commission was only being asked to approve that there will continue to be a plaza in the area and that it will be very high quality. He stated the exact plaza design can not be approved until the actual configuration of the final building is determined. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -16- October 9, 1991 Rod MacDonald, Rancon Realty Fund III, 27720 Jefferson Road, Temecula, stated it was his understanding that the documents being presented had been previously approved by the Commission and it had been suggested at the Design Review Committee meeting that the documents be attached to the application. He said they were in agreement with the idea for the plaza and had designed their site plan around it. He stated it was his understanding that the City had an agreement with the owner of the adjacent property that they would build their portion of the plaza at the time Rancon builds the other portion of the plaza. Chairman McNiel indicated he had heard that the adjacent property owner was experiencing financial difficulties. He asked if it was a safe assumption that they would be able to build their portion. Mr. MacDonald stated he had not had direct contact with the new property owner after the sale. He suggested that they sit down with staff to develop a scenario to build the plaza as quickly as possible. Chairman McNiel asked about the relationship of the two buildings. Mr. MacDonald replied that Rancon agreed with the Design Review Committee that the relationship of the buildings and the symmetry around the buildings has to be maintained regardless of the two ownerships. He said it was their intent to make the buildings sister buildings. He thanked the Commissioners and staff for their input on the Design Guidelines. Chairman McNiel stated that based on Rancon's reputation, he felt the project would be successful. Hearing no further testimony, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher questioned why the applicant was being asked to construct the Foothill Boulevard median between Haven and Aspen if the parcel is located east of Aspen. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that this parcel was originally part of a larger parcel with a master plan submitted by the Daon Corporation. He said there had been a lien agreement on all the properties within the original parcel map, with the various property owners being responsible for portions of the median island. He stated the lien agreement had been paid off and this parcel was now responsible for the remaining portion of the median island. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Development Review 90-20 and Tentative Parcel Map 13611. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 9, 1991 Me ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map within the Victoria Planned Community as described below: 1. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre for the following subareas: A. For 10.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: Portion of 227-691-01. B. For 19.3 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the recreational vehicle self storage facility - APN: 227-091-14 and 15. C. For 21.77 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19, 227-091-20 through 22, and 227-091-43. D. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding four subareas. 2. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: E. For 10.1 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way - APN: Portion of 227-691-01. F. For 18 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way - APN: 227-011-17. G. For 11.87 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Kenyon Way and Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. H. For 23.03 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-51. I. For 32.14 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45 and 46 and a portion of 227-091-44. J. For 20,895 acres of land approximately 892 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard. - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. K. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 892 feet and 1,200 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding seven subareas. 3. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Civic/Community for the following subarea: L. For 2.46 acres of land approximately 406 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and approximately 321 feet west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19. Planning Commission Minutes -18- October 9, 1991 4. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for the following subarea: M. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 600 feet and 1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. The Planning Commission will also consider Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding subarea. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map within the Victoria Planned Community as described below: 1. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre for the following subareas: A. For 10.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: Portion of 227-691-01. B. For 19.3 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the recreational vehicle self storage facility - APN: 227-091-14 and 15. C. For 21.77 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19, 227-091-20 through 22, and 227-091-43. D. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding four subareas. 2. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: E. For 10.1 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way - APN: Portion of 227-691-01. F. For 18 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way - APN: 227-011-17. G. For 11.87 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Kenyon Way and Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. H. For 23.03 acres of 'land located on the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-51. I. For 32.14 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45 and 46 and a portion of 227-091-44. J. For 20,895 acres of land approximately 892 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard. - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. K. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 892 feet and 1,200 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 9, 1991 Staff recommends application. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding seven subareas. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Community Facilities for the following subarea: L. For 2.46 acres of land approximately 406 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and approximately 321 feet west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for the following subarea: M. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 600 feet and 1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. The Planning Commission will also consider Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding subarea. issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He provided copies of a petition signed by 138 residents supporting the redesignation of Subareas F and G from Medium to Low Medium and a letter from the attorney for the owner of the property located in Subareas A and E objecting to any redesignation of those subareas. He submitted a suggested order of consideration of the various subareas. Commissioner Vallette requested further discussion on staff's rational for recommendations for specific sites. Mr. Warren stated that staff had accepted the direction of the City Council to reduce the nundDer of multiple family units at build-out. He stated the staff report then looked at land use relationship perspective to see where it would be best to seek reductions. He said that if a given site did not warrant changing because of its relationship to existing or future features, it was not recommended for change. Commissioner Melcher questioned the calculation of a loss of 2,069 units if staff's recommendations were adopted. He thought the loss would only be approximately 1,300 units. Mr. Warren stated staff calculated building at 62 percent of the density range. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff had considered the impact of the loss of people on commercial interests and the impact on landscape assessments. He feared the loss of units would cause the landscape assessments to increase dramatically and felt that impact should be identified. He asked if future infrastructure needs should be reassessed to take into account the lower population. He asked if the City would need to reassess and possibly redesign facilities, such as the library, fire stations, etc. He questioned why the Planning Commission Minutes -20- October 9, 1991 mixed use analysis of Subarea C would not also apply to Subareas B, H, and I, which also front on the same transportation corridor. He commented that a development proposal was in process for Subareas A and E with a different break line. He asked if the line between Subareas A and E could be a floating line. Mr. Warren stated he saw no problem with a different configuration between Subareas A and E if the Planning Commission should so direct. He said a floating line would be a gray area, but could be considered. He said staff · had already received a proposal for a government institutional use in Subarea L that may make it appropriate to consider a mixed use designation for Subarea C. He stated that staff did not investigate how the potential for a lesser population would affect a business' anticipation of population. He said the 65 percent single family versus 35 percent multi-family scenario figures were forwarded to the government agencies which may be affected, including the school districts, fire, police, and engineering. He stated that staff had not been told that the effects would be significant. He said specifically the traffic analysis had indicated the effect would be almost neutral because they estimate single family dwellings generate a higher number of trips. He reported that the previous City Engineer felt there may be a slight increase in street maintenance costs because there would be more public streets, whereas in multi-family developments there are more private streets. However, he stated the City Engineer felt the minimal increase could be easily absorbed. Commissioner Melcher asked if the landscape assessments were specifically considered. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, reported that all of the issues were acknowledged and discussed thoroughly during the City Council workshops on multi-family reduction. He said it was acknowledged that the Landscape Maintenance District assessments will increase. He said the schools indicated there would be no impacts from the reduced students. He reported that police services did an extensive study and felt there was no difference in the number of calls for multi-family residential as opposed to single-family residential. He stated the question of economic impact on commercial properties is not a mandatory environmental issue under CEQA. He said staff did consider the impact, but the loss is such a small percentage over the total dwelling units in the City. He said the type of products purchased by single family dwellers would be different from those purchased by multi-family unit dwellers. Commissioner Melcher agreed but stated the question arose because the City has been concerned about the amount of land zoned for Commercial uses and the City is continually assaulted by requests for more Commercial zoning. He felt the Commission should be more attentive to requests for additional Commercial when the number of units are declining. Mr. Henderson stated that staff was suggesting a change to Commercial for Subarea M because of the loss of acreage due to the freeway and the alignment of the future street which will be to the south. He felt it was better to Planning Commission Minutes -21- October 9, 1991 have a large irregular parcel than a small one to accommodate buffering, loading, and access issues. Mr. Warren stated that because larger families tend to live in single-family homes, the number of units lost would not mean a corresponding loss in the number of people. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Subareas A and E. He asked for comments regarding Scot Sellers, Lincoln Maravilla Limited Partnership, 30 Executive Place, Irvine, expressed concerns about the process and stated they had previously submitted a proposal for Subareas A and E. He stated the City Council had directed that they resubmit their project with no additional planning fees due. He said that comments were made during the previous processing that density was not an issue. He questioned the fairness of redesignating their land and felt due process was being ignored. He said they had resubmitted a full application a month ago and the project was in process. Chris Lininger, 6862 Sorrento Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he moved into the area because he felt it was a viable growing community. He objected to the prospect of condominiums to the north or south side of his single-family neighborhood. Carlos Galeazzi, 6753 Salerno Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had moved from his old neighborhood when developers bought R1 property, obtained rezoning and variances, and built multi-family units. He said when he first moved to Rancho Cucamonga he saw condominiums south of Base Line Road and single family homes to the north. He felt Base Line Road is a good buffer zone and condominiums should not be built north of it. He asked the Commission to. reconsider the planned community because he felt it did not reflect good planning to build condominiums in an area of single family homes. Chairman McNiel stated that the Victoria Planned Community Specific Plan was adopted in 1981 covering approximately 2,100 acres. He said at that time the mix of housing permitted approximately 9,000 housing units with each type of housing range located in all areas, from 1/2-acre single family to apartments or condominiums. He stated the plan was sensitive to the issues of the relationship of one use adjoining the other and therefore the Medium range was placed next to Medium High, not High. He said each area was to be a mixture of types of housing so all residents would have access to facilities such as commercial development, parks, etc. He stated the developers in Victoria developed the majority of single family houses first and they are now developing the multi-family units. Mr. Galeazzi stated they had not been notified that multi-family units were planned when they purchased their home. Commissioner Vallette asked if Mr. Galeazzi was aware that most of the staff's recommendations were for lowering the zoning. Planning Commission Minutes -22- October 9, 1991 Mr. Galeazzi stated he was grateful that a downgrading of density was proposed, but he felt that multi-family housing is an eyesore when placed next to single family units. Paul Adair, 11410 Lomello Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Base Line and Milliken are well traveled streets and a visitor's first impression will be that Victoria is an apartment community if multi-family units are built at that intersection. He thought a bus station or bus pick-up point would be placed by Central Park and the apartments and he felt that would create problems. He said they moved to Victoria because they thought most of the apartments were going to be kept in Terra Vista. Cata Johnson, 6989 Martano Place, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the Commission may consider downzoning beyond what had been recommended by staff. She felt the preference of the residents was for Low Medium for Subareas A and E, but stated she understood the Commission had to consider the developer and those that are looking to buy affordable housing. Chairman McNiel asked for comments regarding Subareas F and G. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7272 #B Victoria Park Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they were the developers of the Victoria Planned Community. He said he would like to address all of the William Lyon Company owned land in the various subareas. He commented that Victoria is a master planned community and the specific plan was based on a certain number of units to support the trails, parks, etc. He stated the plan was approved in 1981 and at the time Lyon owned about 1,600 of the 2,100 acres in the plan. He reported that the original plan approved a density of 7,575 units on the Lyon- owned property but the community plan was revised in 1988 and the density was lowered in the Lakes South area by 815 units, an 11 percent decrease. He said that although the William Lyon Company believes the issue of density is more of an issue elsewhere in the City than in Victoria, they were willing to cooperate with the City to help achieve a reduction in density. He said that when the original apartment project was proposed for Subareas A and E, residents had objected to a "for rent" project and had stated they would not object to owner occupied units. He stated they had submitted an apartment project in Subarea K and they would be agreeable to having that site downzoned to Medium density. He recommended that Subarea J remain Medium rather than going to Low Medium because it is an isolated site with a detention basin and Southern California Edison corridor to the west and Day Creek Boulevard and a Southern California Edison corridor to the east. He thought a single family development in that area would lead to a walled community and he requested they be able to develop a more creative site plan that would provide a more aesthetic frontage along Victoria Park Lane and Day Creek Boulevard. He requested that Subarea H remain designated at Medium. He asked that they be permitted to develop on 4,000 square foot lots (50 x 80 feet) for single family detached homes if the City proceeded to downzone Subarea H to Low Medium. He said surrounding areas were developed with 3,000, 4,000, and 4,500 square foot lots. He thought Subareas F and G should remain Medium as they adjoin a future freeway offramp at Milliken, a park, and a shopping center. He said that studies indicated that traffic would decrease slightly if the Planning Commission Minutes -23- October 9, 1991 site were to remain multi-family. He said adjoining neighbors had expressed concern about home values but he felt they would be developed with nice products and it would enhance property values. He felt a sea of Low Medium single family houses would create an oversupply of single family homes and would not raise property values. He thought the buyers for the town house and condominium projects would be in an income range of $50,000 to over $70,000. He said the proposals he had just made would represent a decrease of 667 units, which would bring the total units on their property down to 6,093, another 9 percent decrease from the 7,575 originally approved. He said that Homeowners' Associations are responsible for maintaining the landscaping to the curb on multi-family projects and if the properties are downzoned to Low Medium, the City would have to maintain the landscaping. He said there would be a combination of fewer units in Victoria to incur the expense of the landscape maintenance allocation and increased costs because more landscaping will be maintained by the City. Mr. Luque stated he had been contacted by a gentleman who said he was concerned about multi-family development, but he was equating multi-family development with apartments. He said multi-family development could be a full spectrum of product types, not just apartments. He felt that Victoria met the objective of trying to provide the single-family look that the City wants to achieve. Chairman McNiel asked what was located to the north and west of Subarea G. Mr. Luque responded the 5 acres is designated Community Facilities and had been sold to a church. % Mr. Adair stated he had distributed one of the petitions. He said most of the residents he talked to were not aware of what was going on. He stated there was a serious accident earlier that day on Victoria Park Lane and Milliken and speed is already a problem. He was concerned that traffic on Victoria Park Lane will increase because of the freeway exit on Milliken, the high school, and more multi-family projects. He stated graffiti has been a problem in the parks and he felt multi-family units will add to the problem. He thought the property values will go down. He said he talked to people in the various developments and they all indicated they had been told that there would not be multi-family units built next to them. He feared that some of the condominiums would be purchased by investors who would rent them out. He felt that downzoning would best serve the needs of the Victoria Park residents even if it meant higher taxes. Fred Formel, 6816 Palermo Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented the Crown Point tract. He submitted a petition, which had been signed by 42 residents, supporting staff's recommendations. He said there are three parks in their community which are already very busy. He stated the schools are filled already. He said the realtor told him that single family homes would be built in Subarea F. Delia Adair, 11410 Lomello Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she and her husband had walked to get the 138 petition signatures. She said she is a realtor and she has three buyers who have indicated they do not want to live in Terra Vista because of the apartments and condominiums in the area. She said at the Planning Commission Minutes -24- October 9, 1991 time they moved to their home there had been signs posted in Subarea F indicating that single family homes would be built. She complained that the zoning had then changed and the sign was changed to single family, attached homes, and then multi-family homes. She stated that schools were overcrowded. She was concerned that the graffiti in the park would increase if multi-family units were built. Commissioner Vallette commented that the zoning had not changed and a developer is able to put in either single family or multi-family homes in an · area zoned for Medium. Mike Corkle, 6571 Mimosa Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he would like to speak regarding all subareas. He said he had lived in the Victoria project for 6-1/2 years. He said that although he lived close to a high density project, he had never had any problems and his home had doubled in price since he purchased it. He supported reasonable, intelligently planned, affordable housing. He said that although there recently had been a rather substantial increase in landscape maintenance fees, the City had advised that only minimum maintenance could be performed because of lack of funds. He was concerned that if the density numbers were lowered substantially that landscape maintenance fees would escalate dramatically. He felt Victoria had been an exceptional place to live. Chairman McNiel asked for comments regarding Subareas C, L, and B. Mr. Buller stated that the staff report included a letter from a property owner in Subarea B, indicating she could not attend the meeting. He said he had spoken with her on the telephone and she was concerned and opposed the proposed redesignation. Chairman McNiel asked for comments regarding Subareas J, K, M, and D. As there was no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Warren stated that most of the concerns raised by the residents were part the City Council's decision to consider lowering the density. General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas A and E) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 ~Subareas A and E): Chairman McNiel stated the Commission had received a letter from the attorney for Lincoln, the property owner of Subareas A and E. He asked the City Attorney to comment on the letter's assertion that the City had no right to redesignate the property. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the letter questions the City's interpretation on status of uncommitted properties to be included in the review. He did not believe that Lincoln's previous actions had generated a vested right. He did not agree with the letter's interpretation of CEQA issues, and said that the considered action would reduce the impacts. He stated that staff had already addressed the impact on the housing element. He commented that the letter stated the intent of the City's program to consider Planning Commission Minutes -25- October 9, 1991 downzoning was directed specifically at Lincoln's proposal. He stated they were not the only affected area. Mr. Hanson felt the Commission was free to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Vallette stated she had spoken with Mr. Warren and part of staff's rationale for not recommending Low Medium for Subarea A was that the property is located at the major intersection of Milliken and Base Line. She said staff felt some of the noise factors may be better mitigated by a Medium density project than a Low Medium density one. She felt both A and E could be redesignated to Medium. Commissioner Chitiea stated Low Medium might work; however, she felt the Medium designation on Subarea A might provide a better transition. Chairman McNiel stated that the railroad separates the two parcels and there is also a grade separation. Commissioner Vallette stated she had received a telephone call from resident Pat Dutton, supporting lowering the density to Medium on the south portion and retaining Medium on the north portion. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that because of the proximity to the park, the shopping center, and two busy streets (Base Line and Milliken), Subarea E should remain Medium and Subarea A could be redesignated to Medium. Commissioner Melcher did not object in principal to staff's proposals of Medium for Subarea A and Low Medium for Subarea E. However, he felt there was a compelling body of previous action which entitled the current property owner to a full review of their current proposal before the land is redesignated. He said that several of the Commissioners and the City Council had told the developer that a previous denial was not based on a question of density. He thought that whether or not the new proposal is approvable was not germane at this point, but he felt it would only be fair to allow the proposal to proceed. He requested that action on Subareas A and E be deferred until after an already scheduled workshop with the developer. Commissioner Vallette felt the two parcels had received due process. She did not feel responsible for what had happened in the process. She said she was addressing the parcels as part of the entire Victoria Plan and the decision should be related to land use and zoning, not what the project proponent was proposing. Chairman McNiel agreed that the applicant had been in process for a long time regarding projects on that particular site. However, he said the zoning issues with respect to multi-family or attached single family had been a subject of discussion and consideration for a long time at both Planning Commission and City Council level. He felt the developer had had an opportunity to deal with any proposed changes. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that many suggestions had been made to the developer when their project was first submitted and the developer had chosen Planning Commission Minutes -26- October 9, 1991 not to address the suggestions. She thought the project may have been more advanced in the process if the developer had been willing to make the changes requested. She did not feel the City was responsible for the fact that the project had not already been approved. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the meetings held after the project was denied had changed his former views on the project and he now felt density is an issue. He agreed that if the project had originally been of the quality the Commission was looking for, it would have been acceptable at that time. Chairman McNiel asked what the other Commissioners felt regarding Medium on Subarea E. Commissioner Melcher felt the grade separation and the presence of the railroad provides a substantial and adequate zone transition. He reiterated that he agreed with the proposal in principal, but there was still a question of fairness in his mind. He felt the original Victoria Plan was good planning and the changes over time have been good changes. He acknowledged that no plan is meant to be a fixed document forever. Commissioner Chitiea preferred staff's recommendation of Medium for Subarea A and Low Medium for Subarea E. Commissioner Tolstoy felt both Subareas A and E should be Medium. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea A) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea A) changing the land use designation to Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea E) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea E). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas F and G) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 [Subareas F and G): Planning Commission Minutes -27- October 9, 1991 Chairman McNiel stated that staff's recommendation had been Medium to Low Medium on both subareas and the majority of the public had supported the Low Medium, while Mr. Luque had requested the areas remain Medium. Commissioner Melcher commented that one Victoria resident had spoken in favor of retaining the existing designations and was pleased to see proposals that would rekindle the more affordable characteristic of the community. He also commented that a developer stated the projects would be marketed to people with an income range of $50,000 to $75,000. Commissioner Vallette stated she had received a telephone call from resident Ed Swistock who lives to the west of Subarea F. She said he endorsed staff's recommendation of Low Medium. Commissioner Melcher stated that Commissioner Tolstoy and he met with the developer and Mr. Buller several days ago regarding the two areas. He said he and Commissioner Tolstoy spent a great deal of time in the area a few days later. He said he initially felt attached housing might be appropriate but at Design Review he had an opportunity to look at the proposals and both appeared pedestrian. He stated that earlier applications which had been withdrawn had been for single family development. Commissioner Vallette supported the staff's recommendation for Low Medium and stated it would provide consistency with the surrounding neighborhood. She thought attached housing in a Medium density area if acceptable if there is a transition from single family to the attached housing. She felt that if the area were kept at Medium and the attached housing product were not built, that the lots would be too small. She thought too many homes have been crammed together on lots of less than 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with the Low Medium recommendation. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Subareas F and G have interesting characteristics. He said they are bordered by two major thoroughfares (Highland and Milliken Avenues), close to commercial development, adjacent to a park, and are buffered from adjacent single family houses by paseos. He felt that if Medium residential were to be in the area, Subareas F and G would be the proper sites. He supported Medium. Commissioner Melcher stated the reasons cited by Commissioner Tolstoy were the usual planning precepts that governed the original layout. He said that logic is still valid. Commissioner Chitiea stated she agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy in theory, but stated that even at the Low Medium designation, it is crowded. She felt Low Medium is more appropriate to the existing neighborhoods. She supported the City Council's goal of lowering the multi-family percentage, but was willing to consider allowing Subarea G to remain at Medium. Chairman McNiel stated that because Subarea F is adjacent to Milliken Avenue and freeway access while Subarea G is adjacent to Low Medium, he would be more willing to allow Subarea F to remain Medium. Planning Commission Minutes -28- October 9, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea felt that it would be appropriate for both Subareas to be reclassified as Low Medium, as she wanted to move in the direction of reducing densities. Commissioner Vallette stated that, at the direction of the City Council, the Commission was trying to lower the density and make good planning sense. She felt it would not be bad planning to have both Subareas reclassified to Low Medium. She said that south of Subarea F is Low Medium transitioning to Low and Low Medium is located across the street. Chairman McNiel felt that was a valid argument. Motion= Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea F) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea F) changing the land use designation to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea G) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea G) changing the land use designation to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas H and I) and Victoria Planned CommunitV Amendment 91-03 [Subareas H and I): Chairman McNiel stated staff's recommendation was that both subareas be rezoned to Low Medium. He said Mr. Luque indicated a preference that the area remain Medium, but requested the ability to utilize 4,000 square foot lots if the area were redesignated as Low Medium. Commissioner Vallette stated that Mr. Luque had indicated he would like to build homes similar to the homes to the west of Subarea H. She felt the existing homes are on extremely small lots and rear onto other lots. She did not want to see more such homes and felt they would not be attractive in the years to come. She said the City had received several letters from people Planning Commission Minutes -29- October 9, 1991 indicating they felt the area is impacted with single family homes built one on top of another with no yard or parking space. Commissioner Chitiea felt such issues could be handled at the Design Review level. Commissioner Vallette felt that direction could be given on types of housing the Commission would like to see in the future. She felt that Low Medium would make good planning sense. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed on Subarea H. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Luque stated the lots across the street were 3,000 square foot lots and he was now proposing 4,000 square foot lots on 50 x 80 foot lots. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Low Medium. She felt the 4,000 square foot lot request was a separate issue which the Commission could not consider at this time. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Low Medium density would allow development of 4,500 square foot lots. Mr. Buller responded that the Low Medium designation would allow 4,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Tolstoy did not wish to see any more of the crowding such as on the 3,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Melcher agreed. He was not sure that 4,000 square foot lots in the configuration mentioned would be any more acceptable because it would add 20 feet to the depth of the lot which would provide either a front or a back yard, but not both. He thought perhaps 40-foot by 100-foot lots may be more acceptable because it would provide both front and back yards for the homes. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that space is important. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea H) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea H) changing the land use designation to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -30- October 9, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with staff's recommendation regarding Subarea I. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not opposed in principal but the site is bordered by a major arterial and a major arterial of the future and he felt it would be similar to the site at Base Line and Milliken in terms of traffic. He wondered if something should be done at the Medium level at least along the edges of the property. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there was quite a difference between Subareas E and A and I. He said Subareas E and A are bordered by a park and have commercial across the street. He said Subarea I does not have a park or commercial development adjacent. Commissioner Vallette stated that Milliken will have an offramp from the freeway but Rochester will not. Chairman McNiel asked if attached units can be built in the Low Medium designation. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Vallette stated there are attached units interspersed in the area across Day Creek Boulevard north of the railroad tracks. Chairman McNiel stated that in the lower densities with the attached product, more open space is provided. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea I) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea I) changing the land use designation to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas C, L, and B) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 {Subareas C, L, and B): Chairman McNiel stated that staff recommended Subarea C be changed from Medium High to Medium, Subarea L be changed from Medium High to Civic/Community (Community Facilities for the Victoria Planned Community), and Subarea B be changed from Medium High to Medium. Commissioner Chitiea felt it made sense to change Subarea L to Civic/Community because of the proposed fire station use. She concurred with staff's recommendation for Subarea C to be changed to Medium. Planning Commission Minutes -31- October 9, 1991 Commissioner Vallette agreed Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Commission should defer the decision on Subarea C to the City Council as the City had just purchased the land based on existing zoning for use in conjunction with the affordable housing strategy. Mr. Buller felt the Council would like to hear the Planning Commission's thoughts regarding the land use. Mr. Henderson stated staff had contacted the City's redevelopment staff and no objection was raised to the recommended Medium designation. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Medium density makes sense. He said if the housing were affordable, that would be better because there would be less crowded conditions. He did not feel affordable housing should necessarily equate with a high density project. Commissioner Vallette thought the City Council's position is to treat affordable housing no different than other housing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea C) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea C) changing the land use designation to Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea L) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea L) changing the land use designation to Civic/Community and Community Facilities, respectively. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel asked what use is to the west of Subarea B. Mr. Buller responded that a mini-storage is located there. Commissioner Vallette agreed with staff's recommendation based on the adjacent uses. Planning Commission Minutes -32- October 9, 1991 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea B) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea B) changing the land use designation to Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCNER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher felt the abutting conditions warrant leaving the parcel at Medium High. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher. , , , , General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 (Subareas J and K) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 {Subareas J and K]: Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. Luque requested that Subarea J remain Medium while staff recommended a redesignation to Low Medium. He questioned if Victoria Park Lane will eventually be built to the south of Subarea J. Commissioner Vallette stated it would. Chairman McNiel stated there would be Low Medium to the south across Victoria Park Lane, Day Creek Boulevard to the east, a Southern California Edison corridor to the west, and Subarea K to the north, which staff was recommending remain Medium. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with staff's recommendation to Low Medium because she felt Subarea K would make a good transition. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea J) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea J) changing the land use designation to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel felt that it would be better to master plan Subareas J and K as one large project. Planning Commission Minutes -33- October 9, 1991 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea K) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea K). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 ~Subareas M and D) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subareas M and D): Commissioner Chitiea felt the change to Commercial was appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if Subareas D and M should not both be Commercial because of the irregular nature of Subarea M. Mr. Buller stated that staff had worked with a potential developer on a concept plan and it was felt it was important to have commercial access for the shopping center on the street separating Subareas K and M. He said if Subarea D was then added to Subarea M, the commercial parcel would be too deep to function well as a commercial site. Commissioner Melcher asked if the shapes had been discussed with the developer. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively and stated the developer had found a potential major user for the site. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there are generally design problems when there are irregularly shaped lots. Commissioner Chitiea supported the proposal for Subarea M. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea M) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea M) changing the land use designation to Neighborhood Commercial and Village Commercial, respectively. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel stated a change to Medium would tie the use to Subarea K. Planning Commission Minutes -34- October 9, 1991 Chairman McNiel stated a change to Medium would tie the use to Subarea K. Mr. Buller stated it would make Subarea K workable. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea D) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03 (Subarea D) changing the land use designation to Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: .AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Commissioner Melcher suggested that the remaining public hearings be opened for the purposes of continuing the balance of the agenda to the next public meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.12.040 regarding bicycle storage requirements and Section 17.08.070 regarding trail maintenance requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Pe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III, Section IV.F regarding bicycle storage requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-04 and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 91-05 to October 23, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS R. MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS - (Oral Report) Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue the item to October 23, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -35- October 9, 1991 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn. 12:35 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to an October 16, 1991, workshop at 5:00 p.m. in the Rains Room of the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding Lusk and Lincoln. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -36- October 9, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 25, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:04 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: Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there may be conflicts with dates for the second Planning Commission meetings in November and December. He requested that Commissioners check their calendars to see if they would be available to meet on November 27, the day before Thanksgiving. He also stated that the fourth Wednesday in December is December 25. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-0-1 with McNiel abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 8, 1991, as amended. Motion: Moved by Vailerrs, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of August 28, 1991. Motion: Moved by Eelchef, seconded by Chitiea, carried 4-0-0-1 with McNiel abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 8, 1991, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13877 - MAJOR J'S LTD. - A residential subdivision and design review of 27 single family lots on 18.01 acres of land in the very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue, south of Hillside Road, and west of Mayberry Avenue - APN: 201-111-06, 11, 13, and 32. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-12 - VARELA - The development and design review of a single family custom residence subject to hillside development regulations, located on .34 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Camino Predera on the west terminus of Predera Court - APN: 207-631-17. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U. S. HOMES - Resolutions for the denial without prejudice of a tentative tract map and design review for the development of 226 single family lots on 81.2' acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential Districts (8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227-191-15; 227-181-24; and 227-261-11. Related File: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. Barbara Krall, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She stated additional information had been submitted to staff on September 18 and was currently being reviewed. She reported the project was reviewed by the Design Review and Technical Review Committees on a courtesy basis. She stated some issues need to be addressed as a result of those meetings prior to rescheduling the project for approval. She indicated staff had suggested that the applicant request a 60-day extension, but the applicant had not responded. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Charles Schultz, attorney, Reid & Hellyet, 3880 Lemon, Riverside, stated that Dallas Paulsen, Project Manager for U. S. Home; Bill Mann, Mann & Associates, Drainage Engineer; and Keith Dagostino, L. S. Wainscot & Associates were available. He gave a brief background of the history of the project. He stated the project was formally submitted on May 17, 1989. He said the Planning Commission had reviewed the project on April 24, 1991, and the project was continued for 150 days. He stated the revised drainage study was resubmitted on July 11, 1991. He said staff had requested additional comments on the status of the east upper basin facility. He said approximately 10 Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 25, 1991 pages were submitted to staff last week and he felt the project should now be deemed complete. He felt the bulk of the drainage study had been reviewed by staff because the Technical Review Committee and Design Review Committee proposed conditions to meet the drainage needs for over 900 acres. He said the project is only 81 acres including the drainage basin. He stated the applicant had submitted three complete drainage studies to staff. He thought that some of the conditions requested by staff may be appropriate for processing the map but were not appropriate for deeming the project complete. He said staff added new items for submission each time they met. He stated the Engineering Department had submitted 12 pages of conditions, which he assumed to be conditions of approval for final map recordation. He said he met with staff and the Technical Advisory Committee and it was unclear which conditions were for final approval and which were for the purpose of deeming the project complete. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the applicant had asked the Engineering staff which conditions were required for deeming the application complete and which were suggested conditions of approval for the final map recordation. Mr. Schultz stated that each time they met with Engineering staff they were asked for additional information. Commissioner Melcher stated that in April the applicant had indicated they would submit the required drainage study within 30 days, but it took much longer. He felt that indicated there was not such a sense of urgency on the part of the applicant. Mr. Schultz responded they had submitted the study on July 11, which was 48 days late. He felt that still left sufficient time for staff to review the information. Commissioner Chitiea commented that staff had indicated final documents were not submitted until September 18. Mr. Schultz concurred that the addendum to the drainage study was submitted on September 18. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Design Review meeting was a courtesy review only, not the formal design review process. She said the project will need to go through the formal process before coming to the Commission for action. Mr. Schultz stated he understood that. He said he was told that significant items normally only raised at design review were discussed, such as curvilinear streets and the issue of whether there should be higher density by the freeway. He said U. S. Home felt single family homes should be placed next to the freeway. He stated U. S. Home has made the determination they wish to proceed with the project as designed. Bill Mann, Bill Mann & Associates, 1802 Commerce Center West, Suite A, San Bernardino, stated they submitted the third revision of the drainage report on Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 25, 1991 July 11. He said they met with the Engineering staff and additional information was requested regarding use of the upper detention basin at the northwest corner of East Avenue and the freeway, just south of the freeway. He said the two basins are shown on the BSI report. He stated his report indicated that the lower basin would take care of the 925 square mile drainage area, but the City should reserve the right to use the upper basin. He said that basin is shown in the master plan. He stated there had never been a problem with mitigating the U. S. Home site with the lower basin. He said they had been asked to redssign the entire 925 acre drainage to fulfill the entire drainage area needs and they have done so. He said the City requested additional information and they resubmitted an eight-page supplement report on September 18. He said the supplemental report again suggested that the City reserve the upper basin as a potential use for the drainage area, but not for the U. S. Home site. He suggested keeping the master plan as is. He said in April they had proposed a park site by the lower basin with basins on both sides of the street but had since removed the park site to make the basin work. He said the conditions handwritten by staff were acceptable. He said one of the conditions required a final hydrology study, so the City would have another chance to review the project. He felt the document which had been submitted is adequate. Chairman McNiel commented that it took from July 11 to Septsniper 18 to produce the eight-page document and he felt it unreasonable to suggest that staff should review the document in less than a week. Mr. Mann stated it does not take as much time to review a document as it does to produce it. He admitted they had not met the agreed to dates, but stated the document was available two months ago. Chairman McNiel felt drainage to be a critical issue. Keith Dagostino, L. S. Wainscot & Associates, Inc., 1565 Cambridge Avenue, Redlands, stated he was available to answer questions on the design of the tract. He said they had spent a lot of time trying to massage the project to meet all the design standards of the City. He stated the listings now provided by the City are of items generally requested for final map approval. He said they agreed with most of the requests, but there were still a few points of contention. Mr. Schultz stated that they recognized that it was an unusual request to ask that the Planning Commission deem their project complete. He said staff had proposed the matter be continued for 60 days to give staff time to review the matter. He protested that they had been unable to present their project to the Planning Commission because there had been an advisory review by the Design Review Committee and the Technical Review Committee with no final determination. He requested that the Planning Commission state there was sufficient information for staff to review the project. He agreed that Engineering had only received Mr. Mann's report last week and perhaps additional time may be necessary. He proposed that the Commission deem the project complete and continue the item for 30 days in order to allow time for the project to be formally reviewed by the Design Review Committee and Technical Review Committee. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 25, 1991 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt the only action on tonight's agenda was a Resolution of Denial. He said the item was originally brought before the Commission in April because time was running out and it was necessary, on the advice of the City Attorney, to reject the application because it had never been completed. He commen~ed that in April a 150-day extension was granted with the consent of the applicant. He felt the staff to be capable and competent and felt that as staff had determined the project should not yet be deemed complete, it could either be denied or extended with the developer's consent. He thought any time extension should be for the amount of time that staff felt would be appropriate. He thought that if the time period were to be extended and the applicant provided sufficient information, the matter would return to the Planning Commission only if the project was still not considered complete for submission. He said if the project was considered complete, it would then be in the normal pipeline. Brad Buller, City Planner, said the applicant had stated he did not plan to make any design changes to his project other than the completion of the review of the drainage issue. He said in that case, it may be possible for the project to be back at the Planning Commission sooner if the applicant is unwilling to address the design concerns of Engineering, Planning, or the Design Review Committee. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the project would be back in 60 days as a denial or as a project because the timeline would be running only with the consent of the applicant. Commissioner Melcher questioned why the Planning Commission would be asked to make a determination of completeness. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the applicant had challenging the incompleteness determination of staff. He said the City received a letter dated September 24, 1991, appealing staff's incompleteness determination. Mr. Hanson stated that the application had lingered for so long that normal staff procedures were not applicable. He said definitive action was needed to move the application along. He thought the letter of appeal may have been filed on advice from the City attorney's office. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission could act on the appeal, because the item had not been advertised as an appeal. He thought if the Commission granted a continuance, that action would affirm staff's position that the application was not complete. Mr. Hanson agreed that the appeal could not be acted upon. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Schultz thought the applicant had appealed the original incompleteness determination in April. He said at that time he thought they had agreed to Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 25, 1991 waive the permit streamlining act requirements, submit the project, and bring it back to be approved, denied, or deemed complete. He said on September 16, 1991, they received a new letter deeming the project incomplete. He felt the Commission had four options before them: (1) approve the project, (2) deny the project as recommended by staff, or (3) continue the item with the applicant's consensus, or (4) deem the project complete and bring it back for hearing within 30 days. He said the applicant had only granted authority for continuing the project a maximum of 30 days. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt there were far too many loose ends and points of disagreement. She felt it would be appropriate to deny the project without prejudice because of the nature of the outstanding issues. She felt a denial would give the applicant time to take care of the loose ends and bring back in the type of package which would get the project into the process properly. She did not think it would be in the best interests of the community to say the project is acceptable. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. He said it was his understanding that if the project were continued it would have to be through all the steps and committees and ready for action. He did not feel that would be possible in 30 days and even questioned if it could be done in 60 days. He feared that if the project were processed in a rush, things may be missed. He felt denial would be the appropriate action. Commissioner Vallette agreed. She said during the courtesy review several areas of concern were raised that need to be addressed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions denying without prejudice Tentative Tract 14211 and the design review of Tentative Tract 14211. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried De ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04A, AIR OUALITY ELEMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - In accordance with the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan, an Air Quality Element has been prepared for inclusion as part of Chapter V, Public Health and Safety section, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The amendment includes the expansion of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Air Quality, Circulation, Energy, and Implementation sections of the General Plan to include provisions of the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan, as adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments. Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 25, 1991 Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City could modify the Air Quality Element even though it was the result of a multi-jurisdictional effort. Mr. Henderson replied that it can be modified to fit local conditions. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when the 15 cities and the County worked on the Air Quality Element, they tried to develop a general format so that it would be easier to keep track of compliance by other entities. Commissioner Chitiea thought that the heavy equipment used at construction sites generates a lot of pollutants. She asked if emission controls could be required on construction equipment. Mr. Henderson stated the plan did not address diesel exhausts but the state is monitoring that area because the state is concerned with pollution generated by buses, commuter rail lines, heavy equipment, etc. He said the state is studying the possibility of including overhead electrical lines for electric buses using a high occupancy vehicle lane on Route 30. Mr. Buller stated that the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is attempting to regulate emissions. He said the requirement for emission controls on heavy equipment would be out of the City's control unless the City established a ban on certain vehicles. Commissioner Chitiea stated did not feel a ban would be appropriate. Chairman McNiel thought emission controls would not be used unless they become government mandated. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that air quality is a regional problem. asked if the County would be the lead agency in policing compliance. He Mr. Henderson stated the County will be the lead agency in meeting with other counties on items that cross jurisdictional lines. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There was no public testimony, and Chairman McNiel closed the hearing. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the plan be modified to indicate the City would not only develop but also implement design standards that promote access to transit facilities and standards and guidelines for increased bicycle and pedestrian routes. He stated he had recently read an article that 12 percent of the vehicles in the state generate 75 percent of the emissions. He questioned if it was appropriate for the City to support legislation tightening the existing vehicle inspection program. Mr. Bullet responded the thinking was to try to make the vehicle inspection program better. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 25, 1991 Commissioner Melcher suggested the wording be changed from "tightens" to "improves" the existing vehicle inspection program. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested a program to remove those vehicles which generate the most pollution. Chairman McNiel stated that older vehicles are protected by law. Commissioner Melcher suggested indicating support for private companies which buy older vehicles. He questioned how the City would integrate air quality planning considerations with the land use and transportation planning. He suggested that the wording on Policies 5.1.1 through 5.1.4 be changed to reflect that the City would "adopt, implement and enforce" the incentives, regulations, and procedures to limit dust. Me thought the City may want to require trucks from the gravel operation to be covered whether they are full or empty, even though that is not currently an AQMD requirement. Commissioner Chitiea agreed such a policy would be good. Mr. Buller felt "enforce" should not be used because it may infer that the remainder of the document will not be enforced. Commissioner Melcher agreed to drop "enforce." He objected to the Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 regarding the City's adoption of incentives and regulations to reduce emissions from water heating devices. Me felt the City does not have expertise in the area. He thought the City should move quickly to enact Policy 5.2.1. Chairman McNiel thought the Air Quality Element espouses great goals, but he was not sure how achievable some of those goals will be. He said that the goal to control dust on construction sites is laudable, but the Environmental Protection Agency prohibits the use of any coating which contains oil and most approved products do not work well. Mr. Bullet asked if Commissioner Melcher would object to changing the wording of Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 from "adopt" to "continue to support." Commissioner Melcher stated that would alleviate his concern. Mr. Henderson stated that the AQMD will be supplying some regulations which must be adopted in the General Plan. He said they are not requesting that the City do any of its own technological research. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the pollutants would be reduced. Mr. Henderson stated that once the technical data is received from AQMD, the City could require the technology on all new projects or could require phasing on all or some projects which had already been built. He said the City could not adopt until after the information is released by AQMD. Me reported that the regional Air Quality Element has three progressive tiers of implementation. He stated that currently Tier 1 is in effect, but if clean Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 25, 1991 air standards are not met, AQMD will enact Tier 2 and finally Tier 3. He said the Air Quality Element in the General Plan was merely trying to project what types of energy conservation measures would be available in the future. Commissioner Melcher stated he thought Tier 1 was implemented because the technology is available and common, while Tier 2 means the technology is available but not common, and Tier 3 means the technology is not yet available. Mr. Henderson responded that some technology for implementing Tiers 2 and 3 is available. He suggested that AQMD could even ban some businesses in certain areas in order to meet goals. Mr. Buller stated that regulations would be passed on by a higher authority while incentives may be something adopted by the City, such as giving a bonus for using a particular system. He suggested changing the wording to support. Commissioner Melcher stated he did not object to the language as written. Commissioner Tolstoy feared the Air Quality Element may show good intentions but not achieve any action. Mr. Henderson responded that the City must prepare an annual report on the degree of compliance. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-04A with modifications as suggested. 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 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. , , , , , MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14548 - ALLMARK - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities for a residential subdivision to convert 328 apartment units to condominiums on 29.51 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 25, 1991 Tony Mize, Allmark, 10070 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the staff report had enlightened him on on some of the issues. He said they were trying to rehabilitate the units with bond financing and would have 66 of the units for low cost housing. He felt an in-lieu fee would be appropriate because the area is basically industrial. He said they were trying to avoid rehabilitating and undergrounding during the same timeframe because he feared they would lose tenants. He preferred an in-lieu fee for undergrounding with the fees calculated from the center of Arrow Route to the north tract boundary. He said Southern California Edison had advised them they could not put the utilities in the street as the 12 KV would have to be behind the curb. Chairman McNiel stated the applicant was familiar with the City's standard undergrounding policy. Commissioner Melcher stated that if the City were paid the in-lieu fee the City may decide to go ahead and do the work now. Mr. Mize felt the City would wait until the 66 KV lines could be placed underground. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City could spend the money anywhere it wanted to underground or if it would have to be earmarked for that location. He asked when the City would schedule undergrounding for that location if the money had to be used there. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the money would be allocated for that location and the City would probably try to schedule a large project. He said staff was not recommending an in-lieu fee. Commissioner Melcher asked if the timing could be arranged to make it more convenient for the developer. Mr. Mize stated he understood the spirit of the ordinance. He suggested the matter could be continued to allow further discussions with the staff to see if it would be possible to underground in the street at the same time the street improvements are being done. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. could be placed in the street. He asked if staff felt the lines Ms. Miller stated a representative from Southern California Edison Company had indicated over the telephone that the lines could be placed in the street. Mr. Hanson stated that answer would be consistent with previous answers from Southern California Edison. Commissioner Melcher asked if the undergrounding was a condition ~of the condominium map. He questioned if the applicant could defer recording until after completing the rehabilitation and the tenant mix was already in place. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 25, 1991 Mr. Mize stated they were trying to meet the conditions of approval in order to record the map because it is necessary for financing. Commissioner Melcher asked if he was amenable to a continuance. Mr. Mize agreed. Commissioner Chitiea felt undergrounding is essential. She was willing to allow time for further research to see if the lines could be placed in the street. Mr. Hanson suggested it would be best to continue the matter at least four weeks. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Modification to Tentative Tract 14548 to October 23, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Fe MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the formation of a Maintenance Assessment District for drainage facilities for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082-01. Ge MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE MAP 13527 AND TO THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 14379, 14380, 14381, AND 14382 (4 PHASES OF TRACT 13527) - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the formation of a Maintenance Assessment District for drainage facilities and a condition to join the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District for a previously approved design review of a tentative tract map consisting of 152 single family lots on 51.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN: 225-071-65. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the staff report. Commissioner Eelchef asked if any thought had been given to tying the requirement to the issuance of grading permits rather than building permits. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated grading permits had already been pulled. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 25, 1991 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Craig Page, Ahmanson Development, 1370 South Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, requested approval. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt the request and solution seemed straightforward. She recommended approval. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolutions approving Modification to Tentative Tract 14139 and Modification to Tentative Map 13527 and to the Design Review for Tentative Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382 (4 phases of Tract 13527). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , NEW BUSINESS He DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-17 - CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - A courtesy review of the proposed Ruth Musser Middle School on 14.27 acres of land within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the east side of Tetra Vista Parkway, north of Church Street - APN: 1077-091-27 and 31. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He said the Design Review Committee had raised concerns about the bus bay's location being so far from the school, screening of parking areas with berming and landscape hedgerows, and consistency of the street trees along Spruce and Terra Vista Parkway. Commissioner Tolstoy stated one other concern had been raised at the Design Review Committee. He said they had requested that a fence be placed adjacent to the playing field along Spruce Street to prevent balls from going into the street. Mr. Coleman stated that a 4-foot high fence with shrubs had been discussed. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Dante Aguilos, Wolff/Lang/Christopher, Cucamonga, introduced himself. 10470 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was any proposal to solve the question of the bus drop off area. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 25, 1991 Mr. Aguilos stated they would try to resubmit to the Department of Education; however, it was a requirement that the bus drop off and parent drop off must be separated. Commissioner Chitiea felt a closer proximity to the building for the bus drop off may encourage more use of the buses on rainy days. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the problems is the unique site configuration. Commissioner Chitiea felt the proposed current bus bay location was not appropriate unless a covered walkway system is provided to the school. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that wind and rain will be a problem. Mr. Aguilos stated the school planned to erect a temporary tent during rainy days. Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be possible to advise the School District about the Commission's reservations. Mr. Aguilos stated he would relay the concerns. Commissioner Melcher felt it would not be appropriate to cover the walkway because it would create a structure down through the middle of the playing fields. He wondered if it would be possible to use the paved trail to the north of the ball diamond for passageway instead of paving a sidewalk between the playing fields. He thought the money saved by not having to construct the sidewalk may be used to construct a shelter when the school is constructed. Mr. Aguilos stated that idea could be explored. Commissioner Vallette asked about the fencing along Spruce. Mr. Aguilos responded they planned to use ornamental wrought iron fencing. Commissioner Vallette asked if they could try to incorporate the same type of wall as used elsewhere in the Terra Vista community. Mr. Aguilos agreed they would. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel asked for input from the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Vallette stated the site is difficult. She said the school appears nice. She reported the main concern was the drop off point. She indicated they had requested that the bus drop off and parent drop off be ¥eversed. Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 25, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that during Design Review the applicant had indicated there would be a problem because of the median if the bus drop off were placed on Terra Vista Parkway. Mr. Coleman stated that even if the bus bay location were placed on Terra Vista Parkway, the parents may use the bus bay drop off during inclement weather because it would be closer to the buildings. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the situation was critical, but said the Design Review Committee had not found a good solution. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was a courtesy review. He said the Commission's comments had been noted and the architects and School District would hopefully work with staff as the plans are finalized. Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that a berming could be incorporated to screen the parking lot from the street. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. REVIEW OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER - LEWIS HOMES Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1560 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, requested that both Buildings E and G be considered. He distributed a site plan, store layout plan, and building elevations. He stated they had difficulty finding a tenant to lease the G160 and G150 suites together because the tenants wanted a square or rectangular floor plan. He said as they were looking for high visibility tenants for the tower space, they were driven by the demands of the tenants. He reported that they leased the G160 suite to $5 Clothing Store and the remaining 254 square feet to a jewelry store. He reported that because the jewelry store would be utilizing the sign immediately above their door, there would be no approved sign placement for the $5 Clothing Store on the southern elevation. He stated the Design Review Committee had agreed that the best solution would be to place the sign for the extreme west end tenant on the tower face below the recessed basket weave. He said he had brought along Bernie Labowitz from $5 Clothing Store and a representative from Superior Electric (the sign company). Chairman McNiel asked if Building E would be leasing in the same pattern. Mr. Mager said there were letters of intent to lease in the same general pattern. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 25, 1991 Chairman McNiel stated he did not know what bearing rectangles have in today's market as there are many stores with odd configurations. He said at the Design Review meeting he had agreed to consider the request for an additional sign. Mr. Mager stated the tenant wanted a sign that is visible from Foothill Boulevard because the main entrance is on the Foothill Boulevard side. Commissioner Vallette was concerned that if Foothill Boulevard facing signage were approved for the tower of Building G, it would also be requested for the tower element of Building Q. Mr. Mager did not feel that would be true because Building Q is a two-tenant building and the southern tenant would be entitled to the approved wall sign location facing Foothill Boulevard. He said the other merchant made their transaction on the basis of facing the shopping center rather than to the south. Chairman McNiel stated he was sympathetic with the plight of the applicant. He said when the building was designed it was originally felt one tenant would take the entire area; therefore, the signage at the southeast corner would be sufficient with no signage to be permitted on the tower. Commissioner Melcher asked if the approved sign locations on the west elevation of Building G would be deleted if a sign were to be permitted facing Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Mager stated that consistent with the west elevation there will be a sign on the minor, domed tower in lieu of signage in the three sign band areas. He said that sign had already been approved. Chairman McNiel questioned how quickly the developer needed an answer on the sign location. He thought perhaps better drawings could be submitted to give the Commission a better sense of what the proposed sign would look like. Mr. Mager stated that the grand opening of the shopping center was scheduled for October 12 and 13 and $5 Clothing Store was planning a soft opening before then. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the towers of Buildings E and G need to match and balance one another. She said that during the original design of the center, it was determined that the towers should not be turned into sign elements by placing a sign on any of the major tower elements. She felt it would be appropriate to place a sign in the metal grid area below the tower. She felt that placing a sign above the arch and below the decorative work would detract from the shopping center as a whole. Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette concurred with Commissioner Chitiea. Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 25, 1991 Commissioner Melcher thought the basket weave element should definitely remain. He thought these specific towers are unique because they are somewhat concealed behind Buildings Q and R and are set back rather far from Foothill Boulevard. He indicated he thought at first glance it would be permissible to place the signs below the basket weave but said he was not involved with the original sign program and did not know about the restriction regarding signs on the tower element. He said he would be willing to look at a mock up paper pattern on the wall to get a sense of what the sign may be like before ruling it out. Chairman McNiel stated the proposed sign was shown in Exhibit B of the staff report. Commissioner Melcher stated it was difficult to get a sense of the look from the drawings. Chairman McNiel invited further public comment. Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the drawing was to scale. Chairman McNiel asked if any thought had been given to placing the sign in the metal grid area. Mr. Lasley stated there would be a problem in utilizing individual neon letters in the metal grill area because of the need to connect the letters to the transformer. He said there would also be a question of where to place the transformer. He indicated they had planned to place the transformer behind the roof parapet and run conduits from the location above the arch. He said it would have to be exposed neon or a canned sign if they placed the sign in the grill area. He reported they have not used exposed neon or a canned sign anywhere else in the center. Mr. Mager stated that they have tried to deal with aesthetics throughout the project and have attempted to be sensitive regarding the placement of signs. He said there is a lot of activity in the archway above the doors and he felt it would be inappropriate to add a sign in that area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be willing to allow a canned sign if that were necessary to have the sign in the grillwork area. Chairman McNiel did not feel a canned sign should be used. He preferred the lower level sign and felt the technical problems could be worked out. Commissioner Melcher felt that applicant had shown their attempt to deal with signs in a tasteful manner by not suggesting that the sign replace the basketweave pattern which would place the sign in a more prominent location. He said he would be willing to consider the location they were requesting subject to seeing a pattern on the wall so that the Commission could see what it would look like. He said that would give a better sense of how it would look three-dimensionally and from Foothill Boulevard and coming in the driveway. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 25, 1991 Commissioner Vallette was concerned that if two signs are permitted on the two towers, other tenants who do not have visibility from Foothill Boulevard will also request such signage. She felt the applicant should work within the established sign program to meet the needs of their tenants. She did not want a sign on the tower element. She said she would consider one in the grillwork area, but would like to see it there before deciding. Mr. Lasley stated that if a canned sign were to be permitted in the lower area, it could be easily done but individual letters would be difficult. He felt the best design solution would be to place the sign in the area they proposed as he did not feel it would be a good idea to eliminate the grillwork. He indicated the light fixture would be blocked out if a sign were placed in the grillwork area. He said when the building was originally designed it was thought tenants would be brought in off the side but the tenants would not survive. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the light fixture is attractive and would not show if the sign were placed in the lower area. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it was a good point that the light fixture would not show, but anyone entering the store would have the pleasure of seeing the fixture. She still felt the sign should not be placed on the tower and said they had discussed the need for signs back when the center was designed because it was felt by the Commission that signs would be requested. Chairman McNiel felt the issue is the tower, but he was not sure the alternative would work well. He said even if the sign were placed on the tower, there would still not be a great deal of visibility from Foothill Boulevard. He asked how visible an 18 inch high sign would be from Foothill Boulevard. Kimberly Salis, Superior Electric Advertising, stated that clear visibility for 18 inch letter height would be 750 feet. Chairman McNiel stated that the tower is not clearly visible from Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Melcher stated exceptions were made for Ross Stores because of the extreme distance from Foothill Boulevard. He suggested that because the two towers are rather distant from the street that an exception would not bring about a barrage of requests for other tower signs and would not commit the Commission to granting such requests if they were received. Chairman McNiel thought that even though he would prefer the sign at the lower level, it would least clutter the building if the sign were placed on the tower between the arch and the basketweave element. Bernie Labowitz, $5 Clothing Store, 2320 East 49th Street, Los Angeles, stated they tried to balance the signage. He said the back tower had been approved and he felt the front tower location would balance the signs. He said if the sign were to be dropped to the grillwork area, the width of the sign would have to be reduced and the sign would be difficult to read. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 25, 1991 Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission was really responsible for the marketing of retail space. She felt the space could have been marketed differently and if the applicant had chosen not to market it the way it was originally designed, she did not feel it should be the Planning Commission's responsibility to allow changes to the sign program. Chairman McNiel stated it was not the Commission's responsibility, but rather their option. He said the best laid plans do not always materialize and there should be some flexibility in conditions because conditions change. Commissioner Vallette stated she did not mean the Commission should not be flexible but she did not feel the Commission should have to accommodate every decision an applicant makes. She agreed with the original Commission decision that the tower elements should not have signage. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher felt Commissioner Vallette's point was good, but he indicated that there was approximately 600,000 square feet of retail space and the planning is originally done at very small scale. He said that to later find out that there are a couple of small leasable space problem areas in terms of the sign program would not be uncommon. He agreed it was not up to the Commission to solve the problem, but he felt solving the problem in the proposed way may be best for the applicant and the City. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Vallette. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the Commission needs to be flexible and that situations many times require further thought, but he did not want the sign on the tower. Motion; Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette to place the sign in the metal area below the arch on approval of the full Commission. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , J. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW - Oral Report Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the subcommittee had been working with two Council Members on the development review processing as it relates to design review. He said they had discussed a concept of presenting an opportunity for the development community to meet with the full Commission early in the process. He asked that the other Commissioners give input on the concept. Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 25, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City already has pre-application reviews and the procedure would make it more of a formal action. He wanted the developer to be able to bring in concepts and sketches instead of full blown plans. He felt that once a developer submits a full blown plan, the Commission starts massaging an undesirable plan instead of rejecting it. He thought that sometimes leads to undesirable projects. Chairman McNiel stated that the purpose of the pre-application review is to bring sketches and concepts. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the reality is that the developer submits blue lines with a site plan and buildings already planned. Commissioner Chitiea indicated that should the proposed pre-application review be put in place, it will be extremely important that developers be informed well in advance about the purpose and intended results of the process. Chairman McNiel feared that an applicant may submit sketches and then feel he had received a confidence vote from the Commission. He also worried that staff's role might be overlooked in this process. He stated it must be made clear to the applicants that the process is very preliminary and the Commission is only giving directional guidelines. Commissioner Chitiea stated the pre-application review should not be construed as an approval process, but merely early guidance. Chairman McNiel recalled when a developer stated at a Planning Commission hearing that the newspaper had reported that some of the Council Members liked the project. He felt that undermined the Planning Commission and he feared the Commission may be doing the same thing to staff, making staff's job harder. Commissioner Chitiea stated that there had already been suggestions on other projects that the plans had been approved by various Council Members and therefore it was up to the Planning Commission to agree. She felt that is inappropriate. Commissioner Melcher agreed that Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea were correct regarding the quality of exhibits. He thought the application form should be revised to be sure that informal, conceptual work is submitted rather than advanced plans. He said a strong concern has been expressed by staff about the undermining of staff's ability to deal with developers that may result from the process. He said the proposal was changed so that staff would make a brief verbal review of the project after the developer's presentation so that the Commission may be alerted to some of the issues they may not have thought about. He also said they had suggested the process be limited to 30 minutes. He felt the Chairman should indicate at the end of the session that it is the applicant's responsibility to work through the process with staff. He thought it should be indicated that if staff reports that the applicant is not working with staff, that the pre-application comments will be considered withdrawn. Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 25, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the process would not be completed in 30 minutes. He was also concerned that a design may be shown, receive favorable comments, and then turn out to be impractical for technical reasons after the Engineering Department or the Technical Review Committee has had an opportunity to review the submittal. Commissioner Vallette felt staff should be as much a part of the process as the Commission. She thought the Commissioners should carefully choose their words to state that the concept is good only if various things work. Commissioner Chitiea felt that was the purpose of Design Review. Commissioner Vallette understood the reasoning for the developer's requesting the courtesy review in order to discuss ideas. Commissioner Chitiea felt the process may almost double the time spent by staff and the Commission on the design review process. Chairman McNiel agreed it is an extension of the workshop concept. Commissioner Melcher felt it is an optional process. He did not expect that people who normally deal with the City would utilize the process. Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea disagreed. Commissioner Melcher felt the most likely people to use the process will be those who are referred by staff because of a confrontational situation. Chairman McNiel felt the Commission should keep in mind that it is not their responsibility to tell an applicant what to do on a particular site. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the concept should be initiated on a trial basis and then re-evaluated. Mr. Buller stated it was the intent of the Council Members of the subcommittee to view the first few sessions. Chairman McNiel felt it would be advantageous for the Council Members to follow the complete process of one or two projects from beginning to end. Commissioner Tolstoy felt they should be encouraged to attend the Design Review Committee meeting as well. Commissioner Melcher stated that it was the subcommittee's intent to have a trial period of six months to a year. Commissioner Vallette asked if fees would be involved to cover the cost. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 25, 1991 Brad Buller reiterated that a workshop was scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 1991, regarding Lusk and Lincoln. He announced that the plans for Price Club had been submitted for plan check. He said Foothill Marketplace had requested a workshop regarding the design components of their project. He suggested the workshop be held following Design Review on October 17, 1991. Commissioner Melcher requested that the Planning Commission discuss the idea of instituting a fee for meetings between developers and individual Commissioners based on the time spent. He suggested that the money go to the Planning Division's budget to defray expenses of opportunities for the Commissioners to attend seminars to enhance their skills as Planning Commissioners. He said he felt there should be some mutual benefit from the meetings. Brad Bullet requested that the Commissioners advise staff about their availability for meetings in November and December. He commented that regularly scheduled meetings would fall on November 27 (the day before Thanksgiving) and December 25 (Christmas Day). PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: adjourn. Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to 10:35 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -21- September 25, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting September 25, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga .Planning Commission to order at 5:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: NONE PRESENT: John de Frenza, Project Architect, Hill Pinckert Architects; Doug Nie, Retail Architect; Todd Bremner, Bremner Engineering; Byron Pinckert, Hill Pinckert Architects; Jack and Beverly Masi, Project Proponent; Michael Scandiffio, Applicant STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner , , , , , Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of a 27 acre master plan consisting of 40 buildings totaling approximately 280,857 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. APN: 229-011-010, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. An overview was presented by Brad Buller, City Planner, who reviewed the agenda for the workshop. Michael Scandiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, reviewed the modifications to the project. 1. Elimination of shared parking; 2. Building No. 5 was decreased in size; 3. A board was prepared for the Commission's review which describes the design vocabulary for the site. John de Frenza, 16969 Yon Karman, Suite 105, Irvine, Project Architect, reviewed the new design vocabulary sheets and indicated that the sheets illustrated a progression from left to right. He presented an additional rendering showing the view from the parking lot to Foothill Boulevard and a rendering showing the multi-tenant building was prepared. In addition to this, a beam/arcade detail was shown. Mr. Buller, City Planner, indicated that an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment for new land uses would be required and this item as well as several others are needed in order to complete the formal application. Mr. Scandiffio indicated that some revisions were already done to the site plan. -He discussed the concept of an activity center zone which is proposed to be 1,000 by 600 feet at the corner of Rochester and Foothill. In addition, he proposed including what he called an "auto court zone." Mr. Scandiffio noted the service retail would be provided primarily in the activity zone. He said service retail would be defined as uses requiring 25,000 square feet of floor area and would include such uses as home improvement needs, sports/entertainment related (along the southern boundary), medical/hospital equipment, and convenience retail. The auto court concept was then reviewed and was similar to what was presented in previous workshops. Chairman McNiel asked a question regarding whether the uses were proposed or existing. Brad Buller indicated that the uses were proposed although some uses are already allowed or conditionally allowed. Chairman McNiel indicated the following: 1. He was not. sure if a massive zone change would be acceptable; 2. He questioned whether or not the restaurant concepts would work in regards to their location and availability of parking in close proximity to them; 3. He was not sure if Foothill Boulevard was appropriate for an auto center; The Industrial complex as presented is not warm or attractive and he sees it as a rather cold presentation. He indicated that it appeared to be an industrial park trying to be something else. However, he felt it was probably a workable project. He also indicated that he felt the architecture was cold and industrial and was not appropriate for Foothill Boulevard. Commission Chitiea felt the architecture was also cold and she agreed with Chairman McNiel on this point. In looking at the two sets of illustrations, she liked the patina on the copper but did not like the grey roof element. She felt it was a difficult approach taken with the raw, bold colors; she also felt the square figures were repetitive. She felt this concept was not new or innovative and was too generic, but she was not opposed to some other type of unifying theme. She felt the colors were not warm nor appropriate. She Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 25, 1991 thought the building on the corner of Rochester and Foothill worked but not for a restaurant use. She thought the parking comments made by Chairman McNiel were justified and said there did not appear to be adequate parking adjacent to the restaurant uses. Commissioner Vallette indicated that she would like to see softer, more commercial appearing buildings along Foothill Boulevard; she was, however, in favor of the master plan. She liked the gas/auto center and the weathered copper roof treatment. She felt there should be more movement of buildings on Foothill Boulevard and that the architecture can be worked with because it is different. Commissioner Tolstoy had trouble with the concept of retail uses in the kinds of buildings proposed along Foothill Boulevard and their location. He felt the metal roof appears cold. He also questioned the use of a sheet metal car wash. He felt that the applicant was trying to make the project a retail center although it was not designed as a retail center. He did not like the square design treatment on each of the buildings. Commissioner Melcher indicated that he did not have any prejudices against the materials proposed. He felt that the architecture worked best in the multi- tenant building. He also liked the buildings that faced Foothill and the buildings north of the long, straight, narrow alleyway. He thought that the industrial buildings are not acceptable and that they appear to be a "painted concrete box" with minimal variation. He felt that there needs to be a significant use of awning and steel members. In regards to the third tier of building types, he did not like the one and one-half-story concept. He felt that buildings should look like one-story buildings if they are one-story buildings and not try to be something they are not. He did not like the use of glass from ground level to the top of the building level. His main concern was with the buildings along Foothill Boulevard. He questioned the applicant as to whether the winery was to remain and if so, why it would be coated with the new material. He felt that the applicant was trying to "marry" industrial uses with more traditional references and shapes and this concept was not successful. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he did not see the need for any metal that was not structural and said it appeared to be tacked on. Commissioner Chitiea indicated that the restaurant buildings should be warm, inviting, and special. She did not see how they would work as proposed. Mr. Buller suggested that consideration be given to the use of elements of the Sports Complex architecture. He felt there was some merit in departing from the Mediterranean-Spanish look to provide variation in the City. Chairman McNiel indicated that he did not have a problem with change, but did not like this concept. Mr. de Frenza added he felt that part of the problem was a perception of size and that the buildings are only 60-70 feet wide. He felt a simple 8,000 square foot building could not support much more architecturally. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 25, 1991 Mr. Scandiffio indicated that the buildings on Foothill Boulevard could be retail or office, but the buildings should evolve and they are trying to design a multi-use center. Mr. de Frenza stated that buildings averaged 10,000 square feet in size with the largest one being 15,000 square feet. Mr. Buller indicated that the Industrial Specific Plan identifies only one point of ingress/egress on Rochester Avenue and indicated an amendment may be necessary if the proposed two access points are pursued. Commissioner McNiel added that the industrial portion on the southern end of the site did not trouble him; however, he was uninspired by the use of steel girders on the building. Mr. Scandiffio indicated that they were trying to create a vernacular that was crisp, clean, and international. Commissioner Melcher added that his concerns with the site plan remained the same as previously mentioned. 1. The entries to the northeast portion of the site need more defined focal points; 2. More movement in the alignment of the South Masi Drive was needed; The steel from the buildings could be stripped off since there was so little of it. He thought it looked added on as if it were not part of the structure. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he did not like the proposed use of metal. Commissioner Vallette stated she did not have a problem with the use of metal as proposed. Commission Tolstoy thought that an alternate material was needed. Commissioner Melcher felt the project needed more movement and more depth around the windows. He thought it would be acceptable to remove the steel, but felt the architecture needs some additional three-dimensional elements. He thought something more substantial than an awning near a lunch area is needed and some material should wrap around the corners of the buildings. Mr. Scandiffio said that any undulation on Masi Drive would not be noticeable because of the City street radius standards. Mr. de Frenza indicated the street location was inflexible because of the driveway spacing policy on Rochester Avenue. Mr. Buller suggested that if it is technically possible to undulate the street the applicant should do this. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - September 25, 1991 The topic then focused on the multi-tenant architecture. Commissioner Melcher noted that one product was served by Masi Drive and one product was located to the north. He felt the northern area of the site was a large parking lot surrounded by buildings and he also felt that possibly the site plan could accommodate one building type on Masi Drive and an additional type in the northeast corner. Commissioner Chitiea indicated that she liked the changes in roof character, but she did not like the color. Commissioner Melcher stated that the applicant should pursue their concept as presented or revamp the concept to what he felt the Commission wanted. Chairman McNiel stated that he did not have a problem with the buildings along the southern portion of the site and that the steel could be eliminated. He was not inspired by the industrial concept throughout the site and felt perhaps a second architectural style needed to be introduced. Mr. Scandiffio added he felt the land use issue was strongly related to the architecture and that possibly lower buildings or buildings that looked more like offices would be appropriate. Mr. McNiel indicated the parking was satisfactory adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, but it must be screened. With respect to architecture, he questioned .the applicant as to what would happen if a corporate restaurant such as Mimi's wanted to locate on the site but did not fit in with the industrial architecture. Commissioner Vallette added she felt the Commission was not saying the buildings on Foothill Boulevard were too tall and that Commissioner Melcher merely said that the buildings should be what they are. Commissioner Melcher added that the whole concept is to try to keep their options flexible and it would be refreshing to have something different. However, he felt that land use was a key issue. He also indicated that land use issues are key to how buildings are designed. Mr. Buller added that the purpose of the workshop was not to give direction regarding land use issues. Mr. Scandiffio stated the concept of Foothill Boulevard was one of hardscape adjacent to buildings. Commissioner Vallette commented that she would support more movement in the building frontages along Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Scandiffio questioned how tall the buildings should be on Foothill Boulevard. He wondered if two-story buildings were appropriate and felt that if this was what the Commission wanted, it would never work. He did not feel office over retail would work in the area. He felt the one and one-half-story concept may be a problem in the Commission's view. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - September 25, 1991 Mr. Buller indicated the height of the buildings is open for consideration. He said that depending on the architecture, both one- and two-story buildings would be appropriate. He questioned how the Commission felt about metal roofs for this project. He also indicated that he did not see how it would be possible to act on any design issues until the land use issues were clarified. Chairman McNiel commented he did not like the metal roofs and they were not easily maintained. Commissioner Tolstoy and Chitiea agreed with this comment. Mr. Scandiffio asked the Commission whether they wanted an international style along FDothill Boulevard. Mr. Bullet replied that the international style concept was from a draft document and that this concept has since been dropped. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned their workshop at 7:00 p.m. to their regularly scheduled meeting. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - September 25, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting September 19, 1991 Larry McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner OTHERS: Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group; Dale Lang, Wolff, Lang, Christopher Architects; David Di Iorio; Diane Williams, Council Member COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The development of a 128,438 square foot library building on 9.58 acres in the southeast corner of the proposed 100-acre Central Park project, located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-591-01 through 11. Otto Kroutil indicated that the purpose of this workshop was to resolve design details that were not clear at the previous workshop and to complete the design review process. The relief sections provided by Wolff, Lang, Christopher were presented by Bob Mueting. Mr. Mueting emphasized the following points in his presentation: The concrete balustrade along the Base Line Road elevation will be more substantial on the first floor, but less on the 2nd floor. A hierarchy of balustrade sizes will occur from the ground floor to the upper stories. 2. The floor plans will most likely evolve, but the elevations will remain essentially unchanged. Stained glass could be used in a restrained way in the arched window of the Base Line Road elevation and the arch over the main entry. Stained glass may be used on the eastern elevation, but this would be done on a "donation basis." 4. Regarding the column sections and elevations, it is the intent to indicate increased detail wherever pedestrians might be located. A tile and wainscot material has been proposed for durability. The wainscot material is preferred, however, due to its more resistant and lasting qualities. The cornice detail varied in size, with the smaller elements being on top. The Base Line Road elevation would have more substantial detailing to the cornice element. The discussion between the applicant and the Commission focused on the following points: The tile on the elevator tower elevation was felt to not be appropriate if it only occurred in this location. If it will not be provided elsewhere, it should be eliminated. 2. The Base Line elevation corner element on the upper story will be wrapped. Regarding the entry elevation at the plaza area, the arched main windows and the flanking area to the side should be as originally proposed. The original windows were preferred by the Commission, which included three large windows mirroring the three large arches. The Commission requested that the architect review whether or not this would be possible. 4. It was felt that the use of stained glass was not necessary. Mr. Mueting indicated that the window openings are to be recessed at least 12 inches. More detail will be provided at the plaza and front elevations and less on Base Line Road. All windows will be recessed and trimmed in raised molding. The Commission indicated that a double recess would be preferable to any plant-on material. The Commission questioned whether stone or foam detailing would be provided. Mr. Mueting indicated that stone was preferred, but a foam material would be utilized if the budget dictated. The exact color had not been determined at this point, but it was indicated the intent was to be within the color range as indicated on renderings. The Planning Commission agreed that the project was ready to proceed to the formal meeting of the Commission for approval. ***** ADJOU NT T e meet' g adjourned at submi ed, 10:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 19, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 11, 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, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Bill Curly, Deputy City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there were some memos before the Commission regarding Items D, E, and F. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to approve the Minutes of August 14, 1991, as amended. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1-1 with Tolstoy absent and Chitiea abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 22, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-03 - COCHRAN - The development of 20 apartment units on 1.08 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the end of Sierra Madre Avenue, west of Edwin Street - APN: 207-251-22. SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AND NORTHWEST CORNER OF ELM AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET - A request to vacate excessive street rights-of-way at the intersections of Milliken Avenue with Tetra Vista Parkway, Spruce Avenue with Church Street, and Elm Avenue with Church Street - APN: 227-151-22, 1077-421-58, 1077-421-55, and 1077-421-62. Chairman McNiel asked if anyone would like to pull either of the Consent Calendar items for discussion. Kevin Farris, 7742 Belvedere Place, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if there will be stop signs north and south of the park on Spruce. Chairman McNiel suggested Mr. Farris contact the Engineering Department during regular working hours. He said the item before the Planning Commission this evening was merely a recommendation for vacation of the excess property not needed for the bus lanes. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C® CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-23 - ASPEN MEDICAL GROUP - The request to allow a mobile CAT scanner trailer to operate within the parking lot of an existing office complex on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 10837 Laurel Street - APN: 208-352-16. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) Chairman McNiel announced that Item C had been withdrawn by the applicant. De ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENER/~L PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 11, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the listing of proposed changes to the General Plan plus a revised Exhibit A (Statement of Overriding Considerations) was being provided to the Commissioners. He commented that a lawsuit had been filed by the City against the County of San Bernardino regarding a development application located within the City's Sphere of Influence. He reported that the court had ordered that discussions be held between the two parties to see if a settlement could be reached. He stated those discussions were in progress and it was felt it would be premature for the City to act on the application. He suggested that staff give a presentation on the new information which had just been presented to the Commission and the Commission continue the item for two to four weeks. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, discussed the revised Exhibit A and the suggested changes to the General Plan to make it consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). Commissioner Melcher stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Etiwanda North lists Michael Brandman as the consultant. He asked if they were also acting as the consultant on part 2. Ms. Bratt responded that they have been acting in an advisory capacity to staff. Chairman McNiel suggested that the matter be continued to October 9, 1991. Commissioner Melcher asked when the Resource Management Plan and the Phasing Plan would be completed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 11, 1991 Ms. Bratt responded that those plans would not be completed until after approval of the EIR and the ENSP as they are implementation measures. She said the ENSP will indicate the infrastructure that is needed and the other plans will indicate how the ENSP will be implemented. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jim des Lauriers, Professor, Department of Biology, Chaffey College, 5885 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter regarding the origins and nature of the bog and the knoll. He felt the exact nature of the water supply to the bog and the nature and location of the water discharge from the bog should be considered. He said the integrity of the bog depends upon the integrity of the water source. He supported staff's recommendations regarding the changes necessary to reduce the environmental impact. He felt the number of units should be reduced and the bog should be set aside as open space. Richard Douglass, Landmark Land Company, Inc., 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100, Corona, provided a letter objecting to the City's proposal to redesignate some of their land as open space. He said a portion of the Landmark property is outside of the City's sphere of influence. He felt the Specific Plan should not be adopted until the EIR is adopted. He objected to the proposal to designate half of their land as open space to protect the bog and comply with the request of the wildlife agencies and said Landmark would oppose any efforts by the City to acquire Landmark land through an easement or eminent domain. He thought the City should not rush to adopt the ENSP. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01 and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to October 9, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried , , , , , Ge CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - The consideration of suspension or revocation of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 11, 1991 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to extend the hours of operation and amend the condition of approval prohibiting live entertainment for an existing restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Chairman McNiel stepped down because of a potential conflict of interest in that he plays on a softball team which is sponsored by Sam's Place. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She stated she had received a telephone call from a resident who indicated they could not attend tonight's hearing. She said the resident complained of loud noise, beer bottles and cans thrown into his back yard, and alarms going off in the middle of the night. Vice Chairman Chitlea opened the public hearing. John Mannerino, Mannerino & Briguglio, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the beer bottles and cans would not have come from Sam's Place because they do not allow bottles to leave the bar and they do not have cans. He thought the bottles and cans could be coming from people purchasing them at the two stores located near by. He stated a petition with over 1,000 signatures had been presented to the City and he indicated over 90 percent of the signatures were from Rancho Cucamonga residents. He said the signatures were gathered only from inside the premises. Mr. Mannerino said the Planning Commission's role was to determine if the land use is satisfactory, not to act as a punitive body. He asked that the Commission consider the record of the establishment, stating Mr. Pellegrino had not been cited nor had there been any police activity. He requested approval of the Entertainment Permit and did not feel a single guitar player should upset the City. The following people spoke in support of Sam's Place: Stephen Jay Kaufman, 75 East 24th Street, Upland Robert Crinlend, 9280 Highland, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Green, 9073 Caballero Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Nick Demeco, 8840 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga Robert Jenkins, 5081 Gateway Road, Rancho Cucamonga Jamie and Trisha Herrera, 8479 Vicara, Rancho Cucamonga Linda Andrews, 1271 West Springfield Street, Upland Shawn Jenkins, 8377 Via Ladera, Rancho Cucamonga Gary Yerman, 8377 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 11, 1991 They stated that Sam's Place sponsors sports teams and charities, Mr. Pellegrino treats his patrons with consideration and acts as a friend and father figure to his employees, Mr. Pellegrino does not allow people to drive if they are too inebriated, Sam's Place provides a good environment and is a nice place to take clients, and the clientele is mostly middle age people rather than young people. They thought the City should respond to the needs of the small businessman and felt the restaurant and bar is an economic aid to other businesses in center. They felt the three previous owners had failed because of the restrictions placed by the City and Sam's Place would not be able to survive only as a restaurant selling beer and wine if it was forced to close at 11:00 p.m. They indicated loud music plays from nearby homes and they felt the complaints were misdirected. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. She stated that the City Council had already determined the establishment should close at 11:00 p.m. and the Planning Commission was only trying to determine if the conditions of approval are being met. Commissioner Melcher stated that when the item was before the Planning Commission last year, he had supported the later hours. He felt the support shown by the members of the audience was a beautiful tribute to Mr. Pellegrino but said he was disturbed to hear that customers are allowed to become so inebriated they must be driven home. He commented that the City Council had overruled the Planning Commission last year and had restricted the hours to a closing time of 11:00 p.m. He said the testimony had made it very obvious that the business is not being operated under the conditions imposed by the City Council. Commissioner Vallette stated she had not been on the Planning Commission when the hours were voted upon. She agreed with the City Council that the hours should be limited because of the area adjacent to the establishment. She felt it would be a loss to the community if the business ceased to operate but she felt the owner was responsible to see that he abided by the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated the concern of the Planning Commission was whether the business is being operated under the approved conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. She felt the applicant had not abided by the conditions which were directed by City Council. She commented that the owner had been advised he was in violation of the conditions, but has continued to operate in violation. She did not feel it to be appropriate to the community for people to determine they are beyond the limits of what applies to other businesses in the community. She did not feel the business was necessarily harmful, and felt if the applicant had been abiding by the conditions, the request for extension of the hours and approval of the entertainment permit would have been more favorably considered. She reopened the public hearing. Mr. Mannerino stated the Planning Commission had an application before them to extend the hours. He felt it was within the Commission's jurisdiction to extend the hours. Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 11, 1991 The following people also spoke in support of Sam's Place: Robin Patterson, 13582 Sutter Court, Fontana Joanna Close, 7572 Malven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga John Martin, 6348 ~ia Serena, Rancho Cucamonga Ron Sharp 1354 Hester, Upland Charles Bell, 6147 Topaz, Rancho Cucamonga Stacy Barnett, 6730 Berkshire Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Mark Schrell, 6989 Mesada Street, Rancho Cucamonga They felt the Planning Commission and City Council only give lip service and do not understand that Mr. Pellegrino's livelihood is at stake. They thought the benefits should be considered and there is nothing offensive about the establishment. They felt the conditions were placed on the business because of problems with three previous owners, but there have not been problems since Mr. Pellegrino took over the business. They questioned why Sam's Place is the only bar in town with hours restricted to 11:00 p.m. They felt the City was being unfair because only one complaint had been received. They indicated the business does not start picking up until 11:00 p.m. because that is the start of the social hour for many people. They testified that more noise is generated at Peppers and asked why Peppers was allowed to stay open later. They did not feel the business would survive if they were forced to close at 11:00 p.m. They requested that the Planning Con~nission not rely on past decisions of the City Council, but instead make a decision in favor of the businessman. Vice Chairman Chitiea again closed the public hearing. She stated that each permit is on a case-by-case basis. She said the restrictions were for the location and were imposed by the City Council based on testimony taken at the City Council hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated that when the Planning Commission had agreed to extend the hours they had been informed there was a change in ownership. He said that what was before the Commission this evening was not brought on by any action of the Planning Commission, but rather by the action of the City Council in restricting the hours. He felt it was not the purview of the Planning Commission to deal with the economics of the issue, but rather to regulate land use and the relationships of use to use. He asked if there was a difference in the zoning between Sam's Place and Peppers. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated they were both located in Neighborhood Commercial zoning. He said that Peppers is adjacent to the freeway right-of- way and does not have any houses to the north or west. He said it does have multi-family housing further to the east. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the original reason for limiting the hours was the proximity to neighboring residences. She said the Planning Commission had received several complaints and information from Code Enforcement regarding their inspection. She felt that if the Commission decided it was Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 11, 1991 acceptable for the business to continue operating beyond the limits of their conditions of approval, it would set a dangerous precedent that if a business did not like the hours imposed, they could just set their own hours. She said when Code Enforcement had requested that the owner adhere to the restrictions, the owner refused, and she did not feel the matter should be taken lightly. Commissioner Melcher agreed that it was very clear that current conditions were being violated, but said an application was before the Commission to extend the hours and permit live entertainment. He stated that other applications are often approved on an after-the-fact basis. He commented that Mr. Pellegrino had applied for an entertainment permit when he found out one would be necessary. He did not see any flagrant problems with the application. Mr. Buller indicated that the Development Code states any action which has been denied cannot be reactivated within a year. Commissioner Melcher stated that the Planning Commission had voted to extend the hours on September 12, 1990. He asked if the twelve months could be counted from that time. Bill Curly, Deputy City Attorney, stated that typically the timeframe starts at the time of final action. He said typically that would be at the time of the Planning Commission decision, but the period would start at the time of the City Council decision in January 1991 because of the appeal. Mr. Bullet suggested that the Commission act first on the amendment to the conditional use permit, next the entertainment permit, followed by the review of compliance with the conditional use permit, and finally the consideration to suspend or revoke the conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette stated that any Planning Commission decision could be appealed to City Council by either the owner or the community. Commissioner Melcher felt it was reasonable to conclude from the testimony that the applicant is not operating in compliance with the conditions of approval. He said that a suspension or revocation would only affect the sale of hard liquor. He said that the Code would not technically allow the Commission to approve a change of hours. Mr. Curley stated that the Code does not permit acceptance of the application, but because it was accepted, the Planning Commission could act on the request. Commissioner Vallette did not feel it is appropriate for this type of use to be adjacent to residential neighborhoods. She felt the type of use provides a service to the community, but she felt it should not be adjacent to houses. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolution denying Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 11, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Commissioner Vallette stated that consistent with her feelings that such a use should not be adjacent to houses, she could not support the entertainment permit application. Commissioner Melcher asked to have the public hearing reopened. Vice Chairman Chitlea reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant proposed having one or two people entertain and if the guitar would be acoustic or amplified. Sam Pellegrino, Sam's Place, 6620 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, replied he did not care if there was one or two entertainers. He said the guitar would be acoustic. He stated that his juke box makes more noise than the guitar player. He commented that the shopping center had been built before the houses and the freeway will eventually be immediately behind his business. Vice Chairman Chitlea again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution denying Entertainment Permit 91-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~CHITIEA, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he had voted against prohibiting live entertainment consistent with his vote on the the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Vice Chairman Chitlea asked for comments on the review of compliance with the conditional use permit. She felt sufficient information had been heard in the public testimony to confirm the actions of the previous meeting in which the Commission set the public hearing for consideration of suspension or revocation of the conditional use permit. Commissioners Vallette and Melcher concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 11, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission could formulate a referral of the Commission's awareness of the non-compliance to the City Council to permit the City Council take the action because it was the conditions imposed by the City Council that were not being adhered to. Mr. Curley stated that the City Code does not provide for a non-action alternative. He said the proper course would be to take an action and the applicant or any other interested party could appeal. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea to adopt the resolution revoking Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he had abstained from voting because the matter was before the Commission for violations which do not violate what he had voted for the previous year and he did not feel he could vote to put someone out of business. Mr. Mannerino did not feel the vote was valid because he felt Commissioner Melcher's abstentio~ invalidated the quorum. Mr. Curley stated that his understanding was that the abstention would not destroy the quorum. He said typically an abstention would go toward the majority. He felt the Commission had taken a valid action but suggested the Commission may wish to continue the issue of revocation to the next meeting. He said traditionally an abstention is counted toward the maintenance of a quorum. He suggested that if the vote were not valid, the matter could be appealed administratively to the City Council to have them direct it back for reconsideration of the vote. Vice Chairman Chitiea preferred the matter go forward. She felt it is important that one member of the community does not get consideration that other members of the community are not afforded. She felt it is important that the Commission not say it is acceptable for someone to violate conditions of approval just because they may be a nice person. , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 9:10 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. · , , , Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 11, 1991 Ke ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22, 1991.) Me ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22, 1991.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, requested that the word "general" be added before Design Guildelines on page IV-35 of the Terra Vista Community Plan. He stated that Table V-4 should have 27 feet average shown for Detached Garage/Carport and Accessory Building Setback from Collector Road. Ms. Fong stated that the reference to storage units in carport structures should be removed from Section 17.08.090.C.4(a). Peter Pitassi, Pitassi/Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the City for the opportunity to participate. He requested wording clarification on the building separation between patio fences or walls more than 5 feet in height. Commissioner Chitiea workable standards. community. felt everyone had worked well together to develop She appreciated the work of staff and members of the Chairman McNiel felt everyone was aware of the intent and he hoped the spirit of cooperation would continue. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 11, 1991 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried Motion: amending drawings. Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt Resolution 88-161A, the established policies regarding landscape and irrigation Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried Commissioner Melcher requested that the Minutes reflect that action on Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A was tabled. O® MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify a previously approved Tract Map to increase the number of multi-family lots from 3 lettered and 12 numbered lots to 4 lettered and 16 numbered lots for 394 units on 23.5 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential designation (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Spruce Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-13. Anna Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She also reported that a letter had been received from a resident protesting the application because they felt it would permit more multi-family units. Chairman McNiel commented that the item was before the Planning Commission merely to provide a greater vehicle for financing and phasing. Commissioner Melcher asked if the modification would affect the phasing of common area improvements, specifically the amenities. Ms. Hernandez stated that currently the tot lot and recreational building were in the design review process and would have to return to the Design Review Committee for final approval. Commissioner Melcher suggested the development of the amenities be tied to Phase I. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 11, 1991 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the advertising for the item, inadvertently stated that the matter would be forwarded to the City Council for final action. He said that the Planning Commission's action would be final unless the matter were appealed to City Council. He indicated it would be acceptable to require the amenities be completed as part of Phase I. Ms. Hernandez stated that previous resolutions had no approval regarding phasing. Mr. Buller stated the project could not be phased but would have to be built all at once. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, agreed to include the amenities in Phase I. He said the project is large and the core recreational facilities would be built with the first phase. He stated the project will be marketed in two separate segments; one family oriented and the other adult oriented. He commented that under rules set down by the Department of Real Estate the core recreational facility must be built at the beginning of the project. He indicated satellite recreational facilities, such as the spa, would be completed when contiguous units are built. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked that staff respond to the resident and explain that approval would not increase the number of units. Mr. Buller agreed to do so. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13717 with modification to require that principal recreational facilities be constructed with the first phase and a phasing plan, showing construction of satellite facilities with contiguous development, be submitted for City Planner approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the final draft environmental impact report prepared for a residential subdivision and design review of 73 single family homes on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Almond Street, between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 11, 1991 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported that the City Attorney recommended that the Planning Commission certify the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) when the project is reviewed. Commissioner Melcher asked why the certification was being withheld until approval of the tentative map. Mr. Murphy stated that the attorney felt it may be more appropriate to review the mitigations in conjunction with the project. He said if the project were not approved there would be no necessity to certify the EIR. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Morton, 975 Denver, Costa Mesa, stated he represented Sahama and was available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Morton objected to not having the final EIR certified until the project is processed. Mr. Morton responded negatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the appropriate action would be to indicate any further actions the Commission felt necessary and continue the certification until it is returned with the map. Mr. Murphy stated it would be best to close the public hearing and advertise the EIR for certification when the project is processed. He stated that Sandra Bauer, the EIR consultant, was available to answer questions. Sandra Bauer, 2530 Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, introduced herself. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. There was no action taken as the EIR will be certified in conjunction with the project. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-27 - HOWD - A request to establish an animal care facility within an existing building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9375 Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-032-17. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Helen Howd, 9007 Chivanti Court, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 11, 1991 Commissioner Vallette asked the hours of operation for the adjacent child care facility. David Gyer, Grubb & Ellis Commercial Brokerage, 2151 East D Street, Suite 101A, Ontario, stated he represented Cal Land Properties, the owner of the center. He said the hDurs of the child care facility are from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and the center is for the employees of Chaffey College. He stated the College is delighted with the prospect of the pet hotel because it was felt the children could visit the animals. He requested approval. Chairman McNiel requested clarification regarding the maintenance and disease control standards set for the facility. Mr. Gyer stated that the County Department of Health regulates such uses and they had approved the proposed site and commented on the conditions required. Commissioner Melcher indicated there was a discrepancy in the applicant's July 15, 1991, letter concerning the number of animals to be housed and the conditions placed on the operation by the County Health Department. Mr. Gyer stated the applicant will abide by the conditions imposed by the County Health Department. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated the City has a need for such an operation. She felt the location selected was appropriate and she supported the application. Commissioner Melcher commented there may potentially be a conflict between an agitated animal that gets loose and a child. He suggested that precautions should be taken to avoid such a conflict. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if children are normally accompanied by an adult from the vehicle to an enclosure. Mr. Gyer stated it is a two-building structure located in a low traffic area. He described the layout of the facility. He said it would be necessary to go through a loading area in order to get to the entrance of the animal facility. He said the children are small and are generally hand-walked to the door. Chairman McNiel requested that Chaffey College facility be informed that animals may be in the area and precautions should be taken to protect the safety of the children. Mr. Gyer stated he would be informing all of the tenants in the park of the newest facility. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-27. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 11, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-04 - WELLS FARGO BANK - The proposed development of a 4,525 square foot bank on Pad 10 within the previously approved Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center, which consists of 11 buildings totaling 121,401 square feet on 12.8 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-011-22. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Joseph Holasek, Nagele Onvfer Architects, 2398 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Vallette asked what material would be used for the doors on the west side. Mr. Holasek replied the two doors on the west elevation will be wood doors with single light french glazing. He said one of the doors is to an electric room, so he requested that it be spandrel glass. Commissioner Vallette stated they were not designed to be primary entrances. Mr. Hayes stated the resolution contained a condition of approval that the west elevation door design be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Melcher stated he shared Commissioner Vallette's concern regarding the doors. He thought that since they are not main entrance doors, it would be best not to glaze them. He felt paneled wood doors would be more appropriate. Chairman McNiel agreed that it would not be advisable to have two different types of glass. Mr. Holasek agreed that wood panel doors would be acceptable. Commissioner Chitiea stated that wood doors with panels would be consistent with what the Commission had required in similar situations. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 11, 1991 Commissioner Vallette commented that she felt the design of the project was nice and had been improved in the process. Mr. Holasek thanked the Commission proportions and scale of the building. to the site. for allowing them to work with the He felt the buildings are well suited Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 91-04. COMMISSION BUSINESS S. ROUTE 30 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated City Council was forwarding the City's comments regarding the Route 30 Environmental Impact Report. He said the City Council had not changed the Planning Commission's comments. He indicated that Commissioner Vallette had requested the item be placed on the agenda for discussion regarding the possibility of establishing a subcommittee. Commissioner Vallette questioned if the other Commissioners were interested in forming a subcommittee to keep the Commission updated on the status of Route 30. She felt the Commission should remain apprised of developments in regard to Route 30. She volunteered to serve on the subcommittee and stated that Commissioner Tolstoy had also expressed an interest in serving. 'She suggested that the subcommittee receive all written documentation on development of the freeway. Commissioner Melcher commented that Route 30 will be the largest single construction project to ever take place in the City and will have a major visual impact on the City: Me felt Commissioner Vallette had correctly identified a major concern about what the structure will do to the City. He supported the Commission's having an ongoing involvement to the maximum extent possible. He thought Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy would be good candidates for the subcommittee. Commissioner Vallette stated that after the last Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Tolstoy and she had attended several Caltrans meetings and the Caltrans Engineer had indicated there are still issues which are flexible and they just need to know what the City wants. She felt it was important for the Commission to keep on top of the project and have as much input as possible. Commissioner Chitiea supported the formation of a subcommittee comprised of Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy. She felt it would be a large job. Mr. Buller requested that if the Commission wished to establish a subcommittee, that he be able to work with the subcommittee regarding their interest and involvement. He said the City's dealings with Caltrans is being coordinated through Engineering and they will be taking the lead on processing the freeway. He asked what issues the subcommittee wanted to be kept informed about and what meetings they would like to be advised of. He said the City Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 11, 1991 Council has a subcommittee dealing with infrastructure issues. He suggested the subcommittee would also keep the remainder of the Commission updated. Commissioner Vallette suggested a meeting be set to discuss the issues. Commissioner Melcher felt some principal areas of concern for the Commission would be design and aesthetics. When asked about the Planning Commission's interest in following the status of the historic resource issues; the Commission agreed that would be the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission, but requested that they be kept up to date on any significant changes in that area. , , , , , Commissioner Melcher requested a discussion on how the Planning Commission deals with planning matters involving extremely lengthy, complex documents. He asked if they could be spread a little better. He said EIR, Specific Plans, and Development Code Amendments require longer to review. Mr. Buller responded that Planning would try to take that into account in scheduling the agendas. He said the department tries to provide some plans early and perhaps schedule initial hearings with actual hearings at a later date. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adjourn. 10:35 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a September 19, 1991, workshop at 3:30 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the Masi master plan. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 11, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting September 5, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 3:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: John Melcher, Suzanne Chitiea, Vallette, Peter Tolstoy Wendy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner OTHERS: Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co.; John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects; Peter Brandau, Peter Brandau & Associates; Rance Clause, Lee & Associates; Jim Fetterle, Lee & Associates; Mr. and Mrs. Jack Masi, Jenny Masi ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of 40 buildings totaling approximately 280,857 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. An introduction was provided by Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, who indicated that the workshop should concentrate on the major issues of land use, site planning, and the architectural concept. Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co., 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, summarized his perceptions of the previous workshop and distributed a revised site plan to be considered. John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects, noted that revisions to the piazzas between buildings 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 had been made, including reducing the hardscape and incorporating the historical elements. He indicated that the piazzas should have the flexibility to be used for outdoor seating for the adjacent restaurants. The architect also indicated that line-of-sight drawings were prepared for the Midas bays. (Note that these were not reviewed or approved by the Commission). The auto users have been located 4 1/2 feet below the grade of Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated the need to be careful with signage for the Midas building, particularly since it will not be highly visible from Foothill Boulevard. Mr. de Frenza also indicated that revisions were made to Buildings 10 and 11 in the central portion of the site and that the circulation pattern had been slightly revised in this area. He said the building square footage has been decreased and the parking ratio has been increased. He said some type of shared parking agreement will still be required since the restaurants are parked at 91 percent. The architect also indicated that pedestrian links to Foothill Boulevard have been provided. Mr. Kroutil questioned whether or not each building could stand on its own in terms of parking. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the expectation for retail uses. Mr. scandiffio replied he felt retail is essential, since financing would be difficult without it. He also indicated that the portion of the site plan along Foothill Boulevard would now be the first phase, since this is the retail portion of the site. Mr. Kroutil stated that since current zoning of the site does not allow some of the proposed uses, an amendment would be required. He asked the Commission for comments. The Commission responded to the land use issues as follows: Commissioner Tolstoy liked the auto concept but had difficulty with the retail uses along Foothill Boulevard, as the property is not zone for purely retail. Mr. Scandiffio replied that those retail buildings would be designed for large users such as paint and wallpaper stores. Commissioner Melcher indicated that the kind of retailing indicated would bring out the single purpose shopper and queried whether or not piazzas and pedestrian connections would serve any useful purpose in this instance. He noted that typically retail uses are clustered together to take advantage of synergy. He commented on the applicants' indication that a financial institution is interested in the corner building and indicated that he has heard differently from other developers in town. Commissioner Melcher also indicated his concern regarding the auto users on Foothill Boulevard and felt that if it was allowed in this location there would other requests along Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Scandiffio responded that this was not a strip center, but a multi-use approach with only 20,000 square feet in two buildings on Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Vallette felt that the project was innovative, new, and Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 5, 1991 different. She felt that the auto uses were appropriate in conjunction with a master plan but not with individual parcels only. She preferred retail along Foothill Boulevard over bits and pieces of industrial uses to be developed separately. She liked the transition of the project from Foothill Boulevard southward. Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, indicated that it was the intent of the Masi family to maintain ownership of the Foothill Boulevard frontage. He said they don't want to compete with Terra Vista Town Center and the Hughes Center, but instead are attempting a specialty retail type of approach; e.g., specialty sporting goods, bicycle shops and other similar types of uses that could not survive next to Price Club and Big 5, etc. Vice Chairman Chitiea remarked that this center really seemed to be a "specialty retail" center but is not cohesive enough. She felt that the proposed retail uses should be ancillary to other users. She thought that uses such as those which are intended to stand alone may not work on Foothill Boulevard, especially in this economy. She felt as though paint stores in the rear made sense and that the auto center made sense, but that it would require an excellent design. She indicated open bays should be reviewed closely because they may be visible from Foothill Boulevard. She also felt that too much additional retail would dilute any other retail uses in other center~ already existing or zoned for retail sales. Mr. Scandiffio indicated that there is no market for office uses and that this type of use would not draw people onto the site anyway. He commented that buildings cover only 27 percent of the site. He indicated that the intent is to attract people to the site with the piazzas and restaurants and that they should have some thing to do while they are there. Mr. de Frenza added that the project provides a transition from multi-tenant use on the south to specialty users on the north side. Mr. Kroutil questioned if the Commission felt the proposed land uses were headed in the right direction. Commissioner Vallette indicated that she could support the auto users in the context of a master plan only. Commissioner Tolstoy said he did not want any service bays visible from Foothill Boulevard or Masi Drive, but indicated he supported the auto center use. He added that the design of the facility must be top notch. Mr. Kroutil indicated to the applicant that they should devise a summary of proposed land uses and prepare a land use amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan. Mr. Scandiffio indicated that the concept consisted of "convenience" retail on Foothill Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 5, 1991 Mr. Kroutil again advised the applicant that they needed to define the changes to the code which they are proposing and this will then be part of the application. Commissioner Melcher noted he was not in favor of the auto uses. He did not see how we could permit it here and preclude it in other Subarea 7 districts. Mr. Kroutil noted that the code permits a certain amount of retail, limited to support retail and services. Vice Chairman Chitiea indicated that signage on Foothill Boulevard would be an issue. She did not want to see obtrusive signs because of the lack of visibility of the buildings on Foothill. Jack Masi noted that they needed the flexibility to allow other uses not typically permitted in this Subarea. He added that the project could not be financed without the Jiffy Lube or Midas. Commissioner Tolstoy said he realizes the constraints that are placed on the owner but felt it is the responsibility of the Commission to consider the best concept for all of Foothill Boulevard and Subarea 7. He suggested that additional retail may be placed within a certain distance from an activity area. He thought that may be an acceptable way to phrase the code amendment which would not impact the entirety of Foothill Boulevard. The Commission had the following comments on the site plan: Commissioner Melcher was concerned with extending the activity center along the entire Foothill Boulevard frontage. He felt the activity centers should punctuate particular intersections. He thought on-site views should be considered more carefully; e.g. the south leg of Masi Drive is too straight. He felt that the main entry near the corner of Foothill and Rochester should be more dramatic. He suggested possibly grouping the two buildings south of the entry to make a dramatic space. He also felt that the row of buildings along Foothill Boulevard is too repetitious and the piazzas appear to be merely spaces between two buildings rather than usable space. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the piazzas resemble alleyways and should somehow be broken up. Commissioner Vallette felt the buildings along Rochester and Foothill should be stepped back. She thought setbacks should be varied along Foothill and the southern portion of Masi Drive. She was concerned about the long straight alleyway along the center of the site. Mr. Scandiffio noted the straight alleyway is a necessity for truck deliveries Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reminded the applicant that they would need an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment for the drive locations shown on Rochester. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 5, 1991 Vice Chairman Chitiea indicated that the terminus of Masi Drive at the corner is important and that special attention should be paid to design and landscaping. Regarding the design of the buildings on Foothill Boulevard, she questioned whether or not the plazas were usable or if they were merely spaces between two buildings. She felt as though people needed to be present in order to make the space work. She thought clustering or grouping buildings could accomplish this and advised the applicant to consider this alternative. She indicated that the applicant should review the originally approved site plan and that some elements of this plan worked well. She thought that the present site plan is too static in nature. Commissioner Vallette noted that she liked the expanded activity center and the piazzas. Mr. Kroutil concluded the meeting by giving the applicant two alternatives: 1) Set another workshop to discuss architecture only; or 2) To better define the land use issues and set a workshop to discuss land use, site planning, and architecture. The applicant preferred the second alternative. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT The tin w adjourned at 5:00 p.m. r 9, t 3:3.0 p.m. Respedt submi ed, Otto Kr Another workshop was scheduled for Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 5, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 28, 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: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner) Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the meeting would adjourn to a workshop to be held at 3:30 p.m. on September 5, 1991, regarding the Masi master plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-0-2 with Chitiea and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of July 24, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION FOR USE DETERMINATION 91-01 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A resolution to add Animal Care Facilities as a conditionally permitted use within the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan. VACATION OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT - A request to vacate a sidewalk easement, located between 9415 and 9425 Palo Alto Street, at the terminus of Layton Street. VACATION OF A RECORDED OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR A PORTION OF MIGNONETTE STREET - A request to vacate a recorded offer of dedication of Mignonette Street from Hellman Avenue westerly, including the partial cul-de-sac - APN: 202-041-57 and 58. Commissioner Melcher requested that Items A, C, and D be pulled for discussion. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. A. A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS Commissioner Melcher stated that since the matter was first brought before th~ Commission, he had been concerned about the project as a matter of use. He indicated that the applicant had made significant modifications to the building, parking, and truck dock operation. He stated that at the April 24, 1991, meeting Commissioner Tolstoy had stated he felt retail should be conducted from a building designed for retail use and he did not want to turn the industrial area into a retail area. He said that Commissioner Chitiea stated that 20 percent of office/professional buildings are permitted to be retail in the Haven Overlay District, but she felt the permitted percentage of retail should be less in a warehouse building. He requested comments from the two Commissioners and indicated he would like to see the project denied. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he does not like to see retail sales in those areas designed for another use unless they are supporting that use. He did not believe this retail use supports the industrial area. Commissioner Chitiea stated the business is located behind the Haven Avenue Overlay District and she felt a use of less than 20 percent would be acceptable with the modifications the applicant had made. Commissioner Vallette asked if the work is not completed within 90 days in compliance with Condition 5, if the Conditional Use Permit would be automatically rescinded. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Conditional Use Permit would then be returned to the Planning Commission to consider suspension or revocation. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 28, 1991 Nelson Flack, Del Rey Tennis Shoe Warehouse, 8711 Monroe Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they plan to begin construction as soon as the plans are approved by the City. He said they are currently working with the Building and Safety Department and the Fire District. He anticipated they would be completed within the 90 days. Mr. Buller commented that the 90 days would be calculated starting on the date of approval of the Resolution, not from the approval of the plan check. He said staff believed there should be sufficient time. Mr. Flack asked what would happen if the plans were held up in plan check. Mr. Buller replied that the City would consider whether the plans were submitted accurately and on time. Chairman McNiel stated an extension could be requested. There were no further public comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to approve the Resolution of Approval for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-08. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C. VACATION OF A SIDEWALK EASEMENT Commissioner Melcher stated that when he visited the site he could see the conditions that the neighbors find objectionable. He said that although he personally did not object to the vacation, it appears to be contrary to Planning Commission policy of requiring passages to facilitate pedestrian movement. He wondered if the Commission should re-evaluate the philosophy. He questioned if there should be a set timeframe for the property owner receiving the vacated property to remove the current walkway improvements and incorporate the land into the adjacent yard so that it does not become a "no- mans" land fenced off on both sides. He questioned if the Commissioners could request that the chain link fence in the front yard be replaced with more appropriate fencing. He said at the south end of the easement there is an area running east and west along a Southern California Edison easement which should be closed off from the school yard. Steve Sokoloff, 9415 Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the easement has been a constant problem with vandalism, graffiti, and rocks being thrown at adjacent homes. He felt the passageway facilitates vandalism and thefts at the school by providing an easy escape route. He indicated they plan to wall Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 28, 1991 off one end and gate the other and tear down their current fence to incorporate the area into their yard. He said that would take a little time, but they plan to do the work as soon as possible. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel felt the passageway falls far short of the designs currently being required by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that theoretically the idea is terrific but in practicality this particular location has become a problem. She supported closing off this particular access. She did not want to automatically close off all accesses within the City, but felt any such requests would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Chairman McNiel stated that it will cause the children living in the tract to go to Hellman to get to school. Commissioner Melcher felt the problem will continue to exist along what appears to be a Southern California Edison easement for overhead wires. He also requested that the abandoned area be closed off within 30 days and the area revamped within a year. He asked if the Commission wished to consider requiring more appropriate fencing in the front of the house, since the Sokoloffs would be receiving additional land and have an opportunity to expand the house in an easterly direction. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Sokoloff had considered a timeframe for improvements. Teri Sokoloff agreed to the timeframe suggested by Commissioner Melcher. She said she had placed a chain-link fence in her front yard adjacent to 40 rose bushes, which she plans to train to climb up the fence. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission can only determine if a proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. He said the City Council is the only body with the authority to grant a vacation. He suggested the Commission could direct staff to forward their concerns to the City Council or could request that staff prepare further staff reports to the Planning Commission before the Commission recommended the vacation. He said the City Council would be the only body who could impose conditions and such conditions could be incorporated into the actual vacation documents. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend Vacation of Sidewalk Easement to the City Council with a request that staff forward the Commission's observations to the City Council, recommending that the area be sealed off both at the street and at the school, and indicating that the recommendation was based on the unique circumstances of this particular pedestrian linkage approved prior to the incorporation of the City and did not reflect the design standards presently in use. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 28, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when properly designed, pedestrian rights-of- way through different areas of the City are quite desirable. D. VACATION OF A RECORDED OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR A PORTION OF MIGNONETTE STREET Commissioner Melcher questioned how the property to the south might develop. He questioned why there should be a vacation with an accompanying grant of easement as he felt it might be more appropriate to make the westerly lot a flag lot with legal frontage on Hellman Avenue. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, showed what had been proposed on several adjacent lots, even though the applications had never been completed. She said staff had indicated the proposed design, which does not use Mignonette, would be acceptable. She stated that during processing, the previous applicant had contacted the homeowners who were now processing the request to vacate the portion of Mignonette Street. Commissioner Melcher asked if Engineering was satisfied that the property to the south can be developed in a satisfactory manner without Mignonette. Ms. Miller responded' affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher said regrettably the matter was before the Commission after construction had already been commenced. He said an elaborate driveway is currently being constructed on the easterly parcel from which access to the westerly parcel exists. He was concerned that if an easement is granted, the driveway in front of the easterly house may become blocked with vehicles inconveniencing the residents of the westerly home or making it impossible for emergency vehicles to access the westerly house. He indicated he strongly prefers legal access and did not see why it could not be done. Ms. Miller stated the applicant had been directed to either design a flag lot or an easement, and the applicant selected the easement option. Commissioner Melcher preferred that the area being vacated be designed as a flag lot with both lots having legal access to Hellman Avenue. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Ms. Miller asked if the Commissioners wanted two separate driveways or if a shared driveway would be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher responded a shared driveway would be acceptable. He felt a separate driveway could be built later if necessary so long as the flag is established. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 28, 1991 Ms. Miller stated that Hellman Avenue is a busy collector street, and Engineering tries to minimize the number of driveways. Chairman McNiel asked the process if the Commission directs it should be a flag lot. Ms. Miller replied that a flag lot would have to be created through a lot line adjustment which could be done at the staff level. She stated that it would still require the street to be vacated, so that could move forward. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Steve Butters, 9260 Mignonette Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he currently lives in the westerly house and his son lives in the easterly house. He said the application is a joint one from both property owners. Mr. Butters stated they considered a flag lot but opted for an easement because a flag lot would require certain setbacks which would be more restrictive than those required if an easement is utilized. He said Engineering had also indicated they were interested in keeping the street access to Hellman to a minimum. He said they realized they had cut their own options for future subdivision, but they decided they would prefer an easement. There were no further public comments. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend 'Vacation of a Recorded Offer of Dedication for a Portion of Mignonette Street with a request that due consideration be given to the matter of a flag lot as opposed to an easement. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) 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. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 28, 1991 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated they were in agreement with the proposed aisle widths and felt the new chart is comprehensive enough to cover the majority of setups. He thought the chart gives the intent and any other configurations could be easily derived. Rance Clouse, Chamber of Commerce, 10370 Commerce Center, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for the opportunity to participate in the process. He stated the Chamber endorses the changes. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He commented the result was the work of many. Commissioner Chitiea stated she did not object to the one-size-fits-all concept, but she objected to making the spaces narrower than the present width. She felt the size of parking lots will not decrease, but retail space will increase. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not oppose the elimination of compact parking spaces but he did not think 8-1/2 feet is wide enough for a standard size. He said that if people drive straight in, such a size would be acceptable, but people park at angles. He did not feel the new size would b~ wide enough to accommodate shopping carts between cars, and he felt a standard size of 9 feet x 18 feet would be a good solution. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13351 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify a previously approved Tract Map to increase the number of multi-family lots from one lettered and five numbered lots to one lettered and seven numbered lots for 118 condominium units on 11.2 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 1077-091-37. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 28, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if the project is conditioned to require the development of the common area facilities with the first phase of development. Mr. Murphy responded negatively. Chairman McNiel asked if the lot lines coincide with the phasing. Mr. Murphy deferred to the applicant. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated they want to increase the number of lots because the Department of Real Estate and the secondary mortgage lenders require that at least 70 percent of the units on a parcel must be in escrow before escrow can close on the first unit. He stated the lot configuration and the phasing are identical. He said that typically recreational facilities are built along with the first phase and the model complex; however, he was not sure that was planned for this development. Commissioner Melcher felt the project should be conditioned to require the recreational amenities to be developed concurrently with the first phase being built to preclude the project's being stopped after the first phase of development without the recreational amenities having been finished. Mr. Cockroft stated they would not oppose such a condition. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13351 with amendment to require the development of the common facilities and other improvements on Lot A concurrently with Phase I of the project. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried MODIFICATION TO VARIANCE 91-04 LUNA - A request to modify a previously approved variance to allow a reduction in the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,240 square feet to comply with the City Council's approval of the associated Tentative Parcel Map 13693 which created two lots in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 28, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea asked if the variance would preclude the right to keep horses. Mr. Hayes responded negatively. He reported that the minimum lot size for equestrian uses is 20,000 square feet. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Luna, 8990 19th Street, #201, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated the Commission, staff, and the applicant had worked long and hard to arrive at what a majority of the Commission felt to be the best possible planning solution for the development of the parcels and the immediate neighborhood. He said that the City Council subsequently overturned the decision and approved a plan which he felt to be the poorest land plan for the neighborhood. He said that as the Council had given their direction, he would reluctantly support the Variance. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the new design will add quite a bit of street that could have been avoided and the City would be taking on additional streek maintenance. Commissioner Vallette agreed but felt the design is workable. She thought the surrounding community needs to be considered and she supported the Variance. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with the comments made by Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy but saw no reason to deny the Variance. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the concept of future streets would still be a discretionary action in the future. He said modifications of street layouts may occur. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Council's actions had precluded other configurations. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Variance 91-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 28, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 - VICTORY CHAPEL - A request to locate a temporary modular multi-purpose building of 912 square feet on the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-21. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VARIANCE 91-07 - VICTORY CHAPEL - A request to waive the requirement for a master plan for permanent buildings in conjunction with the request to locate a temporary modular multi-purpose building of 912 square feet on the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-21. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette stated there were no windows in the modular unit and she wanted to know if that was up to code. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he believed they were and indicated that others exist in the City and are used for church classrooms. Commissioner Vallette questioned when the 24 inch x 24 inch reinforced pylons will be installed. She was concerned because the trailer currently slopes and is not level. Mr. Hayes commented that the trailer is currently only being stored on the location and is not being used. He said it would be stabilized and leveled to meet the Uniform Building Code prior to occupancy. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gregory Campbell, 642 East 8th Street, Upland, stated he is the Youth Director for the church. He requested approval. He indicated the owner/developer of the property has submitted a master plan to the City and has promised to build the church a new building as soon as possible. Mr. Campbell stated the modular building appears to be the only present option. He said they are unable to finish the basement of their present building because of the high cost involved. He reported they had purchased the modular building from the Los Angeles City School District, which had used it as a classroom. He said they cannot install the modular in place until after Planning Commission approval. He said the developer had indicated they hoped to build the new building for the church within 12 - 18 months. George Yankovich, Vice Chairman of Public Safety Commission, stated there have been some safety problems connected with the modular unit. He indicated the matter had previously come before the Public Safety Commission because it was felt the trailer was not properly supported. He said Code Enforcement had visited the site and determined the trailer was unsafe at that time. He said Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 28, 1991 the trailer is currently supported by 2 inch x 4 inch boards, there are no concrete pylons, and the trailer is not skirted. Chairman McNiel stated the conditions of approval indicate the pylons must go into place and the skirting must be installed prior to occupancy. Mr. Campbell stated the modular unit had never been used by the church. He said they only moved the unit to the site. He indicated he asked the licensed moving contractor if the temporary support was sufficient and was informed that it is the legally accepted standard for temporary placement of buildings. He reported the modular building had not shifted during the recent earthquake. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette was concerned that the modular unit be placed on a permanent foundation and be properly skirted to inhibit children from crawling under the unit. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the development plans show the skirting. Commissioner Melcher shared Commissioner Vallette's concerns. the wording be changed to indicate the foundation would improvements would satisfy all Building and Safety requirements. He asked that be fixed and Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-01 and Variance 91-07 with modification to require that the modular building be placed on a fixed foundation satisfying all Building and Safety requirements. 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. Ke ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 28, 1991 3. Approximately 2'7.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I- 15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction b~ East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I- 15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 5. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office Professional as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 28, 1991 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, corrected the APN number of Subarea 7 to drop Parcels 227-131-54 and 227-131-61, and indicated a letter had been received from Fu Mai Limited Partnership opposing the redesignation for Subarea 5. Commissioner Vallette commented that the City Council had requested the rationale for the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Warren concurred and indicated that if the Planning Commission gives differing recommendations on similar properties the reasoning should be stated, whether it be because of distance, relationship to other properties, etc. He said that rationale would then be included in the staff report to City Council. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Lin, 527 West Foothill Boulevard, Arcadia, stated he represented the owner of Subarea 3. He indicated they felt the property is better suited to high density, partially because of its proximity to Commercial. He discussed affordability and indicated that if the designation were lowered to Low Medium, 10,000 square foot lots would be required and the houses would not be affordable. He commented that Subarea 6 had been designated Medium and felt that Subarea 3 should also remain Medium. Li Li Hwang, Fu Mai, 7168 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to the August 28, 1991, letter from Garry Chen, requesting that Subarea 5 remain Medium Residential. She stated that she works in real estate in the resale market. She thought the noise and pollution from the freeway will discourage buyers who are already going to Fontana or Rialto because of pricing. She felt Subarea 5 should remain as Medium because Subarea 6 was left Medium. She thought people would be willing to buy condominium units but not single family homes in the area because condominium units are seen as temporary housing. Loren Fritz, 13104 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the entire area designated as Subarea 7 and had lived there since 1973. He said that Subarea 6 had remained Medium and the two parcels to the east had been designated Office/Commercial. He said the City of Fontana recently changed the designation of 70 acres adjacent to the freeway to Office and community commercial. He commented that Base Line Road will be a major entrance to the City as a six-lane street and he felt that the street would be too busy for adjacent single family residences. He indicated he was not sure his property could be developed for Office use because of the traffic flow. He requested his property remain Medium. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 28, 1991 Ed Greer, Bradford Company, 1935 West llth Street, Suite L, Upland, stated he represented John Fowler, the owner of the westerly 10 acres of Subarea 8, west of East Avenue. He disagreed with staff's analysis and recommendations. He did not feel Commercial uses were fully considered. He did not feel the area was suited for Residential because of the noise from the freeway and the railroad tracks to the- north. He thought the property would be viable for Neighborhood Commercial in order to serve the residential area to the north. He commented that an on- and off-ramp are proposed at East Avenue from Route 30. He requested a continuation for 30 days to allow time to prepare findings and exhibits to support the area's being designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the property owners for the east side of Subarea 8 were currently out of the country. He said he had spoken with them by telephone earlier in the day and they expressed concern that the Planning Commission may reverse their original decision to recommend denial of the reclassification of their property. He stated they had requested the property designation remain Medium or be changed to Commercial. He said they did not feel their property was suitable for single family residential because of the proximity to the freeway and railroad tracks. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda SDecific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 1) Commissioner Chitiea felt that a Medium density for Subarea 3 would allow more creative planning and buffering of the large exposure to the freeway. She supported leaving the designation at Medium. Commissioner Melcher reported that he had spent a good deal of time visiting the properties and talking with people in the area. He said that the Commission had previously recommended that Subarea 6 and the eastern portion of Subarea 8 remain Medium. He said a tie vote had been reached for Subareas 3 and 5 with two Commissioners favoring the current designation of Medium. He felt the vote had shown that at least some of the Commissioners felt Medium is the appropriate zoning for those properties. He disagreed with staff's analysis that the freeway noise is buffered on Subareas 3 and 5 because they are below the freeway. He said he had gone to several areas of Subareas 3 and 5 during evening rush hour and felt the area was very noisy. He stated that on the eastern portion of Subarea 8 the noise is slightly less because the adjacent traffic is going down hill and the off-ramp configuration somewhat shields the area. He felt Medium to be appropriate for Subareas 3 and 5 because of the noise and also the elevation of the freeway which will permit freeway drivers to look down on the area. He felt Medium would allow creative site planning to lessen the noise to the residents and he thought a more uniform level of maintenance would be afforded the properties. He commented that when freeways go through single family residential areas, the areas tend to deteriorate, as can be seen along the 10 Freeway west of Montclair. He said he knew that Route 30 will be traversing some nice neighborhoods in the City, but he felt those neighborhoods would become less desirable than other properties in the area. Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 28, 1991 Commissioner Vallette felt that if single family homes will deteriorate because they are next to the freeway, higher density projects would also deteriorate. She felt that if it made good planning sense to designate multi- family adjacent to freeways, then the entire corridor adjacent to both sides of the proposed Route 30 should have been designated as Medium. She reported that the first home she purchased abutted the 10 Freeway. She said it was below grade and they did not find the noise to be a problem. Chairman McNiel stated freeways often cut through existing neighborhoods with older, smaller houses. He felt that currently attention is being paid to sound attenuation and beautification, and he thought that virtually all of the problems can reasonably be mitigated whether the area is developed as Medium or Low Residential. He said the City Council had directed a review of properties for possible reclassification where it makes sense to reduce the level of multi-family development. He did not feel single-family properties adjacent to Route 30 will be troubled by the freeway because sound attenuation walls will be erected. He said the walls will also block the view corridors. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He thought that Medium Residential could better be designed to buffer the effects of the adjacent Commercial property on Foothill. Commissioner Chitiea felt a well-designed Medium project would allo~ flexibility to move the bulk of the living areas away from the freeway and make the lifestyle of those living there the most attractive. She felt that would be preferable to the limitations imposed by small lots crowded up against the freeway~ Commissioner Tolstoy felt the view from the freeway will also be improved by a higher density project. Commissioner Melcher stated that in previous discussions regarding the Low Medium areas, the Etiwanda Specific Plan would have to be modified to permit development in the mid-range of the density. Commissioner Vallette asked the lot size minimum for Low Medium and Medium within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Bullet stated that the basic standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan require a minimum average 10,000 square foot lot for both Low Medium and Medium with a minimum size of 7,200 square feet. He said up to 8 dwelling units can be obtained for Low Medium and 14 for Medium under optional standards Chairman McNiel felt the Commission may be discounting what could occur under today's standards. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt resolutions recommending denial as amended for Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 1). Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 28, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 3) Commissioner Melcher stated his comments were the same as for Subarea 3. Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea concurred. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt resolutions recommending denial as amended for Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 3). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , General Plan Amendment 91-02B ~Subarea 7) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 5) Commissioner Melcher stated he had visited the property and it was clearly not impacted in the same way as the properties immediately adjacent to the freeway, although the southeast corner is subject to the noise of Base Line Road and the off-ramp. He felt Low Medium would be satisfactory. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel commented that the property owner had requested Office/ Professional because he felt the property immediately to the east will be difficult to access. Commissioner Chitiea felt the request had some merit. She thought perhaps the property should be master planned in conjunction with the property adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner Melcher asked if a master plan requirement could be added. He indicated the property would then be buffered on the north and west by Low Medium development. He asked if the transition from Office/Professional to Low Medium is generally successful. Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 28, 1991 Chairman McNiel commented that generally such transitions are appropriately buffered with landscaping to mitigate light overflow problems. Commissioner Melcher commented that 20 percent retail would be permitted in Office/Professional, and he wondered if developers would then request freeway- related uses. Mr. Buller stated the Etiwanda Specific Plan allows a variety of uses which are permitted or conditionally permitted. Commissioner Melcher felt permitting a designation which would allow 20 percent Commercial uses would dilute the Commercial in other areas. He thought that freeway-related uses are generally high-intensity uses, which he did not feel would be desirable in this area because of the close proximity to residences. Chairman McNiel commented that Fontana recently re-classified property in the area from Office/Professional to Commercial, citing lack of demand for Office/ Professional. Mr. Buller stated there is a similar land pattern of Office/Professional and Low Medium at the corner of 1-15 and Etiwanda. He said that is not an uncommon transition of land uses. Chairman McNiel felt that if the Commission changed the designation from Residential to Office/Professional, there would be pressure to change to Commercial based on ~he current market. Mr. Bullet commented that in the past when other property owners have approached the City to redesignate from Residential to Commercial, the Planning Commission has directed the applicant to formally apply for such a redesignation. He stated further analysis of the ramifications of Office/Professional would be needed. He suggested the Commission may wish to defer action or reclassify the area as Low Medium. He indicated the Commission could direct staff to research further or could direct staff to work in response to any applications submitted by the property owner, including any necessary traffic studies, etc. Mr. Warren stated that circulation would be one of the considerations for Office/Professional use. He stated that the Negative Declaration was recommended only for Residential. Chairman McNiel felt the owner should pursue Office/Professional. Commissioner Chitiea felt staff should pursue the Office/Professional designation. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. Commissioner Melcher felt the area is currently capable of producing a higher nun~ber of units so long as it remains classified as Medium. He preferred the Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 28, 1991 consideration of Office/Professional be undertaken in response to an applicant's request so that fees would be generated. Commissioner Vallette agreed that was a valid point. She felt if the property owner wishes Office/Professional, they should justify such a designation. Chairman McNiel did not feel it would be feasible for the property owner to file the necessary paperwork and go through the process before the next round of General Plan Amendments. He felt the Commission should redesignate the area as Low Medium, which would thus place the burden of applying for Office/Professional on the shoulders of the applicant Commissioner Melcher thought it seemed almost unnecessary to redesignate the area as Low Medium, but felt the property owner would not pursue Office/Professional while the property is classified as Medium. Mr. Buller suggested the Commission may direct staff to place the item on the work program if money should become available. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 5) changing the land use designation to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners felt the item should be placed on the work program if time were available. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would prefer to wait until the owner applied. Chairman McNiel agreed that the work program list is rather extensive. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that it is a low priority item. It was the consensus of the Commission that the item would not be placed on the work program. , , , , , General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 {Subarea 6) Commissioner Melcher stated that based on his visit, he felt the impacts of the downhill freeway noise is somewhat less. He felt the eastern portion of Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 28, 1991 the site is better designated as Medium. He thought the western portion to be clearly separate and the noise impacts were less on the western portion. He felt it was appropriate to designate the westerly portion as Low Medium. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 6) changing the land use designation to Low Medium for the westerly portion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel stated he felt the entire subarea should be redesignated as Low Medium. Mr. Warren stated the recommendations would be forwarded to City Council with the next cycle of General Plan Amendments. He said they would be forwarded at the same time as any recommendations regarding redesignations for the Victoria Community area. Mr. Bullet stated that if any property owners should desire Commercial, Office/Professional, or any other zoning, they could submit an application. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS M. CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that the Historic Preservation Commission had considered the report the previous evening and accepted the staff report and recommended it be forwarded to the City Council reiterating the importance of requesting that mitigation measures be more completely detailed and analyzed by Caltrans and a specific timeline accompany the mitigation measures. He stated they further requested that additional documentation be provided in the EIR/EIS regarding the unique historical and architectural significance of the Maloof property. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how staff felt about Fontana's request for a Cherry Avenue interchange. Mr. Henderson replied that staff has not received the data in order to study circulation and land use issues. Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 28, 1991 Commissioner Vallette agreed with the full freeway alternative. She felt that some concerns raised by La Verne and Claremont also apply to Rancho Cucamonga. She stated she understood the reasoning for Rancho Cucamonga's request for interchanges every mile, but she thought that most freeways do not have interchanges every mile. She wondered if the more frequent interchanges would not raise some environmental concerns for the surrounding residences caused by not only the on-/off-ramps but also the lighting and signage. She asked the rationale for having the freeway elevated because she felt that would cause additional impacts on residential developments. She asked if it would be possible to depress the freeway even if it meant losing an interchange or two to offset the cost of the depressed freeway. Mr. Henderson felt La Verne and Claremont failed to pre-plan for the freeway when they approved development within the corridor area. He said the City has requested interchanges in areas where the City has set aside land for buffering. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the during the formulation of the General Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council took the freeway into consideration. He said the City had always counted on a freeway and laid out street patterns based on one-mile interchanges. He thought that Claremont and La Verne were against the freeway in the beginning. He supported the one-mile interchanges. He felt the freeway would need to be elevated because of the drainage problems. Commissioner Vallette stated that La Verne and Claremont are pushing for the freeway to be below grade because of the impact on the surrounding residences. She thought Rancho Cucamonga should also push to have as much of the freeway as possible to be at or below grade. She thought the community will be divided between east and west by the major streets at the interchanges. Chairman McNiel felt the fewer the on-/off-ramps, the greater the division in the community. He thought that if interchanges are only every two miles, the impact would be greater on the east/west surface streets. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is important to get traffic off the local streets and onto the freeway as quickly as possible and have it exit the freeway as close as possible to ultimate destinations. He supported the full freeway option with interchanges every mile. He also supported Fontana's request for resolution of Cherry Avenue. Commissioner Vallette stated that east of Haven the freeway is proposed to be above ground. She was concerned that the high winds in the area will cause accidents on the elevated freeway. She felt that the location of the rock crusher will also generate additional trucks, adding to the danger. Mr. Henderson stated that an access problem from the rock crusher to the freeway has been documented. Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 28, 1991 Commissioner Vallette felt that the City should look at some of the aspects raised by the other cities. Mr. Henderson stated the 45-day comment period would close on September 15, 1991. He said the City Council would be reviewing the matter at their September 4, 1991, meeting. He said it would be up to Caltrans if they wished to rewrite the document. Commissioner Vallette asked if it would benefit the City if the Planning Commissioners made comments to Caltrans. Mr. Henderson stated the City Council would formulate the official City response but any individual can make comments directly to Caltrans. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the design of the freeway was done in such a way as to be as economical as possible. He thought the terrain dictated whether the freeway would be at grade or elevated. He felt everyone would prefer a recessed freeway, but he did not feel there would be enough money. He said that in the majority of La Verne and Claremont the freeway is recessed in the residential areas. He felt the wind factor should be considered and would justify the freeway's being at or below grade as much as possible to the east of Haven. He felt the City should work diligently to get the best possibl? freeway. He said La Verne had addressed the billboard issue and asked that Caltrans specify where the billboards will be placed. Chairman McNiel felt that Commissioner Vallette had made some valid points. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the timing was unfortunate because the City only has until September 15 to draft the response to the state. Commissioner Chitlea felt the billboard issue and depression of the freeway wherever possible should be stressed. Mr. Henderson stated the billboards along the freeway are generally not on Caltrans property. Commissioner Chitlea felt the City's opposition to billboards should be publicly stated. Chairman McNiel stated that all billboards should be appropriately screened from view. Commissioner Chitlea suggested they should also be below grade. Mr. Henderson stated that Caltrans would have to return to the City for local agreements regarding frontage roads. He stated that one of staff's concerns was that those details should have been more detailed in the EIR/EIS. Chairman McNiel commented that he had heard that freeway noise would be accented from a depressed freeway. Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 28, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated he had recently talked with a resident near where Miller goes under the freeway and he had indicated one gets accustomed to the noise. Chairman McNiel stated that distance of noise barriers from the noise affects noise impacts. He indicated that with an elevated freeway, if the barrier is placed at the bottom of the grade, it would not have much effect because of its distance from the noise generation. Commissioner Melcher felt that interchange spacing should be included in the detailed comments. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City deserves a good answer from Caltrans as to why the freeway cannot be depressed. Mr. Henderson indicated that the comments can set the tone for the negotiation strategy. Commissioner Vallette felt Caltrans needs to address the high winds in combination with the elevated freeway. Chairman McNiel agreed, but was also concerned about water drainage. agreed a depressed freeway should be pursued wherever possible. He Commissioner Melcher felt the City had already acknowledged that the freeway will not be below grade. Mr. Buller stated that on many recent projects, sound attenuation walls were required based on an anticipated elevated freeway. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, stated that if the freeway were built at grade, the City may lose one or two interchanges and may have to purchase additional houses. Commissioner Vallette felt that it would not be that detrimental if the City lost one or two of the freeway interchanges in the middle. She thought it would not be a large impact if the Day Creek interchange were deleted. Mr. Buller stated that Day Creek will be the main circulation spine to the regional mall. Mr. Henderson stated that any changes to the anticipated one-mile interchange spacing would be a major change to the City's traffic model and would require additional study. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City's traffic model includes all of the interchanges. Mr. Rougeau responded affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 28, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt that arbitrarily changing the traffic model might necessitate changing planning decisions. Mr. Rougeau agreed. Chairman McNiel felt that recessing the freeway might not necessarily cause the City to lose off-ramps. He felt taking a position of supporting a recessed freeway would be appropriate. Commissioner Melcher felt that Caltrans and the engineering staff have recognized that the freeway needs to be elevated because of possible drainage problems. Commissioner Chitiea stated that from an aesthetic viewpoint she supported depressing the freeway wherever possible. Commissioner Vallette asked that the same consideration be given to Rancho Cucamonga as is given to adjoining cities. It was the consensus of the Commission that the comments include the City's opposition to billboards, the one-mile interchange request, the desire to depress as much of the freeway as possible, and the City's desire for freeway landscaping. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, continue beyond 11:00 p.m. seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, that the Planning Commission accept the staff report of August 28, 1991, and forward it to City Council reiterating their concerns over the importance of the following: 1) the mitigation of extreme wind conditions which will exist, 2) the mitigation of drainage and flooding concerns due to topographic nature of the land forms the freeway will cross, 3) the addressing of Caltrans policy on billboards when City opposition is known (City of Rancho Cucamonga would oppose any billboards along the corridor), and 4) the addressing of design/aesthetics of all engineered structures with mitigation being consultation with local agencies on final design. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, carried 4-1 (Melcher noe), that because of concerns of aesthetics of the community and wind conditions and in line with a request to be treated with the same consistency with other communities, the City of Rancho Cucamonga fully supports a recessed freeway wherever possible. George Yankovich, Vice Chairman of Public Safety Commission, felt there may have been a miscommunication of the actions of the Public Safety Commission at their August 6, 1991, meeting. He stated the Commission had received and filed the report and each Commissioner was to submit their individual comments to staff to be submitted to City Council. He said it was not stated at their meeting that the Public Safety Commission was in support of the freeway. Planning Commission Minutes -23- August 28, 1991 Mr. Henderson commented that he had received a letter from the Engineering Department that indicated the Public Safety Commission generally supported the full freeway alternative. He said the Engineering department had stated they had not received any detailed comments from individual Commissioners. Mr. Rougeau stated an~ comments received from Public Safety Commissioners before the City Council's September 4, 1991, meeting would be forwarded to the Council. Chairman McNiel felt that because no negative comments had been received it may have been assumed that the Commission was in general support. Mr. Yankovich stated that the Commission had been concerned about the high winds and high profile vehicles such as trucks and buses in the east end of town as well as the traffic exiting the freeway and turning the roads into major boulevards. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Planning Commission should support the Sam Maloof house. Chairman McNiel agreed and felt the Planning Commission should thank the Historic Preservation Commission for their concerns. He stated he fully concurred with staff's concerns mentioned on Exhibit A. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn. 11:25 pm. - Planning Commission adjourned to a September 5, 1991, workshop at 3:30 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the Masi master plan. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -24- August 28, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 22, 1991 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 (Chitiea, McNiel absent) to appoint Tolstoy as Temporary Chairman. Temporary Chairman Tolstoy called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 3:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga's Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel (arrived at 3:55 p.m.), John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STANDARDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) Ce ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, stated that one of the issues that needed to be resolved was the proposed 20-foot separation between balconies. She explained the reasons for such proposed standards. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, proposed a 15-foot separation between balconies. Commissioner Melcher suggested that a solution would be to allow the 15-foot separation between balconies if the separation between patios is 10 feet. If the separation between patios is 15 feet, he felt the separation between balconies should be 20 feet. Chairman McNiel arrived at 3:55 p.m. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned whether there would be sufficient area for landscaping within the 10-foot separation. Staff responded that typically there may be a 4-foot pedestrian walkway within this 10-foot area, leaving perhaps a 3-foot area on each side of the patio fences for landscaping. Commissioner Vallette stated that she would like to maintain the proposed 20-foot separation between balconies. The consensus of the Commission was that the 10-foot separation .between patios is not wide enough to provide landscaping if pedestrian walkways are to be included. The Commission decided on the following standards: a minimum 10-foot separation without sidewalk between patio fences that are less than 5 feet in height, plus 5 feet between balconies; a minimum 15-foot separation with sidewalk between patio fences that are more than 5 feet in height, plus 5 feet between balconies; and, if the separation between patio fences is 20 feet, then the separation between balconies shall be 20 feet. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi & Dalmau & Associates, requested clarification as to the separation between a two-story and a three-story building and between a three- story and a four-story building. Staff indicated the separation between a two-story and a three-story building would be 40 feet at the third story and the separation between a three-story and a four-story building would be 50 feet at the fourth story. Commissioner Tolstoy raised concerns that a three-story building may be placed next to a one-story building creating a disproportionate appearance in scale and height. The Commission agreed that design criteria should be developed to address this issue and directed staff to prepare appropriate language to be added to the guidelines. The Commissioners agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 22, 1991 Commissioner Melcher commented that requiring units to be equipped with a washing machine and clothes dryer could affect the affordability of those units. Commissioner Vallette stated that providing the laundry facility is an increase in quality of life. Some members of the Commission stated that affordability is a s~parate issue and the Commission should deal with the Development Code amendment. The majority of the Commission agreed that the laundry facility should be a choice of either providing a hook-up for each unit or providing common laundry facilities. Commissioner Vallette disagreed. Mr. Oleson brought up the issue of the proposed 38-foot average setback for uncovered parking in the Terra Vista Planned Community. He proposed a 32-foot average setback. Commissioner McNiel asked staff for clarification. Ms. Fong responded that the 38-foot setback is for the building, the detached structures, and uncovered parking in order to maintain a consistent streetscape consistent with the requirement in the Development Code. It was pointed out that the 38-foot setback is already less than the requirements of the Development Code. In a minimum, the two Planned Communities standards are consistent with one another. The Commission's direction was to maintain the proposed 38-foot average setback from a major arterial. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. and the Commission continued the public hearing to the September 11, 1991, regular meeting. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 22, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PL~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 14, 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: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, passed 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of June 26, 1991. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, passed 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of July 10, 1991. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, passed 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 18, 1991. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously passed, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 {PHASES 6, 7, AND 8~ - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for an extension of a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 6, 7, and 8, (consisting of 125 single family lots on 55.7 acres of land) of a previously County-approved map north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 fPHASES 5, 9, AND 10) - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for an extension of a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 5, 9, and 10 (consisting of 108 single family lots on 54.5 acres of land) of a previously County-approved map north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27. VACATION OF A PORTION OF 25TH STREET - AHMANSON DEVELOPMENTS, INC. - A request to vacate a portion of 25th Street, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of 24th Street - APN: 225-082-01. Commissioner Melcher requested that Item C be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt Items A and B of the Consent Calendar. VACATION OF A PORTION OF 25TH STREET Commissioner Melcher asked if the street to be vacated is located at the north City limit. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the design of Tract 14139 depends on the street or if future development to the north would require the street. Mr. Bose replied a condition of approval for Tract 14139 requires vacation of the street and the circulation plan for Etiwanda North indicates access being taken north of the area. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt Item C of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. (Continued from June 20, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 14, 1991 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. (Continued from June 20, 1991.) Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report and stated that new information had come to staff's attention in the last 24 hours that the Planning Commission may wish to discuss. He stated that figures were reversed on the last line of Table 17.12,030.D shown on page D,E-26. He also commented that the section of the same table regarding one-way traffic did not include numbers permitting an overhang. He reported that the handicapped spaces could be reduced to 18 feet in length under the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Buckingham said that Mr. Potter had requested that mention be made that there was a typing error in the August 7, 1991, letter from Hughes Investments, and the Suburban vehicles actually accounted for slightly less than .9 percent (instead of 9 percent) of the total vehicles surveyed by Kuntzman Associates. Objecting to the word "consensus" in reference to the Commission's workshop, Commissioner Chitiea stated that at the June 20, 1991, meeting she had voiced her opposition to a uniform 8-1/2 foot by 18 foot space. Mr. Buckingham responded that two of the three Commissioners present at the meeting supported the uniform size. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the details of the formula 'for determining overlap are esoteric. He requested a continuance to allow time to work out the details with staff. He was especially concerned regardihg the overlap and felt engineers should work out the angles and geometrics. He requested that the Commission provide for additional review and approval by staff if the Amendments were approved this evening. John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, reiterated that there are only .9 percent Suburbans, as opposed to the 9 percent mentioned in his letter. He said the clearance space would still be in the acceptable 24-inch range if the 8-1/2 foot width were adopted. Rance Clouse, Chamber of Commerce, 10370 Commerce Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Commission and staff for allowing the participation of the Chamber of Commerce. He said the Chamber had worked with the development community and the tenant community. He reported that the Chamber endorses the recommended 8-1/2 foot x 18 foot uniform size. He said there appears to be one more technical issue which needs to be clarified. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. asked what staff felt regarding the overlap issue. Brad Bullet, City Planner, recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a brief discussion on the merits of the proposed uniform size (8-1/2 feet x 18 Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 14, 1991 feet). He said the technical issue on how it is measured could be discussed once it is determined the 8-1/2 foot x 18 foot stall is appropriate. He indicated the exhibit on page D,E-25 depicts the measurements for the space, but does not include the overlap dimension. He suggested that if the Commission wanted to pursue a measure of leeway to allow overlap, staff could work out the numbers. Commissioner Chitiea stated that when the Commission first approached the issue, it was to improve the quality of parking within the City to be sure the best possible parking is available for patrons of businesses in the City and spaces were large enough and comfortable enough to enter and exit vehicles. She recalled there had been some abuse of the compact parking and the Commission wanted to look at the numbers to see if it was appropriate to retain compact parking. She felt that to downsize the parking spaces and make them narrower would be inappropriate. She thought the width between vehicles is important for allowing people to get in an out of vehicles comfortably and makes the community more pleasant. She preferred either retaining the width at 9 feet and shortening the length or reducing the number of compact spaces. She felt that compact parking may have a place so long as it is appropriately designed in the parking plan being disbursed throughout the project. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. He preferred to keep the 9 foot dimension because of the use of shopping carts and the loading and unloading of children. Commissioner Vallette stated the matter had been under investigation for a long time and she fe~t the 8-1/2 foot width would be adequate. Commissioner Melcher concurred with Commissioner Vallette. He felt there was evidence that 8-1/2 feet works because cars are getting smaller. He thought it would solve the problem of the misuse of compact spaces and making parking convenient for everyone. Chairman McNiel stated he was one of the proponents for change because regardless of the size of the parking space, people park in the closest available space. He felt an 8-1/2 foot x 18 foot Uniform space would be a reasonable compromise and he thought it would work better than what is available today. Commissioner Melcher stated there are some inconsistencies which need to be resolved. He felt the layout of parking lots should be straightforward mathematics and he requested that he work with staff in working out the numbers if the matter were continued. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-01, with modifications to change the uniform space to 9 feet x 18 feet. Motion failed to carry by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 14, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -failed to carry Motion: Moved by Melcher to adopt the resolutions in principal for an 8-1/2 foot by 18 foot uniform parking spac~ subject to the preparation of corrected exhibits to support the resolutions to be returned to th& Commission for approval. Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, suggested that if the matter were to be returned to the Commission, that the public hearing be continued so that a definite recommendation could be made to the City Council. Commissioner Melcher withdrew the motion. 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 August 28, 1991, to permit the exhibits and proposed ordinances be corrected with the understanding that the 8-1/2 foot x 18 foot space be the basis for the corrections. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion to continue to August 28, 1991, carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 14, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and some replacement pages to exhibits, including graphic changes to the building separation, changes to the Terra Vista Planned Community text, and Victoria Planned Community text. Chairman McNiel questioned the separation between buildings if the minimum separation between third-story building walls is 40 feet, but each third-story building has a 7-foot deep deck. He thought that would reduce the actual building separation to only 26 feet. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the minimum separation for the lower two floors of a three story building would remain 30 feet. He said that the guidelines require an additional 10 foot setback for every story over two; therefore, a three-story building requires 40 feet between building walls, a four-story building requires 50 feet, etc. Chairman McNiel requested that the 30-foot dimension be shown on Exhibit E-3. He opened the public hearing. Dan Richards, Stephen Daniels Commercial Brokerage, Inc., 8311 Haven Avenue, #200, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned the timing of the implementation of the proposed changes. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they would become effective the day the Ordinance is adopted in its final form by the City Council. Mr. Richards asked if the standards would apply to projects in process. Mr. Buller stated the standards would not apply to projects which had pulled permits. He said the standards would apply to any project in process which had not been approved. Mr. Richards stated Lincoln Properties has spent in excess of $1,250,000 on their project at the northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken. He said they have been in the process for almost two full years and are within a month of submitting a completely redesigned project which they feel meets all the criteria and concerns previously raised by the City. He stated the City Council had given direction to resubmit the project without prejudice, waiving all the fees. He said they had acted on faith and the new standards would sabotage the project. He asked that their project be permitted to continue to process under the current standards. He said the project is not feasible with implementation of the new guidelines. He did not feel it is fair to apply the new standards to a project which had already been through Planning Commission and City Council and was being resubmitted at the direction of City Council. He thought the standards should only apply to projects not already submitted. Chairman McNiel agreed that Lincoln's project had been in process for a long Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 14, 199~1 time and had been through the process several times, but he did not feel the City is responsible for the position the project is currently in. He thought the lack of approval was a direct result of the applicant's failure to listen to the comments of the neighboring residents, staff, and the Planning Commission. Mr. Richards stated that Lincoln has acknowledged they did not initially listen to direction. He said that Lincoln now feels they have complied with the City's wishes and they are almost ready to submit a new package. He felt that to adopt the new standards and tell developers they had to comply if they had not already pulled building permits was unfair. Mr. Buller said that when the City started the standards update process, staff evaluated how many projects were in process or had approvals and Lincoln was one of the developers in that category. He said the developers were invited to participate in the workshops so that developers could keep in step with the potential new changes as they were developing their plans. Commissioner Vallette stated that several members of the development community attended the workshops and their project submittals reflect their attendance and knowledge of what will soon be transpiring. She felt that it was Lincoln's decision not to attend and become informed on what to expect. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they have projects which have been approved under the old standards but for which building permits have not yet been pulled. He said they had operated under the assumption that projects which were already approved would not be subject to the new standards. Mr. Buller stated that if a project approval comes up for an extension, it is a discretionary action for the Planning Commission to approve the extension. Mr. Oleson agreed that was his understanding. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the workshops. He stated it is an enormous amount of detail. He thought the specific issue of the balcony separation was not addressed at workshops. He requested that the separation between balconies be a minimum of 15 feet instead of the 20 feet shown on Exhibit E-2. He commented that the standard depth of balconies is 6 - 9 feet. He said if the building footprint separation is 30 feet, the balconies could only be 5 feet deep to allow the separation between balconies at 20 feet. Mr. Oleson thought the numbers on Table V-4 in the Terra Vista plan had been switched for the building setback in the collector road category. He thought the setback should be 27-foot average, 22-foot minimum for lower than three- story and 32-foot average, 27-foot minimum of three story or higher. Ms. Fong agreed the figures should be switched. Mr. Oleson questioned why the uncovered parking setback would be the same as a full garage or carport. He requested reducing the uncovered parking setbacks to a 32-foot average on a major arterial, 28-foot average on a secondary arterial, and 27-foot average on a collector road. He also said they were under the impression that if a project were designed to be a rental project, Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 14, 1991 there would be an option to provide a common laundry facility instead of individual hook-ups within the units. Commissioner Melcher stated that he thought the understanding at the last workshop was that laundry equipment hook-ups would be required in all "for sale" units and there would be an opportunity to provide central laundry areas in lieu of hook-ups in rental projects. He thought there was agreement that there would be an amendment to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to require hook-ups within individual units upon conversion. Mr. Oleson agreed that was his understanding as well. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7270 Victoria Park Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, complimented the Commission and staff for involving the private sector in the review process. He felt a lot had been accomplished. He hoped that in the future the groups would work together on other projects. He stated his recollection of the laundry facilities issue coincided with Commissioner Melcher's. Commissioner Melcher asked that the Commission consider continuing the item for two weeks because he felt the subject deserved additional time to study how the standards relate to the four important documents which control development in the City. Chairman McNiel concurred with Commissioner Melcher with respect to the laundry issue. Commissioner Tolstoy thought they had discussed providing a minimum 50 percent of the rental units with individual hook-ups. Commissioner Melcher stated the 50 percent figure had been discussed but it was felt it should be possible to develop rental properties which have only central laundry facilities in the name of affordable. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Vallette thought the distances for building separation were to be measured from stairways as well enclosed balconies or patios. Commissioners Melcher, Tolstoy, and Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Vallette asked if "architecturally integrated" could be added to the description of the exterior, lockable storage space section. She stated she would like to see the draft chapter for the Design Guidebook referenced in the Development Code because she felt it would strengthen the validity of the book and give current criteria for design requirements. She felt that would permit the design criteria to be modified by simple minute action of the Planning Commission, making it a more fluid document, but with the strength of the Development Code. She thought the Commission had agreed not to dictate that driveways in multi-family projects would be treated with streetscape, curvilinear lanes, and "street side" landscaping, as referenced in Section III.C. of the draft Design Guidebook. She asked if "knowledge of current City Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 14, 1991 requirements" could be added to paragraph 1 of Resolution 88-161A. She thought the Commission had discussed and agreed there is a need for multi- family units to include an entry statement for each project. She asked that the language in the Design Guidebook be strengthened from "less preferable" to "unacceptable unless justified." She thought a statement should be included under the Community Design Goals section in the Design Guidebook that any project submitted with the intent to meet only the minimum standards would not be acceptable. Chairman McNiel felt that to change the language in the Design Guidebook to "unacceptable" would be too restrictive because there may be opportunities for the "less preferable" options to be designed into a project and work reasonably well. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that in the design review process those problems could be worked out. Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to see the development community come to the design review process with a firm idea rather than a book of suggestions. She thought by referencing the Design Guidebook in the Development Code it would not be a surprise when the developers arrive at the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that small-lot projects would need to use some of the "less preferable" items in order to be developed. Commissioner Chitiea questioned if Commissioner Vallette would prefer changing the wording to "undesirable." Commissioner Melcher suggested changing the language to "like this" instead of "preferable" and "not like 'this" instead of "less preferable." He did not think an architect would need the diagrams. Ms. Fong stated the draft chapter of the Design Guidebook was included for informational purposes only to show that something could be developed to be handed out to the development community. She said staff would be developing the Design Guidebook and could meet with the Commission to discuss the format and language. Mr. Buller stated that in the Hillside Development Ordinance the terms "this" and "not this" are used. Chairman McNiel agreed that would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel felt that development becomes less imaginative the more things are specifically defined as to the parameters. He thought flexibility must be allowed. Commissioner Vallette felt her comments were not restrictive so far as detail concerns. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 14, 1991 Mr. Buller suggested the Commission may wish to continue to a workshop on August 22, 1991. Chairman McNiel thanked those who participated in the process. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 to 3:30 p.m. on August 22, 1991. 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 8:40 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. , , , , , ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to extend the hours of operation and amend the condition of approval prohibiting live entertainment for an existing restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) Chairman McNiel excused himself from the meeting because of a possible conflict of interest as he plays on a softball team sponsored by Sam's Place. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the applicant's attorney had indicated they would be requesting a continuance. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 14, 1991 John Mannerino, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Sam and Luanne Pellegrino. He requested the item be continued to August 28, 1991 because the applicant was currently in negotiations for a new location. He felt the new location would address the concerns of the City. Vice Chairman Chitiea asked if there was a signed contract for the new location. Mr. Mannerino responded negatively. He said the new location is ~he Straw Hat at Carnelian and 19th Street, which is adjacent to route 30 and Beryl Park. He said they were currently discussing the possible move with the building owner; the bank which carries the loan on the property; and Lewis Homes, the owner of the property. He felt the new location will satisfy the concerns of the City and the desires of the applicants. Commissioner Melcher asked if the matter were to be continued if it was the intent of the applicant to comply with the current conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. He asked if Mr. Mannerino's client then intended to comply during any period of time it would take to move. He said that a few weeks may not seem long to the applicant but even two days may feel like a long time to the neighboring residents. Mr. Mannerino stated Mr. Pellegrino would have to answer regarding his intention. He said that to his knowledge there had only been one complaint. He commented that not one neighbor had appeared during six previous public hearings. He said there have not been any complaints to the police or fire department during the past 18 months. Commissioner Vallette asked if it is true that the operation of the business has been going on after the permitted hours. Mr. Mannerino said he thought that had happened. Commissioner Vallette asked if there is live entertainment which is not permitted under the current conditions. Mr. Mannerino said he understands there is an acoustic guitar player who plays without pay. He said that under City ordinance a permit would not be required if he were a solo piano player or a harpist. Commissioner Vallette stated she felt Commissioner Melcher's questions were valid. Commissioner Tolstoy said he was not opposed to continuing the matter for a few weeks if the owner is willing to comply with the current Conditional Use Permit. Vice Chairman Chitiea said she was concerned about a continuance because there have been violations and she had not heard any assurances that the violations will cease in the next two weeks. She commented that even if the applicant were successful in negotiations for the new location, a public hearing would be required for a new conditional use permit and it would therefore probably be some time before the business is moved. Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Vallette agreed that the applicant has not shown that they are operating within the terms of the existing Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Melcher stated that approximately a year ago the Planning Commission approved extended hours for Sam's Place. He said that decision was overruled by the City Gouncil and he felt the Commission now has the Council's direction. He said that in spite of the Council's determination, the applicant has found it impossible to comply with its current approvals. He felt that any extension of time beyond tonight would have to be tied to assurance from the applicant that they would abide by all of the conditions of approvals for whatever time they continue to do business at their current location. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission should hold the public hearing and receive testimony before deciding if the matter should be continued. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked how the Commission should deal with the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the application should not have been accepted because the Development Code specifies that when a matter has been denied the City should not accept for filing a substantially similar application for a period of one year. He said staff made the error, but it had now proceeded to being placed on the agenda. He said the Commission could hear the evidence. He said if the Commission wanted to act on the application, he felt they could. Vice Chairman invited further public comment. Mr. Mannerino felt the application for expansion of hours could be considered by the Commission because it had been accepted. He thought the conditions currently existing on the Conditional Use Permit are not viable to a successful business. He stated the applicants are not criminals, merely business people trying to make a successful business out of what had been a very unsuccessful business. He stated it is true that there have been violations of the current conditions existing on the business as set by City Council, but he said there have been no violations in terms of hours of operation which had originally been approved by the Planning Commission. He felt they have demonstrated during the last 18 months that they can operate such a business without unduly interrupting the peace of the neighborhood. He said he had seen the letter of complaint which had been sent to the City but the sheriff has no record of any calls to the premises. He indicated his office had been in contact with the individuals who had written the letter and in fact it was his understanding that the people who had written the letter have gone into Sam's Place. He felt there is not one other bar/restaurant in the City which has had no reports to the police in 18 months of operation. He thought they were entitled to continue with the hours of operation which they have been keeping in compliance with the suggested trial period which the Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 14, 1991 Planning Commission approved. He thought it would not be equitable to close down their business because one person doesn't like it. He said they would like to add a singer to the acoustical guitarist. He thought the Planning Commission should not act as a punitive body. He said if the Code Enforcement department wants to cite his client for being in violation of an ordinance, then the validity of the ordinance can be decided in a court of law. He said the Commission's purpose is to determine if the business activities taking place on the premises are in compliance with the sort of business activities which should be taking place there. He said restrictions and conditions imposed by government should be for the purpose of allowing the maximum freedom for the use of the premises without unduly restricting the liberties and freedoms of others. He requested an expansion of the Conditional Use Permit and approval of the Entertainment Permit. Vice Chairman Chitiea asked Mr. direction from the City Council compliance so far as entertainment. Mannerino if his client understood the regarding the hours of operation and Mr. Mannerino responded he would not speculate as to what Mr. Pellegrino understood. Vice Chairman Chitiea asked if Mr. Mannerino understood. Mr. Mannerino replied that it was not relevant whether he understood. Sam Pellegrino, Sam's Place, 6620 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated there was nothing he could say that hadn't been said by Mr. Mannerino. He said that during the 18 months he has been there, he has tried to keep problems out of his establishment. Me' felt he had not broken any laws because his liquor license cites hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. He said he understood that he had purchased the business with the prior problems that it had and he was trying to change it around. He commented that there have been no police reports or fire violations. He said he was given permission to stay open until 2:00 a.m. by the Planning Commission and he did not think it was fair for the City to change its mind. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the City Council is above the Planning Commission and can appeal any decision made by the Planning Commission. She said it is the Council's decision that is final and binding over and above any decisions made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pellegrino said he could not understand why the Council voted the way it did because one of the Council Members changed his mind and voted for him the first time but against him the second time. Joe Fabis, 6611 Topaz Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had written a letter to the Planning Commission protesting the noise and disturbance created during late hours. He said he had not previously appeared in person at any of the hearings because his wife had undergone cancer surgery followed by radiation and chemotherapy last year and they had also felt Sam's Place should have an opportunity to perform under the guidelines that had been passed. He said he would not again pass up an opportunity to report violations to the police or Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 14, 1991 fire department. He said activity has gone on way past 2:00 a.m. on many occasions. He said when it is hot and the doors are kept open the music can be heard all over the neighborhood, which would be acceptable during certain hours of the day. He indicated the major problem is the rowdiness in the parking lot, the fights going on in the parking lot, squealing of tires, and loud vehicle radios playing. He said on one occasion a woman came out of the bar screaming "call the police" and his wife called 911. He reported the police have been to the bar on several occasions. He felt as a resident he should be able to enjoy the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and his home when he comes home from work. He said he understood that the lights from the public tennis courts in neighborhood parks have to be turned off at 10:00 p.m. to avoid disturbing the neighbors and he felt similar conditions should be imposed for a bar which is next door to a neighborhood. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated that the concept in today's society seems to be that whether or not one is going by the rule book, if you can get away with it, it's okay. He felt it was the duty of the Planning Commissioners to say that it is not okay. He felt the Commission was given a clear signal from the City Council that 11:00 p.m. is late enough for the business. He thought that based on the evidence, the Commission should find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and suspension or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit should be considered. He felt the Commission should deny the Entertainment Permit because one of the findings which require denial would be that the premises or establishment is likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner, which he said is currently happening. Mr. Hanson stated that one of the purposes of the hearing tonight was to consider whether to set for ~ hearing the possible revocation or suspension of the Conditional Use Permit. He said in essence the applicant would receive the continuance that he had requested. He suggested the Commission may vote to set a hearing to consider revocation or suspension and continue the other two applications until that time. He said that would give the applicant time to clear up whether they would be potentially moving to another site. Motion: Moved by Vallette to continue Entertainment Permit 91-02, Conditional Use Permit 78-03, and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 78-03 for two weeks to consider possible suspension or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Buller stated that it would take four weeks to allow time for advertisement. Mr. Hanson stated that public hearing should be left open on the Entertainment Permit and Conditional Use Permit to avoid the need to re-advertise those items. Vice Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette amended her motion to September 11, 1991. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion but indicated he was distressed it had to be Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 14, 1991 continued for such a long period of time. Commissioner Vallette suggested the commission give direction to the applicant that they would like to see the business operated under the conditions currently set forth by the Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-038 to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San 8ernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested the items be continued to September 11, 1991, to allow time to complete the draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak because they would not be able to return on September 11. Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Melcher commented that the Commission had just been handed a letter from Land-Plan Design Group requesting a longer continuance for a number of reasons. He said he had not had time to digest the contents of the letter and he did not know if the request had any basis in fact. He asked when staff received the request. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the letter had just been received at the meeting. He said he had received a call from the author indicating she would possibly be at the meeting to request to be heard. He said he 'informed her that because the matter was being continued it was at the discretion of the Chairman and the Commission as to whether to open the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be appropriate to ask for an explanation. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to September 11, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher stated that the letter suggests the schedule which the City now has for the final EIR does not allow enough time for meaningful review of the documents' including the City's response to comments. He stated he thought the comment period was over. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is a set minimum time period for commenting on a draft EIR. He said the City is now preparing a final EIR and comments will be made during the public hearings for the final EIR. He stated if there is sufficient time, those comments can be incorporated into the final EIR before it goes to City Council. He said the comments at the City Council level are generally right from the podium. He indicated the Planning Commission only recommends adoption of the final EIR and City Council is the acting body. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to consider the letter from Land-Plan Design with other comments received. · , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 14, 1991 Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that the Fire District again reviewed the area proposed for emergency access and feels the loading ramp can probably be constructed without hampering the emergency access. He said details could be worked out within the plan check process. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Nelson Flack, 3073 Biscayne street, Chino, stated he represents D~i Rey Tennis Shoe Warehouse. He gave a brief history of the project. He said the owners have determined they need a loading ramp because they handle approximately seven to nine containers per month. He requested the Planning Commission approve the application. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the modifications currently being considered were reflected in Exhibit A of the staff report and if the existing loading ramp facing the street would be closed. Mr. Ross responded affirmatively. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was willing to support the use with the reduction of retail sales to less than 20 percent of the floor space so long as the safety, fire, and landscaping concerns are mitigated. She commented that businesses in the Haven Avenue Overlay District are permitted to have 20 percent retail sales. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if those retail activities are not meant to be ancillary service uses to support the industrial users in the area. Chairman McNiel stated that was so in the Overlay District, but this business is located outside of the Overlay District. Commissioner Tolstoy voiced concern that the industrial area is not turned into a retail area. Commissioner Melcher stated that it is not the particular business that concerns him. However, he felt the City had determined at the time of the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan that a surplus of commercial land exists. He stated that higher development standards exist in the Commercial District and he did not feel it is fair to the businesses in the Commercial area to further dilute retailing by allowing such uses in the Industrial area. He said he was impressed by the extent of the modifications the applicant is willing to perform in order to gain approval, but he did not feel a retail use is appropriate in the Industrial area. Commissioner Vallette stated that the property to the north is zoned Industrial and has retail businesses. She did not feel the use is inconsistent with the property to the north. Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea stated she had the same arguments that Commissioner Melcher raised when 100,000 square feet were approved for an indoor swap meet within the Industrial area. She said she was overruled by the balance of the Commission. She said that as this use is very small in comparison, she felt it is appropriate to permit the use. Chairman McNiel did not feel approval would pose a serious threat to retail business in the community. He said there is other retail in the Industrial area and the applicant had made many concessions to meet the concerns raised. He supported the use provided the loading ramp problem can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a small amount of retail should be permissible because in the future it may be determined that the building is not large enough to conduct the retail business. He suggested it may be used as an incubator-type sales situation where the retail sales may then be moved to the Commercial area. He said he is opposed to large retail operations in the Industrial Area. He thought the swap meet situation is a different kind of situation. He supported the use so long as the amount of area for retail space is limited. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the August 28, 1991, Consent Calendar limiting the retail sales area to 19 percent or less of the gross floor area. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Qe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-25 - HARIS HAMID - The request to establish a convenience market in a leased space of 1,907 square feet within an existing shopping center on 1.64 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-111-41. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if there are any requirements within the specific plans regarding provision of a loading area. Mr. Ross replied negatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Haris Hamid, 2851 Bedford Lane, #135, Chino Hills, stated he plans to run a clean operation. He said the actual size will be 1,850 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Vallette asked where the merchandise would be received and if the receiving hours will be limited. Mr. Hamid stated there is a double door which can be used for receiving merchandise. He said there will be minimal loading and the hours for receiving would not be limited. Sally Teravdo, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #250, Newport Beach, stated she was the leasing agent. She felt the use is compatible with the other tenants in the center. She indicated there have been a number of requests for this type of use from residents in the area. Commissioner Melcher asked where the tenant would be disposing of trash. He also questioned the location of the nearest handicapped parking space. Ms. Teravdo replied there is a dumpster by the shop building and the handicapped parking space is located in front of the other building. Commissioner Melcher stated that the closest parking spaces to the market are located on the service station property. He questioned if there would be a problem with parking at the service station when using the market. He also felt the landscaping between the two properties would be damaged by foot traffic. Ms. Teravdo replied that there is a reciprocal parking agreement with the service station. Mike Leonard, Nabisco, 12467 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern about the additional traffic on Victoria Park Lane. He indicated that currently trucks have a difficult time entering the Nabisco plant because the center median extends too far to the entrance to their plant. He said when their trucks make a left hand turn into the plant, they block traffic on Base Line Road. He said they have between ten to twenty 65-foot tankers per week attempting to make that turn. He requested that the median be reduced and a left-turn lane be constructed. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the master plan for the shopping center includes a public street along the west side of the shopping center. He said that a median break would probably be located at that point, which would line up with the Nabisco driveway. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated a median break is proposed for that location. She said the median is already constructed on one side of the break and eventually will be constructed on the other side of the break. Mr. Leonard stated that the median extends too far to the west and when a vehicle attempts to make a left hand turn into their driveway, the back of the truck blocks the westbound lane of traffic. Chairman McNiel asked if the currently existing median is in its ultimate location and if there is currently a left-turn pocket. Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 14, 1991 Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, replied that the median is in its ultimate location but there is currently no left-turn lane because the street is not fully widened on the south half of the street. He said the next phase of construction will provide for two lanes of traffic in each direction and a full left-turn pocket into the Nabisco property. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the traffic problem merits further investigation, but he did not feel it should be germane to the mini-market use. Chairman McNiel felt the problem should be addressed by the Engineering Department or the Public Safety Commission. John Potter, Hughes Investments, stated the median was constructed under conditions of approval of the parcel map for the shopping center. He said it will become a signalized intersection at the cul-de-sac with Phase II of the construction. He felt the convenience market use is appropriate, as the nearest supermarket is located two miles away. Maryland Little, 12658 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the market will sell liquor, beer, or wine. Mr. Hamid responded that in the future he plans to apply for a license for beer and wine. Ms. Little stated she is opposed to the sale of liquor, beer, ~r wine. She indicated the subject had been brought up before and the neighborhood is against such sales. She stated there is currently turmoil and a lot of police activity in the center. She felt that when the nearby apartments are finished, there will be problems with people congregating in the parking lot. She felt many of the residents in Victoria would be opposed to such a use. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission should discuss the possibility of adding a condition to prohibit the sale of beer or wine. Chairman McNiel felt such a condition would appear to be getting into morality issues. Commissioner Vallette commented that there seems to be a lot of loitering in the parking lot of the convenience market near the bowling alley. She thought that to prohibit the sale may not be fair because such sale is permitted at other convenience stores. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the issue before the Commission was only whether to permit a convenience market. He asked if the City Council holds public hearings regarding the issuance of beer and wine licenses. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that the City Council handles such applications on a Consent Calendar basis. Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea suggested that if the Commission felt strongly that such sales should be restricted, such restriction should be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Melcher felt the store owner should be entitled to sell beer and wine. Commissioner Vallette stated there is a history of opposition by the residents to a convenience market at this location because of the potential for sale of beer and wine. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission was considering a mini-market use with only the possibility of selling beer and wine in the future. He thought that if problems develop, the Commission could consider revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. He felt the applicant deserved a chance. He also thought the community on the east end needs a convenient place to purchase milk. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-25. Commissioner Melcher agreed the use should be approved but felt certain si~e development concerns should be addressed. He thought a handicapped parking space should be provided adjacent to the store. He questioned the adequacy of the present trash arrangements because he said almost everything entering the store will be packaged. He also felt the current landscaping between the service station and the store should be removed and replaced with appropriate paving materials s~ that people parking at the service station can walk conveniently to the store. Chairman McNiel asked if he would accept pavers in the existing landscape area at the parking lot stripes. Commissioner Melcher felt the entire area should be paved because cutting the area down with pavers would make the area look worse and harder to care for. Commissioner Chitiea asked if all the landscaping should be removed. She felt that it would be inappropriate to do so. Commissioner Melcher felt the amount of landscaping is insignificant because there are only five or six stalls. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the landscaping would not be on the service station property. Commissioner Melcher felt the landlord could work it out. Mr. Buller suggested the motion be restated to include such conditions and that appropriate wording be included to require City Planner approval prior to occupancy. He suggested he could look at the plans to be sure there is a softening effect to the paving material, perhaps with a few trees. Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Melcher agreed that a tree or two would be nice so long as iron grates are provided. Commissioner Vallette suggested limiting the hours for receiving merchandise. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that would not be reasonable because the store would have route people making deliveries. Commissioner Melcher suggested that a stretch of curb in an area ~t the south end of the parking lot could be marked for loading/unloading and that would cause a minimum of interference with parking operations. Mr. Buller stated he would feel uncomfortable setting hours of operation or designating a portion of the parking area for this specific use. He said there are other users in the center who have not been restricted on hours of operation or loading/unloading areas. He suggested that the idea be explored with the developer to perhaps establish a program. Commissioner Tolstoy restated his motion to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-25 with modifications to provide a handicapped parking space adjacent to the store, replacement of the landscaping between the parking spaces on the service station property with hardscape, and provision of adequate trash facilities to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Chairman McNiel seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU - A residential subdivision and design review of 30 single family lots on 23.45 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Manzanita Drive, east of Beryl Street, and west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1062-111-03 through 06, 1061-761-03, and 1062-061-01 and 02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with the project is Tree Removal Permit 91-28. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned Engineering's feelings regarding the proximity of the B Street/Wilson Avenue intersection to Beryl Street under the alternate plan. He asked if the Design Review Committee felt the house designs which were last reviewed by the Design Review Committee in early 1989 are still appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at the time the designs seemed quite appropriate. Commissioner Melcher stated he felt the designs were good. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated that the normal desired street separation on Beryl would be 300 feet between centerlines. She indicated Engineering did not oppose Alternate A. Chairman McNiel questioned if Cottonwood Way will be culled and completed. Ms. Miller responded that it has received a private street designation to allow it to be a cul-de-sac. She said this tract would put in a knuckle intersection between B and D streets. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated there was an application made to City Council to declare Cottonwood Way as a private street. He said the application was approved by City Council with a condition that the property owners have to improve the street to a minimum of 26 feet wide and provide a turn-around at the end of the cul-de-sac before December 31, 1991. Chairman McNiel asked if the access to any parcels would be denied or made difficult as a result of the reconfiguration of the streets. Ms. Miller responded that if Alternate A is selected, subdivision of the properties to the south will require flag lots accessing to Beryl Avenue. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dean Murray, project manager for the Wilson Curt project, 953 East Colorado Boulevard, #224, Pasadena, stated they were satisfied with either alternative. John O'Neil, 5656 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he moved into his property about three years ago and at the time there was no easement for a street running across his property. He said it now appears there is a proposed easement for a street across his property to connect to C Street. He said he did not want an easement on his property. Clive Warner, 5819 Beryl Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property to the south of the proposed project. He referred to a letter he had submitted on August 8, 1991. He thought the original option with the street adjacent to his property would drastically alter the land use he currently has. He stated he purchased the property 20 years ago in order to use it as a horse ranch. He supported Alternate A because it would move the street north of his property and provide for five lots to back up to his property with a bridle trail separating the five lots from his property. He felt the drainage would be better with Alternate A because he thought a small ditch or pipe could be installed in the bridle trail to catch the water draining from the five lots. He said there is currently a drainage problem without development in the area and he felt there would be more runoff with development. He said he did not have any plans to subdivide his property in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -23- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated it is the Commission's responsibility to look at property currently being developed and see how such development might impact the future potential uses for surrounding properties. He said typically staff requires applicants to prepare a diagrammatic master plan showing how the surrounding properties could or could not be developed. He said such master planning does not suggest that the property will necessarily be developed as it is master planned. He thought it was entirely possible that a future owner of Mr. Warner's property may wish to subdivide the lot and if the Commission approved Alternate A it would preclude the convenient development of Mr. Warner's property into four prized residential lots. Mr. Warner said that if the original plan is adopted, it will severely impact the current use of his property because he could not have horses immediately adjacent to a street because it creates an attractive nuisance. Commissioner Melcher stated Mr. Warner's wishes would be taken into account in the Commission's deliberation and decision. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that the five new neighbors under Alternate A may object to the proximity to horses because of a odors, flies, etc. Mr. Warner felt it would be better to deal with five neighbors than with the street traffic. He thought some mitigating actions could be taken to alleviate any potential problems. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a street would provide a better buffer. Mr. Warner said that traffic and pedestrians adjoining the full length of the property would make it difficult and dangerous to run a horse ranch. Daniel Dunlap, 9255 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the Commission adopt Alternate A. He said that even after neighborhood meetings with the engineers, the residents are still concerned about potential flooding on the south side of Cottonwood Way if the original proposal is adopted. Cynthia Dunlap, 9255 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, urged the adoption of Alternate A. She said the residents of Cottonwood Way have fought long and hard to get Cottonwood Way designated as a private street. She felt if another street butts up to it end, it would be easier to make it a through street. She said Alternate A would allow the people on Cottonwood Way to continue to live on a private street. She also thought Alternate A would provide better drainage. Sylvia Castillo, 9235 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, voiced strong support for Alternate A. She said that currently water drains onto her'property every time it rains and she felt Alternate A would provide more protection for her property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -24- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea stated she understood the concerns of the residents of Cottonwood Way and of the Warnets. She felt the residents' requests for adoption of Alternate A was valid. She thought the bridle trail would provide an adequate and appropriate buffer between the horse ranch and the new homes. She supported Alternate A. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the drainage and the complaints about water draining from the street onto private property. Ms. Miller stated that when the project is developed, water will no longer cross Wilson Avenue. She said the street will be rolled and storm drains will be placed in Wilson Avenue. She said the only drainage will be from one more lot. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how water now gets there. Ms. Miller replied there is a large drainage channel along the west property line emptying into Beryl and the water now sheets across Cottonwood Way on the south side. She said the new tract will contain its own drainage and will improve the situation. Commissioner Chitiea stated that one concern with Alternate A was the potential for future development of the Warner's property to the south. She thought that property could be combined with the neighbors to the south to create a larger parcel that would be more suited to subdivision. Commissioner Vallette felt that good development has to consider the needs and concerns of the surrounding community and she supported Alternate A. Commissioner Melcher supported Alternate A, but felt that Engineering Condition 6 should be modified to require the granting of Lot A to the adjacent owner even if the developer is required to pay the adjoining property owner. He did not feel the City should accept the lot under any circumstances. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the City should not accept Lot A. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13951 for Alternate A with modification to require the granting of Lot A to the adjacent property owner to the north. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Tolstoy stated he voted noe because he does not like cross-lot drainage, which would be necessary under Alternate A. He felt the property to Planning Commission Minutes -25- August 14, 1991 the south will not be served by Alternate A. He thought the residents on Cottonwood Way have already received the option for a private street and he did not feel the original plan would pose a danger to losing the private street designation. He supported the original option. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed from 11:15 p.m. to 11:25 p.m. , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-10 - BEN WEST - The request to allow auto sales and truck rentals within a leased space of 360 square feet in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9797 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-282-05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the proposed landscaping improvements would have to meet the standards of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Mr. Grahn replied they would have to meet the requirements so far as tree species. Commissioner Chitiea asked the depth of the landscaping. Mr. Grahn replied the curren~ depth is approximately 10 to 15 feet. Commissioner Melcher felt expansion of the existing non-conforming use could postpone redevelopment. He asked if City codes provide for non-conforming uses to expand. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that an intensification of the use can be expanded through the Conditional Use Permit process. He said if the Conditional Use Permit application is denied, the original use would remain, but it could not expand. Mr. Grahn stated that under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, automotive uses are conditionally permitted. He said the Conditional Use Permit would make the use conforming. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the site development is also non- conforming. He said when the City Council amended the Development Code to allow for an intensification of an existing non-conforming use, it was felt an intensification may perhaps help the site look or work better. He further indicated that the Conditional Use Permit process was selected to allow the City the opportunity to review each case to ensure that the goals of the City are upheld. Planning Commission Minutes -26- August 14, 1991 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ben West, 9795 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy, felt that U-Haul rental is a service the City needs, but he objected to the U-Haul trucks and trailers being parked at the front of the lot. He thought the nature of the advertising on the sides of the trucks and trailers make an unsightly appearance on Foothill Boulevard. He felt there should be screening from Foothill Boulevard or the vehicles should be parked in a more appropriate area, such as in back. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was put in place with certain conditions on redevelopment or expansion of non- conforming uses in an attempt to improve the area. She felt the application intensifies the use and is unsightly. She thought adequate screening is essential. She felt that if the use is intensified, the property should be brought up to full Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan landscaping setbacks and appropriate landscaping materials should be used. Commissioner Vallette agreed on the need for site improvements and a way to camouflage the trucks. Commissioner Melcher asked when the trucks were moved onto the site. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. West replied they had been moved onto the site in March. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he had not noticed the use until visiting the site after receiving the staff report. He felt the owner should not be required to provide screening other than landscaping. He requested a handicapped parking space be provided. Chairman McNiel stated that when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was adopted, the City went to a great deal of trouble to set a direction for future development of the area. He did not feel the use contributes to improving Foothill Boulevard. However, he felt the community needs the services of a truck rental firm and the business owner needs all the help he can get. He did not feel that denying the application would improve the property. Commissioner Chitiea wanted more specific landscaping requirements to intensify the depth and amount of screening to meet the requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Mr. Buller stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for 50 feet of landscaping. He said that would eliminate most of the parking area. He Planning Commission Minutes -27- August 14, 1991 said the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan does not encourage frontage road treatment, which this property has. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the business is there and the City should make it as viable a business as possible, but he felt there should be some kind of screening, whether it be adequate landscaping or a decorative wall or screen. Chairman McNiel asked if the frontage road would ultimately be eliminated. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, responded affirmatively. Mr. Buller felt a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of landscaping from the curb to provide room for some trees and shrubs to mitigate some of the view. Commissioner Chitiea preferred either 20 feet of landscaping or 15 feet of landscaping in conjunction with a decorative wall. She asked if the trailers could be parked in the back. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. West if the trailers could be parked in the back. Mr. West responded negatively. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Commission can require that the whole frontage of the property be landscaped, or if only the area in front of the applicant's business would be landscaped. Mr. Buller responded that the requirement would apply to the entire 150-foot frontage of the property. Commissioner Melcher felt the area is only 150 feet of a 450-foot stretch and he wondered if it is fair to ask one lessee to improve that portion when the remainder of the area will remain as is. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it is important to require applicants to start. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that as other applicants expand, more upgrading will be provided. Commissioner Melcher stated that Foothill should be changed through redevelopment of the property, rather than by upgrading the same uses. Chairman McNiel felt eventually the redevelopment will occur. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the area should be spruced up during the interim period. Planning Commission Minutes -28- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt landscaping should only be required between the right-of-way line and the curb. Chairman McNiel concurred with Commissioner Melcher. He felt it would reasonably upgrade the property and provide some screening. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-10 with modification to add specific language regarding the landscaping requiring a 15-foot landscape setback with a 3-foot high decorative wall and inclusion of at least one handicapped parking space. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant has the authority to landscape on the west side of the driveway. Mr. Buller responded that the property owner is the applicant for the Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher felt the conditions are excessive because the lessee controls such a minor area of a relatively large frontage. Chairman McNiel concurred. , , · , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 13755 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - The creation of one 14.27 acre parcel for the development of a junior high school within the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located between Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue, north of Church Street - APN: 1077-091-27 and 31. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Betty Miller, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked how the land is currently identified if it is not already a parcel. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated the parcel was created when the parcels around it were created. It is a remainder of several other parcel maps. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -29- August 14, 1991 Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated they agreed to the conditions of approval. Chairman McNiel asked the projected timeline on school construction. Mr. Oleson replied it is tied to state funding. He said the passing of the local bond issue would make the project easier to fund and he anticipated construction will start within 36 months. Commissioner Vallette stated the olive trees on Spruce Avenue do not appear very healthy. She asked how often they are being watered. Mr. Oleson stated he would check with their landscape people and he would respond back through staff. Dale Melton, 10742 Hampton Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives directly across the street from the school site. He wanted to be sure the school will be built. He asked what type of use would be constructed if the school is not constructed. Mr. Oleson stated that Central School District owns the property. Chairman McNiel stated there is an enhanced possibility that the school will be built because the School District owns the property. However, he said the School District may determine another site would be chosen and do a land swap. Commissioner Vallette suggested that Mr. Melton contact the School District office and ask at a School Board Meeting. Chairman McNiel Architecture. construction. stated that schools go through the Office of State He said the City does not have authority over school Mr. Melton asked if he could get a copy of the site plan for the school. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the School District has concept drawings. Commissioner Vallette suggested staff would contact Mr. Melton when the City receives plans. She stated the City encourages development of Mello-Roos Districts to encourage funding for the schools. Mr. Oleson stated this school is to be funded through a local bond issue and state funding. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hopes the architect for the School District has sensitivity to the double street exposure. He said there is a major trail on the north and east boundaries and a park on the south boundary. He hoped the site plan will place the buildings and play fields in such a manner as to cause minimal problems to the neighborhoods adjoining the site. Planning Commission Minutes -30- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated the use of the school site was explored by the District's architect at the time the park site was developed because the park and school site are to function in coordination with one another. He felt the playground area of the school will be on Spruce Avenue and vehicular access will be from Terra Vista Parkway. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 13755. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082-01. MODIFICATION TO THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 14379, 14380, 14381, AND 14382 (4 PHASES OF TRACT 13527~ - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a previously approved design review of a tentative tract map consisting of 152 single family lots on 51.6 acres of land in tha Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN: 225-071-65. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked the relevance of the letter from the mortgage companies. Ms. Miller replied she believed the developers were trying to show that lenders do not require flood insurance in Zone D areas. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Craig Page, Ahmanson Development, 1370 South Valley Vista Drive, Suite 103, Diamond Bar, stated he was speaking on behalf of his application and the Watt application. He believed the policy initiated by the Engineering Department was in response to concerns raised by residents in another area with a potential for flooding. He showed a FEMA map of the area and indicated the Ahmanson and Watt tracts are located on high ground and away from the flood area. He said Ahmanson had submitted first designs to FEMA in December Planning Commission Minutes -31- August 14, 1991 1990. He said they worked with the City and the Flood Control District for 18 months prior to submitting the designs. He said that in March 1991 FEMA requested additional information based on an alluvial fan study made for another tract. He indicated Ahmanson planned to respond to FEMA within the next few weeks. He discussed where flood insurance is required and indicated it is not required in areas designated as Zone D. He said they have requested that FEMA re-classify their property as Zone C, which also does not require flood insurance. He requested a compromise that would require the developer to pay any flood insurance premiums for the next 10 years while continuing to process the FEMA request. Larry Lewis, Watt Homes, 9035 Haven Avenue, Suite 102, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their property is also in Zone D, which does not require flood insurance. He reported that before they can record their map, they must submit plans to mitigate any potential flooding hazard. He said that if they cannot record maps within a certain period of time, their loans may be called. He requested approval of the modification. Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. Page seemed very positive that FEMA will grant the removal of the Zone D designation. However, because of the distance of the FEMA bureaucracy, Chairman McNiel felt that FEMA's judgment may be blurred and he was not convinced that FEMA would authorize the removal of the designation. He feared there may be partial development before FEMA indicated that flood insurance is required. He asked if there would be some way to bond for that possibility. Mr. Lewis stated they had approached staff to bond, but staff did not want to function in a banking capacity. He outlined the flood control mitigation measures they will construct in order to build the tract. He said they would be constructing channels, debris basins, and a flood wall that will protect the homes. Chairman McNiel stated that his understanding of Zone D is that flood insurance is not required because FEMA has not determined if it should be required. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification of the current zones on the property. Mr. Page showed maps of the zones. He said FEMA has identified the areas in which it wants further studies. He felt that Engineering staff feels competent that the area will be reclassifed to Zone C. Mr. Bose stated the design should work, but he could not guarantee that FEMA will buy the concept. Commissioner Melcher asked how many lots are involved. Mr. Page stated he has 119 lots, of which 51 are in Zone C and 68 in Zone D. Mr. Lewis said 28 of his 196 lots are in Zone D. Planning Commission Minutes -32- August 14, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked the approximate cost of flood insurance. Mr. Page responded the cost would be approximately $500 per year. Ms. Miller stated that unfortunately the lots in Zone D are in Phase I of the development. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City would be willing to accept a cash deposit. Mr. Bose stated that if the City collects the fees, the City would then be responsible for paying the insurance premiums if they should be required. He suggested the Commission may wish to defer the FEMA redesignation until the building permit phase. Mr. Lewis said that would be acceptable because they were still in plan check. Mr. Page said he had a large number of lots already in Zone C. He said he would be willing to accept a condition to require redesignation to Zone C prior to issuance of building permits for those lots currently in Zone D. Mr. Lewis asked if they could build the models in the area. models would not be occupied. He said the Mr. Bose stated that models have been permitted in the past with a stipulation that the model homes be vacated if rain is forecast. Chairman McNiel asked if the modification would be acceptable to Engineering. Mr. Bose stated the compromise would be acceptable, but he did not want the policy to be changed. Commissioner Melcher felt it is a difficult situation to deal with. He said just dealing with San Bernardino County Flood Control District can cause major delays. Commissioner Chitiea felt the modification should be site specific to the two tract maps in question. Commissioner Melcher felt the basis for approving the modification is the apparent overwhelming evidence that the sites will be appropriately redesignated. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to approve Modification to Tentative Tract 14139 and Modification to the Design Review for Tentative Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382 (4 phases of Tract 13527) with modifications to provide for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to the issuance of building permits with the exception of the model homes. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -33- August 14, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS W. SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REOUIREMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #250, Newport Beach, stated the subject was discussed during the compact parking space workshops. He indicated they are on the verge of master planning regional related projects. He proposed an increase in the parking ratio to a flat 5 parking spaces' per 1,000 square feet for shopping centers with additional parking required for extensive restaurant uses. He felt that would be more workable for both the developers and staff, in that the developer would not have to pre-determine the tenant mix and parking would not have to be calculated each time a use is requested. He suggested the development community could do the majority of the research and provide the background information to staff to justify the request. He felt such a plan would not decrease the parking, in fact would increase the overall parking for some centers. He requested the Planning Commission direct staff to set up a timeframe to review the project and set upworkshops. Mr. Buller stated that if the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance to address the issue, staff would need time to analyze the data. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to request the development community to fund a contract planner to handle the request. Mr. Potter agreed the suggestion could be considered. He said they would want to quantify the costs. Mr. Buller stated such an idea would have to be approved by City Council. Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they would be happy to assist with funding an outside planning consultant. Chairman McNiel felt that the current parking standards are pretty minimum. He felt the 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet may not be adequate because some uses have higher demands; i.e., beauty salons, theatres, restaurants, and health clubs. Planning Commission Minutes -34- August 14, 1991 Mr. Potter suggested that theatres, health spas, and restaurants, could be considered separately. He felt that an increase in the base ratio should permit a corresponding percentage of restaurants automatically permitted. He indicated that beauty salons require 3 spaces per station, and the beauty salon may go out of business within a year. Chairman McNiel stated the City has parking problems. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to investigate the possibility of utilizing private funding for a consultant. USE DETERMINATION 91-01 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A request to consider adding Animal Care Facilities as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Development Code treats animal care facilities differently than the Victoria Community Plan. He suggested the Commission may wish to consider the use. He said there are currently animal hospital/pet shops in neighborhood centers which would provide the services to the the neighboring residences. He said there have not been land use conflicts. Commissioner Melcher felt the City needs to clarify what types of uses would be allowed. He felt pet stores, veterinarian hospitals, and boarding kennels are three separate items. He did not feel a boarding kennel should be permitted indoors and he thought the zones all exclude outdoor boarding kennels. He did not feel it is appropriate to mix a pet shop and a veterinary hospital. He thought it would be appropriate to allow a veterinarian to keep an animal overnight while caring for it, but he felt limits should be set as to the number of cages available to guard against veterinarians from utilizing empty cages as boarding facilities. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #250, Newport Beach, felt it was an oversight that animal care facilities were not included in the Village Commercial district. He said that under the City's Development Code Animal Care uses are a permitted use under the Neighborhood Commercial district. He felt the Village Commercial area to be similar to Neighborhood Commercial. He said the intent of requesting that sales be permitted in connection with the veterinary use would be to allow the sale of pet supplies. He said the only boarding would be in the instance of a surgery or medical need. He said their lease specifically precludes boarding except in connection with a medical need. He requested the use be a permitted use. Commissioner Tolstoy felt consideration should be given to noise, odors, and the placement within a center the use should occur. He said that many times children retrieve their pets from a veterinary office and the pets then race out the door because the children cannot properly control them. He felt the Planning Commission Minutes -35- August 14, 1991 use should be only conditionally permitted in order to allow the Commission to consider such factors. Mr. Potter stated they were planning to lease in the lowest area of traffic. Chairman McNiel agreed the use should be conditionally permitted. He felt site considerations are important and such a use would not be appropriate adjacent to a restaurant or in a high-traffic area. Mr. Potter stated that if the site were outside of the Victoria Community Plan, it would be an approved use. Mr. Buller stated that such uses are permitted in Neighborhood Commercial and conditionally permitted in Office/Professional areas. Chairman McNiel felt perhaps the Commission should revise the development code to make the use conditionally permitted in Neighborhood Commercial areas. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Commissioner Melcher felt the use should be reviewed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the use be conditionally permitted. Y. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE A SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MONUMENT SIGNS FOR FREE-STANDING PADS WITHIN SHOPPING CENTERS Brad Buller, City Planner, ~resented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated that under the existing sign ordinance of the City, a free-standing user not in a shopping center is allowed a monument sign in addition to building signs. Me said that would theoretically permit six monument signs in a row if there were six free-standing buildings. He felt individual pad users within a shopping center are at a competitive disadvantage. He requested that single-tenant users in pad buildings in shopping centers be permitted to have a separate monument signs. Me said currently users are permitted up to three wall signs and he proposed that users delete one or two of their wall signs in exchange for a monument sign. He thought that would lower the allowable maximum square footage of signage available. He felt monument signs would make it easier for drivers to locate businesses. He requested that staff be directed to work with Lewis to examine the issue. Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, indicated the Central Park Plaza sign program would be reviewed at the August 22 Design Review Committee Meeting. He stated he had requested such an exchange in his Planning Commission Minutes -36- August 14, 1991 proposed sign program. He said in Terra Vista Town Center, which is a Regional Center, monument signs have been substituted for restaurant pad users and it appears to work well. He said Goodyear and Pomona First in the Central Park Plaza have specifically requested monument signs. He felt that the grade changes within the center should also be considered in the request for monument signs. Commissioner Chitiea expressed concerns about the possible prol~feration of signs on the boulevards intruding on the landscaping. She felt a single monument sign at an entry or occasionally is not offensive. Chairman McNiel thought that if the request were entertained, a minimum distance between signs should be considered. Mr. Mager suggested qualifying a minimum number of square feet be occupied by a user in order to qualify for a monument sign. He requested they be allowed to review the request with staff. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. She felt the City has other priorities and she did not see a need to address the issue at this time. She suggested the request could be addressed on a site-specific basis. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that a Uniform Sign Program is not a means of granting a variance or changing the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Lasley requested a possible modification to the existing Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Chitiea felt staff time is not currently available. Commissioner Melcher believed the concept has merit and deserves exploration. He also felt there are other areas of the Sign Ordinance which should be reviewed. He suggested the Commission consider undertaking the request in due course but did not feel it to be a high priority item. He suggested that if the applicant felt monument signs may be available in the future, they could provide electrical stub-outs below grade for future use. He did not feel the Commission could approve monument signs by August 22 let alone within six months. Mr. Lasley asked if it would be possible for the City to utilize an outside consultant. Chairman McNiel agreed the idea may have merit in some cases, but he felt Commissioner Chitiea's concerns were justified. He did not want a row of monument signs that look like mail boxes. Commissioner Melcher felt that some businesses are hard to find and monument signs may alleviate that problem. He also felt that wall signs can be as disconcerting as monument signs. He said sign companies are marketing small logo signs to businesses for wall signs and many of those are meaningless. He thought the applicant should present a sign program that fits within the current Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -37- August 14, 1991 Mr. Coleman stated that based on experience in the past, any amendments to the Sign Ordinance would take an enormous amount of staff, Commission, and City Council time. He felt an amendment would probably take a year to process. Chairman McNiel felt that all of the development community and the Chamber would want to get involved. Commissioner Vallette felt there should be some revisions to the Sign Ordinance. She thought there are specific sites where it is difficult to tell what businesses are located within the centers. It was the consensus of the Commission to place the item on the Planning Division work program as a low priority. Z. CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (EIR/EIS) Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that comments would be taken at the August 28, 1991, meeting and the matter would be forwarded to the City Council on September 4, 1991. , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS AA. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF BICYCLE TRAIL FUNDING Commissioner Tolstoy supported the resolution. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel to adopt the resolution recommending support of the bicycle trail system. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner, stated a meeting had been held on the sports complex and modifications had been made to the plan. He said he had a list of the modifications and he would forward the list to the Commissioners. He reported the Planning Division will attempt to plan check the plans by September 16 in order to have them available to go out to bid on September 18, 1991. He indicated the project should begin sometime in November. He reported the complex had come in over budget, so the consultants have revised the plans to a base bid package plus alternate bids for various items. He Planning Commission Minutes -38- August 14, 1991 said the alternate items may be added back in, if the bids come in low enough. He stated the new plans now call for a perimeter masonry wall, but the cap will be an alternate bid. He indicated the soffit under the seating will also be an alternate item. He said the interlocking pavers have been replaced with a retarded finish concrete. He stated the fascia on the main building is now specified as stucco instead of metal. He said the grandstand flag poles have also been eliminated. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried to adjourn. 2:30 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to 3:30 p.m. on August 22, 1991, in the Rains Room regarding multi-family development standards. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bu2 Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -39- August 14, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 8, 1991 Vice Chairman Chitiea called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Anthea Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Nissen, Associate Planner Hartig, Associate Engineer; Beverl~ OTHERS: Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co.; John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects; Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates; Jim Fetterle, Lee & Associates; Todd Bremner, Bremner Graves Corporation; Jack and Jenny Masi and family , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of a 27-acre master plan consisting of 40 buildings totaling approximately 280,857 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. An introduction was presented by Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co., 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, who indicated that the project was to be four-tiered in nature: 1) The southern portion of the site is parked at a high ratio to accommodate a variety of users; 2) Multi-tenant condominium style units comprise the next level to the north; 3) Professional service and office uses comprise the next level; and 4) Foothill Boulevard frontage users. He said all buildings are one-story but are one and a half story in appearance. He indicated auto users (Texaco gas station, Midas, and Jiffy Lube), Jack-in-the- box, and Victory Chapel are located in the northwest corner of the site. He discussed the issue of the required activity center along Foothill Boulevard and indicated they proposed to extend it all the way across the site and not just concentrate it at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Jack Masi, project proponent, 5416 Electric Avenue, San Bernardino, then gave an overview of the history of the site and indicated that the proposed master plan was "market driven" and that certain users (auto users and Jack-in-the- box) are ready to occupy the site. John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects, gave an overview of the architectural design elements of the project including the following design features: - Rochester entry will be provided with theme pillars. - 10 X 16 foot lunch areas will be covered and will set into the 4-foot recesses of the building. - Color palette was presented to the Commission. - The entryway windows will have metal mullions and steel plates above. Recessed lighting will be provided at all entries. - The multi-tenant building types will have a 20-foot wide lunch area between buildings. The professional services building type will have an increased buildin~ height (but will still be one-story); however, the roofs will be pitched and will be constructed of standing seam metal. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he needed more time to review the project. He liked the different types of architecture, but was not comfortable with a metal roof along Foothill Boulevard. He also felt that users of the Sports Complex to the south might want to utilize the facility and that some type of connection between the two should be provided. He was concez,~ed about the straight rows of buildings along both Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. He felt an auto center does not belong on Foothill Boulevard, but that the relationship of the three uses is logical. He also felt it would be difficult for people to see the auto center if it is not visible from Foothill Boulevard. Vice Chairman Chitiea felt as though the design of the site and the architecture was set and that there was not a lot of room left for discussion since the applicant had invested so much in the plans. Commissioner Melcher questioned the "philosophy" behind the architectural style. Mr. de Frenza indicated that the concept was a holistic viewpoint utilizing tilt-up concrete, steel, and glass. He indicated steel is utilized over doorways and is gray in color when it is "L-shaped" and a primary color when it is square in shape. Commissioner Vallette had a concern with the metal roof. She wanted to see how the project fits in with the surrounding area. She felt it was evident Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 8, 1991 that the applicant had researched City requirements and expectations, as the applicant had addressed such issues as pedestrian walkways, lunch areas, and focal points of interest and had incorporated pieces of art. She felt the concept worked well as a master plan and felt the transition from Foothill Boulevard to the future stadium was successful. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned that the buildings along Foothill Boulevard are tilt-up concrete. Mr. de Frenza indicated that they would not be and a textured surfacing will be provided. Commissioner Melcher indicated that whoever goes first in this area will set the tone for other activity centers along the "missing link" portion of Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the piazzas were a good idea, but not successful; particularly since they are not surrounded on three sides by structures. Vice Chairman Chitiea felt that pedestrian connections to the Sports Complex are important. She thought the land use questions were still an issue. She also felt that the repeated square element on the elevations has been used repeatedly throughout the City and is becoming trite. She liked the sculptured element that is to be used as an accent throughout the site. She felt the function of the piazza was a concern and that it should be an active area. She had a concern that the bays of the Midas Muffler Shops might be visible from Foothill Boulevard and did not think this was appropriate. It was the consensus of the Commission that another meeting should be scheduled to review the site plan, architecture, and land use issues in greater detail. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 8, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 1, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 3:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga's Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, Suzanne Chitiea, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STANDARDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that this was the sixth workshop on the subject and the remaining topics were building separations and setback requirements. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, gave a brief staff report. Stan Bell, Lewis Homes, raised concerns with how the building separations are measured. He felt the 20-foot separation, taken from a patio fence more than 3 feet high, is too restrictive. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, showed pictures of existing Terra Vista projects to illustrate their concerns with the proposed codes. He thought an increase in building separation would not increase the quality of life. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Commissioner Vallette disagreed and commented that the pictures shown by Lewis Homes confirmed the need to increase the building separation, as she felt the pictures of existing projects showed overcrowding of buildings. Chairman McNiel stated that one of the reasons the building separations need amendment is that applicants typically submit designs that are at the minimum standards. Mr. Oleson showed examples of existing projects in an attempt to illustrate that the proposed standard of 15 feet from building to curb is too restrictive. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, commented that this is the issue he would raise too. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had visited a number of multi-family projects, including some in Tetra Vista, and was concerned with the closeness and tunnel effect created by the buildings being placed too close to one another. Mr. Bell stated that the proposed standards for both the building separation and the building-to-curb measurement could effect the density yield. He thought the number of units allowed would be decreased, which he felt is inconsistent with the Development Agreement for the Terra Vista Planned Community. Chairman McNiel stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to achieve the quality of life as stated in the General Plan policies. Mr. Oleson again showed pictures to illustrate and explain why he felt the proposed building separation standards are too restrictive. Both Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Vallette felt the pictures shown depicted clear examples of the need to increase the building separation. Chairman McNiel reiterated that the majority of the projects submitted to the City are typically designed at minimum standards and that is the reason for raising the minimum. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 1, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated that the increase in building separation at the Medium-High and High density district could compound the problem of not achieving the allowable density. Commissioner Vallette stated that the higher density projects have bigger and taller buildings which create the need for more landscaping in order to soften them. Chairman McNiel agreed and commented that typically they would have three or four storied buildings. The architectural projections, such as enclosed stairwells and balconies, tend to close in the buildings and create a tunnel effect. Ms. Fong asked the Commission whether the building separation should be increased, and if so, by how much. The majority of the Commission agreed that the building separation should be increased. Commissioner Melcher felt that the building separation standard should decrease for higher density districts. Both Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Vallette disagreed and commented that the higher density project should provide for more landscaping. Mr. Bell suggested that a lO-foot separation be required for patios that are less than 5 feet in height and a 20-foot separation be required for patios that are over 5 feet in height. The Commissioners agreed on the following standards: the building separation for Medium Residential distr£ct shall be 30 feet for building to building with no patios; for patios 5 feet in height or less, the separation between patios shall be 10 feet; for patios 5 feet or more, the separation between patios shall be 20 feet; the separation for patios (any height) on one side and the building wall shall be 20 feet; the separation between buildings with common patio fences shall be 30 feet. Both Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Company agreed to the proposed standards. The majority of the Commission recommended that staff develop a sliding scale standard for building separation under the Medium-High and High Residential districts for a mix of two and three storied buildings. Mr. Luque felt the proposed standards of 15 feet between building and curb is too restrictive, especially when the measurement is taken from patio fences that are 3 feet in height or more. The consensus of the Commission was to retain the proposed 15-foot separation between building and curb. The Commission also stated that the sidewalk and Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 1, 1991 patio may encroach within the 15 feet distance with the condition that a minimum 10-foot area be maintained free and clear for landscaping. Lewis Homes raised the issue that the building to detached garage separation under the High Residential district should not be increased to 20 feet as a detached garage is normally one-story. The consensus of the Commission was to allow the High Residential district to have the same 15-foot separation as the Medium and Medium-High Residential district. The Commission also stated that sidewalk and patios may encroach within the building separation distance provided that a minimum of 10 feet be maintained free and clear for landscaping. Both Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Company asked if the building-to-curb separation under the High Residential district can be reduced from the proposed 20 feet to 15 feet. The consensus of the Commission was to develop a sliding-scale standard where each additional floor would require additional setback for building-to-curb separation. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission had resolved the issue of the requirements for laundry facilities between "for sale" and "rental" type of projects. Ms. Fong suggested that staff prepare alternatives for the Commission's consideration at the August 14, 1991, meeting. The Commission agreed. , , , , ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. to a special workshop on August 8, 1991, following the regular Design Review Committee meeting. Re~~bm~ Dan Coleman Acting Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 1, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 24, 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: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that three letters in opposition to Item H had been received by the City and copies were provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Bullet reported that the Development Review Processing Subcommittee would meet on Friday, July 26, 1991. , , , · APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 2-0-2-1 with Vallette abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of June 12, 1991. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 2-0-2-1 with McNiel abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of June 20, 1991. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from June 26, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from June 26, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from June 26, 1991.) Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested a continuance to August 14, 1991, in order to allow sufficient time to provide responses to comments which had been received. He opened the public hearing. Richard Douglas, Landmark Land, 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Corona, stated he had received information that staff is preparing comments to the draft Environmental Impact Report. He said that at the last public hearing a new exhibit was presented affecting his property and he requested the information regarding the basis of that new exhibit. Chairman McNiel felt Mr. Douglas should meet with staff regarding his concerns. Mr. Douglas stated that he requested information from staff regarding the exhibits and although he had received the additional documents from staff, he still needed additional information. He said an exhibit was included designating a significant portion of his property as open space and establishing a line for the northern-most limit of development. He said the exhibit indicated it was based upon additional information received from the Department of Fish and Game. He asked for a copy of the transmittal from Fish and Game. chairman McNiel felt staff could provide the document· Mr. Douglas stated his property is located in the County and they plan to build an upscale project. He felt the City's plans do not reflect the type of project they plan to build. He thought the new land use designations are a great departure from the City's current General Plan and the County's General Plan. He said the City's current General Plan reflects that almost the entire Landmark site is designated as Hillside Residential area, but now the City is trying to change the use to Open Space. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 24, 1991 Chairman McNiel commented that the land is adjacent to and part of one of the few remaining bogs that exist. Mr. Douglas stated that Landmark makes a practice of designing in harmony with nature. He felt their plan buffers the bog and is sensitive to the feature. Chairman McNiel suggested that Mr. Douglas obtain the information he wanted from staff. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to August 14, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried , , , , , De ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) Fe AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to extend the hours of operation and amend the condition of approval prohibiting live entertainment for an existing restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) Chairman McNiel stated that he plays on a softball team that the applicant had recently decided to sponsor. He felt there could be a confli'ct of interest and he therefore indicated he would abstain from hearing the issue. Chairman McNiel said that because his abstention would leave only two remaining Commissioners, the item could not be heard for lack of a quorum. He opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 24, 1991 Sal Briguglio, Mannerino & Briguglio, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the applicant was willing to consent to a continuance to August 14, 1991. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to continue Entertainment Permit 91-02, Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 78-03 to August 14, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette asked if the site was currently being used as a retail site and if the safety issues from the Fire Department and Building & Safety had been resolved. Mr. Ross replied that they were currently operating a retail business and temporary measures had been taken to address the concerns raised by the Fire Department and Building & Safety Department. He indicated that if the use were approved, permanent measures would be needed. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alan Kaitz, Law Offices of J. Cranor Richter, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 820, Irvine, stated the applicant had addressed the previous concerns of the Planning Commission. He said the applicant had met with staff and was willing to substantially comply with what staff would like done to solve the problem of the loading ramp. He provided a new plan to eliminate the loading ramp in front of the building and relocate it to the rear. He said they would place diagonal parking spaces by the store access. He indicated they were willing to reduce the square footage to 19 percent of the total space. He said the retail use will be incidental, equal to approximately 10 percent of their business. He reported they immediately complied with the measures requested by Building & Safety to allow the business to remain open. He stated there has been no opposition and he felt the use will be in the best interest of the community. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 24, 1991 Chairman McNiel asked if staff felt the new plans would be in reasonable compliance. Mr. Ross replied that what the applicant was now proposing was similar to what staff had requested. He stated the Planning Commission would have to advise if they felt the reduction in space would make the use appropriate. He indicated the site plans could probably be worked out similar to what staff had recommended. Commissioner Melcher stated he was impressed by the extent the applicant was willing to go to obtain approval to conduct sales in a building which had already been purchased. He said he was aware there had been some misunderstanding of the use when the business license was filed. However, he questioned the land use and feared that approving the conditional use permit would start a trend which would be detrimental to the retail business in the City. He commented that he had done business with retail operations in the industrial area; but the retail operations were truly incidental; such as parts being available for sale but the main business being distribution. He said those businesses were located in plain warehouse buildings with no signs. He felt the applicant was not proposing incidental use and he thought the Commission should only allow incidental uses in the industrial area. Commissioner Vallette stated she had originally been concerned regarding the layout and the need for pedestrians to cross in front of loading doors. She liked the direction the project was moving in, but did not feel comfortable without full Commission approval. Chairman McNiel stated his problem had been a site plan problem. Because he felt the area is generally inconvenient for shoppers, he did not feel the use would pose a threat to the retail community. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there appeared to be general consensus that the site plan issues were nearing a state of compliance with addressing the concerns. He suggested the land use question could be addressed when the full Commission is available. He asked if Commissioner Melcher was concerned because of the way the goods are presented or the square footage. Commissioner Melcher stated that he was concerned that the sales are not incidental to the other uses. He felt it is merely a retail store in an area that is not designed or planned for retail use. Commissioner Vallette asked if the businesses to the north are located in the same industrial designation. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Vallette stated she then did not have a problem with the use. Commissioner Melcher commented the businesses located in the center to the north are in a multi-tenant building and are basically for the convenience of those who work in the area. He felt the applicant's business is meant to attract customers from the community as a whole. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 24, 1991 Chairman McNiel suggested the matter be continued to August 14, 1991, to allow the full Commission to vote on the land use question. He thought the design issues should be taken into account as he thought the applicant had done a good job of addressing the Commission's site plan concerns. He reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-08 to August 14, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMIS~ 3NERS: CHIT~EA, TOLSTOY -carried , , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-23 - ASPEN MEDICAL GROUP - The request to allow a mobile CAT scanner trailer to operate within the parking lot of an existing office complex on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 10837 Laurel Street - APN: 208-352-16. Steve Ross, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and referenced three letters which had been received in opposition to the project. He indicated the parking of the trailer is a violation of the Office Park's CC&Rs, which had just been modified. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Abe Hernandez, Administrator for Aspen Medical Group, 10837 Laurel Street, Rancho Cucamonga, clarified that the parking allocation would be impacted and impair the ability of the Riley Group to lease the building. He questioned if the nine spaces which would be taken by the portable unit would in fact hinder the ability to lease the space for medical purposes because of the allocation. He said if they were forced to move the trailer to another facility, such as Montclair, they would not be able to serve the community of Rancho Cucamonga. He said they did not want to cause any problems but wanted to be sure they had explored all possible options before removing the trailer from the community. Commissioner Vallette asked if the trailer would be relocated every week end. Mr. Hernandez responded that the unit is brought to the site every morning Monday through Friday and leaves at 5:00 p.m. He said it is not at the site on Fridays or the weekends. Chairman McNiel commented the unit had been in place at 6:45 p.m. this evening. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 24, 1991 Mr. Hernandez concurred that the unit had still been there and they were performing some work to it, but he wasn't sure what type of work. Pat Morrill, Project Manager, RCI Contractors, 10 Corporate Park, Suite 200, Irvine, stated he represented the owners of two of the buildings which have recently been completed but are not completely leased. He said the trailer had been discussed at a recent meeting of the Laurel Aspen Executive Office Park Owners' Association. He reported that the trailer had initially been parked on the street and one of the owners had complained. He said at that time Aspen Medical Group asked if they could park in the parking lot and permission had been granted on a temporary basis only. He said the trailer is large and unattractive and the Owners' Association is concerned about the future uses of the building. He said originally three buildings were planned, but only two have so far been built. Me felt that if the conditional use permit were granted, it would result in a deficiency of parking if one of the existing buildings wanted to convert to medical use or the additional building were to be built. He indicated the parking of the trailer is not permitted under the CC&Rs of the Association. Dr. John Olson, Director of Radiology for Pacific Physicians Services, owner and operator of Aspen Medical Group, 1826 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, stated the location of the scanner on the property is advantageous to not only the applicant, but also the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He indicated it is one of the newer and more efficient scanners and performs a valuable service to the City as there are no full service hospitals within the City. He said it is important to perform CAT scans in a center where there are other physicians and support personnel. He felt the moving of the trailer would create a disruption in proper medical care. He said they had recently recruited several outstanding physicians before Aspen became aware of the potential need to move the unit. He said they would be willing to install a muffler on the motor of the machine and make any cosmetic efforts to permit the trailer to remain. He said the scanner is currently on site from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but the actual scanning operating time is less because scans take approximately 30 minutes each and they perform six to seven per day. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette felt the use provides a service to the community and she supported staff's recommendations regarding addressing concerns of aesthetics. Chairman McNiel stated that landscaping and screening walls were used in an attempt to screen the unit at the other locations within the City. He felt the larger issue was the conflict with the other property owners and the ultimate use of the third building. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that when the Planning Commission reviewed the two previous requests for mobile scanners, the Commission required an architecturally attractive hidden alcove to screen the units. He wondered if there may be another area on the site which would allow screening by an architectural wall or landscaping and would not take up parking. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 24, 1991 Commissioner Melcher commented that where the requirement for a mobile unit has been anticipated at the time of development, steps were taken to properly integrate the unit into the site. He stated there was no mention of the trailer at the time the facility was designed. He thought the only way the use should be permitted would be if it were properly integrated. He did not feel placing the unit in the parking lot is a good solution. He did not support the application on the basis of design and planning. Chairman McNiel agreed. Commissioner Melcher stated the applicant had indicated they could not afford a permanent CT scanner because they did not have the required staffing, patient volume, or funds. However, he felt the mobile unit is essentially a permanent operation because it is on-site four days per week. Commissioner Vallette felt leasing may be less costly than purchasing a new unit. Commissioner Melcher thought there may be some significant construction problems in building a CT scanner into a building. He did not object to the use of a mobile unit so long as it is properly docked and screened. He suggested the applicant may wish to retain a firm specializing in site planning for medical facilities. Chairman McNiel felt the unit should be moved out of the parking lot and not onto the street. He agreed the medical center should perhaps hire an architect to integrate the unit into the facility if it is possible. He thought there may not be room for the unit on-site. He reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant wished to investigate the matter further. Mr. Hernandez stated they would like the opportunity to look at other options. Mr. Morrill stated his company had built the project and he did not think there is another area that will accommodate the unit. He requested that Aspen Medical Group present their plans to the Association. Chairman McNiel felt a continuance would allow the two sides to talk and the applicant to determine if there is an appropriate location. Mr. Morrill stated their biggest concern is the availability of parking spaces. Commissioner Vallette stated that the project currently has an overabundance of parking spaces. She wondered if a temporary architectural structure could be built to house the CT unit in the current excess parking area. Mr. Morrill stated that he understood a medical use has been tentatively signed to lease one of the buildings already constructed. He reported that would require increased parking and would use up the existing parking. Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 24, 1991 Mr. Buller suggested that the item be continued until September 11, 1991, to allow the applicant to pursue their options. He indicated staff would bring back a resolution of denial to the September 11, 1991, meeting for the Commission's consideration. He thought a September 11, 1991, date might also allow any proposed architectural solution to be considered by the Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to continue Conditional Use Permit 91-23 to September 11, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried , , , , I. SELECTION OF ALTERNATES FOR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSING SUBCOMMITTEES Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it was mentioned at a previous meeting that alternates were not selected for the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Development Review Processing subcommittees. Me said Commissioner Vallette had indicated an interest and willingness to serve as the alternate for both subcommittees. It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioner Vallette serve as the alternate to both subcommittees. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS J. TRAILS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that Chairman McNiel, Commissioner Tolstoy, and he had interviewed six candidates for the bicycling representative for the Trails Committee. He said the interview panel was unanimous in recommending Paul Senft for appointment. Chairman McNiel stated_that all were good candidates. would be an asset to the committee. He thought Mr. Senft Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-2 with Chitiea and Tolstoy absent, to appoint Paul Senft to the Trails Advisory Committee. , , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS: Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 24, 1991 There were no further public comments. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission should adjourn to a workshop on August 1, 1991, regarding multi-family housing standards. He reported there would also be another workshop on August 8, 1991, regarding the Masi master plan. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 8:15 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to an August 1, 1991, workshop at 3:30 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding multi-family development standards. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bull~r Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 24, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PL~_NNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 18, 1991 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to appoint Tolstoy as Temporary Chairman. Carried 3-0-2 (Chitiea, McNiel absent). Temporary Chairman Tolstoy called the adjourned meeting to order at 3:42 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel (arrived at 4:00 p.m.) John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner Coleman, Principal MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STANDARDS Ae ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from June 12, 1991·) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT'91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, gave a brief report. Chairman McNiel arrived at 4:00 p.m. The Commission agreed with staff's suggestion that the proposed minimum lot width standards be changed to minimum frontage at the front property line. However, the Commission was concerned with how it would impact parcels that do not meet this proposed standard. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that language be added to the footnote "L" whereby parcels that do not meet the minimum street frontage could also be developed under the lowest end of the permitted density range. The Commission agreed to the suggested language. The Commission also clarified that the lowest end of the permitted density range would mean the lowest number of that density range within that zoning district. Lewis Homes commented that they found the criteria to require a minimum width for the open lawn area too restrictive. Brad Bullet suggested that the language could be modified to read "one of the dimensions shall be blank feet" instead of "the minimum width shall be blank feet." The Commission agreed to the change. Lewis Homes and Lyon Company agreed to the change. Lewis Homes also brought up the issue of water taps and questioned the need for this requirement. They felt that this requirement could add plumbing costs to the project. They also thought the language "large open lawn area" conflicts with the requirements of the Xeriscape Ordinance. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the language does not conflict with the Xeriscape Ordinance. He said lawn areas are allowed and the "large open lawn area" would be the place where one should use turf and drought tolerant ground covers should be used for other areas in lieu of turf. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the word "lawn" as proposed and to eliminate "water tap" from the requirements for the barbecue facility. Commissioner Melcher questioned the meaning of "private assessment district" as contained in Item No. 8 of the Recreational Area/Facility. Mr. Bullet stated that the requirement is currently in the Code. He thought the purpose of the language was perhaps to ensure that the developer understands the maintenance of any common area is to be by private means or by the property owner. He indicated staff would check with the City Attorney regarding this. The Commission reviewed the revised language for the "Lockable Storage Space" and found it acceptable with the modification that the word "Lockable" be eliminated and the word "fully" be added in front of "enclosed garages . ." Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 18, 1991 Commissioner Vallette suggested that "washing machine/clothes dryer" be used instead of "washer/dryer". The Commission also suggested that language be included to ensure that the laundry space is big enough to accommodate most standard models. Mr. Buller suggested staff add language to require adequate space for laundry facilities in each dwelling unit; however, he felt it would be best to avoid specifying the square footage. Commissioner Vallette asked whether the City should require 50 percent of the units in a rental product be equipped with a washer/dryer and the remaining 50 percent be provided with a common laundry facility at a rate of 1 washer/dryer per 5 units. Lewis Homes thought a better way to deal with this issue would be to revise the Condo Conversion Ordinance so that multi-family housing with common laundry facilities cannot be converted to condos. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission continue the meeting to another special workshop because the Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled to begin shortly and building separations had not yet been discussed. The Commission agreed and continued the meeting to August 1, 1991, at 3:30 p.m. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT At 5:00 p.m. the Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop following the Design Review Committee meeting. , · , , Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, John Eelchef, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT:Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Associate Engineer Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Betty Miller, Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 18, 1991 TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that the purpose of the workshop was to review the Preliminary Cost Estimates and Financing Plan prepared by the City's consultants. He reported that the total cost of the full trail system is approximately $75 million. He also indicated that staff would be presenting two other options to the City Council, including the elimination of underpasses, .which could lower the total cost to approximately $17 million. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since incorporation the City had emphasized development of the equestrian/hiking trail system. He felt that he was not unsympathetic to the horse community, but thought that it was now time to emphasize bicycle trails. He indicated that there are only 500 horses in the City compared to thousands of bicycles. He concluded that bicycle trails should receive top priority, but not to the exclusion of equestrian/hiking trails. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that until now the City did not have the street infrastructure in place to make installation of the bicycle trail system feasible. He suggested that the Commission adopt a resolution stating their concern to the City Council. Commissioner Vallette inquired whether the development impact fee funds described in the Financing Plan would be spent within the tract that generated the fee or used elsewhere. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated that the fees could be citywide or "zoned" depending on how the nexus study is prepared. Mr. Buller stated that the Financing Plan paints the picture for the City Council to enable them to decide how much they want to invest in the trails system. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Chitiea absent), to adopt the resolution recommending approval to the City Council and directing staff to prepare a separate resolution stating that any additional capital funds should be made available for bicycle trail improvements. , , , , 8:00 - 8:15 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed. Chairman McNiel left the meeting at 8:15 p.m. , , , , Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vailerrs, carried 3-0-2 (Chitiea, McNiel absent) to appoint Tolstoy as Temporary Chairman. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 18, 1991 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend the approved Sign Program by adding sign criteria for the Foodcourt, the major users consisting of Montgomery Ward and Service Merchandise, and site directory signs, located within the Terra Vista Town Center located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05, 06 and 18. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented a brief staff report. Norm Abplanalp, Montgomery Wards, explained to the Commission the "specialty shops." showed slides of Wards' signage. He concept and the marketing behind the Commissioner Eelchef questioned Mr. Abplanalp on how the signs are constructed. Mr. Abplanalp explained the construction details to the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Abplanalp what he had heard from the Commission throughout the entire review process for Montgomery Wards. Mr. Abplanalp stated that all the signs including the specialty store signs are registered trademarks. He said the mass and scale of the building were designed to accommodate the size of the proposed signs. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to see overall elevations of the Auto Express building in order to assess the proper scale and proportion of the sign. Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked the Commission if they would like to review the signs one by one. The Commission agreed. Siqn TVDe T-1 - Montqomerv Wards Mr. Bullet asked the Commission whether they had any concerns with the proposed wall sign at the east side of the south elevation. The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to approve the Wards sign. Sian TVDe T-2 - Electric Ave Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about the black and turquoise stripes of the graphic logo for "Electric Ave." Commissioner Melcher stated that the Town Center is a unique center and not a neighborhood center. He had no concerns with the concept of the specialty store signs like "Electric Ave" or "Auto Express." His concerns were with the proper scale and proportions of the specialty store signs to the buildings and the graphic underscores. He felt the colors with the graphic design create confusion. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 18, 1991 Commissioner Vallette asked staff if the approval of this sign would set a precedent. Mr. Buller stated that in the past Commission policy has been not to accept stripes and checkerboard designs. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the underscore would be acceptable if it were modified to a plain line with the words "Montgomery Wards." Mr. Abplanalp stated that the design of the underscore is non-negotiable. The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to allow the "Electric Ave" sign under the secondary entry major sign. The sign shall be 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of copy, and letter height of the Major Sign Type D. The issue of the black and turquoise striped underscore for the "Electric Ave" sign was tabled to be discussed with the Auto Express underscore. Sign TYPe T-3 - Large Wall Siqn for Wards at the North Elevation Mr. Abplanalp stated that the service entry in the back is also another entry into the store. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could make the justification to allow a sign at the north elevation since there are residents to the north. The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to allow a wall sign at the north elevation under the secondary entry major sign. The sign shall be 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of copy, and letter height of the Sign Type D (Major user). Siun TvDe T-4 - Service Entry Siqn The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to approve the sign as submitted. Sign TVDe T-5 - Auto ExPress The consensus of the Commission was to keep this sign under the submajor sign criteria and to accept the colors and graphic logo of black and white checkerboard. The Commission also determined the colors and graphics of the underscore for the Electric Ave sign was acceptable. Mr. Abplanalp stated that he was also willing to reduce the size of the signs for "Electric Ave" and "Auto Express," including the graphic underscore. Mr. Bullet recapped the action of the Commission as follows: approval of the Montgomery Wards wall sign, including the underscore at the south elevation as submitted; approval of the same Montgomery Wards wall sign at the north elevation as a secondary entry major sign with 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of sign copy, and letter height of the Major User Sign Type D; Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 18, 1991 approval of the Specialty store sign of "Electric Ave" including the black and turquoise stripes graphic underscore as a secondary entry sign with 60 percent of the sign area, length of sign copy, and letter height of the Sign Type D; approval the service entry sign as submitted; and approval of the specialty store sign of "Auto Express," including the black and white checkerboard graphic underscore at the north and east elevations, as a submajor user sign. The Commission moved on to review the Service Merchandise signs. The Commission redesignated Service Merchandise as a major user permitting signage to be under the major user sign criteria. The Commission approved the proposed wall sign at the south elevation as submitted with the 6 foot letter "S." The Commission did not approve the large wall sign at the north elevation above the loading area. Mike Ramondt, Service Merchandise, stated that he would propose a smaller sign to identify the loading area for Service Merchandise. The Commission accepted the proposal with the condition that the applicant work with staff regarding size and scale of the small identification sign for the loading area of the store. The Commission reviewed the various proposed sign changes to the Town Center. The Commission approved the addition of "Plaza de Cafes" to the shopping center identification sign. They also approved the two directory signs at the main drive aisle off Foothill Boulevard and the two directory signs off Town Center Drive with the conditions that the names on these signs be specified and the signs off Town Center be set back 60 feet from the curb. In addition, they approved the small wall-mounted directory signs on the columns with conditions that the number and location of these signs be specified. The applicant agreed to the conditions of approval. The Commission did not approve the pylon sign. The consensus of the Commission was that this type of sign would detract from the plaza area. The Commission did not object to the concept of providing additional identity to the Foodcourt. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 18, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 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: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that under Agenda Item CC the Commission could take action on the selection of Design Review Committee members as well as Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman. Mr. Buller announced a farewell luncheon on July 18, 1991, for Code Enforcement Representative Joe Torrez. Mr. Bullet indicated that Assistant Planner Lori Moore had resigned. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Chitlea absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 11, 1991. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-1-1 with Chitlea absent and Vallette abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 25, 1991. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 8, 1991. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher carried 3-0-1-1 with Chitlea absent and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of May 29, 1991. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae Be Ce Ee Fe TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13351 - LEWIS HOMES - A request for an extension of a previously approved residential subdivision and design review of 118 condominiums on 5 lots on 9.07 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Tetra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-34. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24 - DES MARIAS - A request for an extension of a previously approved development of a 7,160 square foot day care facility on 1.98 acres of land within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11311 - DES MARIAS - A request for an extension of a previously approved subdivision of 1.98 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57. TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - HOMESTEAD - A request for an extension of a previously approved vesting tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42 and Lot "O." TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - HOMESTEAD - A request for an extension of a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 91 lots (Phases 1 and 2) of a vesting tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A request for an extension of a previously approved residential subdivision of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082-01. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 10, 1991 Commissioner Melcher requested that Items B, C, D, and E be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitlea absent, to adopt Items A and F of the Consent Calendar. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24 - DES MARIAS C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11311 - DES MARIAS D. TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - HOMESTEAD E. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to approve the Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit 87-24 with a recommendation that it return to Design Review because he felt the value of the front bay window will be lost as the prominent octagonal floor plan feature on the northeast corner of the building is not expressed in the rectangular gable roof design. He questioned if there will be reciprocal easements for parking between the two parcels for Parcel Map 11311. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that reciprocal parking easements were included with the original Parcel Map approval. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it would be possible to add additional conditions to a time extension for a conditional use permit; however, it would have to be advertised for public hearing in order to do so. Commissioner Melcher stated he did not think the matter was important enough to justify advertising for a public hearing. He asked why the Commission was being asked for a time extension for Items D and E when Phases i and 2 are under construction. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the models have been completed, but permits have not been pulled or construction begun for the balance of the tract. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adopt Items B, C, D, and E of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from "OP" (Office Professional) to "FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) for an ± 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 10, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to include the ± 8.3 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and establish standards for development - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from June 12, 1991·) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. closed the public hearing. There were no comments, so he Commissioner Melcher asked the purpose of the series of exhibits beginning on page G-K16 of the staff report. Mr. Murphy replied that pages G-K 16 through G-K 31 should be attached to the resolution recommending approval of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 91-01. Chairman McNiel commented that Mr. Murphy had done an excellent job. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Commission should evaluate whether a third tree should be added to the landscape palette. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to extract that portion for further study if necessary. Mr. Buller responded that the Commission could adopt the plan as presented and direct staff to continue to evaluate the plan for a possible amendment in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 10, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy thought they had determined not to introduce a third tree. However, he was willing to direct staff to further evaluate the question. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91-01, and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-04, with a request to staff to further evaluate the possible introduction of a third tree. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Mr. Bullet suggested that the issue of a third tree be brought back to a future meeting under Commission Business to allow the Commission to discuss the item further. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15172 - JERRY COCHRAN - The development of a 20-unit condominium complex on 1.08 acres of land in the Medium-Nigh Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the terminus of Sierra Madre Avenue and Main Street - APN: 207-251-22. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested the addition of standard conditions and special conditions regarding property maintenance and visitor parking. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments and he closed the public hearing. He commented the project had been in process a long time and he was pleased to see it progress. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 15172 with modification to add standard conditions and special conditions regarding property maintenance and visitor parking. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 10, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Ne ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Oe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the lot width requirement should be considered in the same way as the proposed minimum lot size of 3 acres for development at the low end of the density range and 5 acres for permitting development under Optional Standards at the higher end of the density range. He suggested that if the proposed required lot width could not then be met, development could then take place at the low end of the density range. Ms. Fong suggested adoption of the proposed lot widths, as a developer with a substandard lot can apply for a variance to develop the property. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated an existing parcel has the right to build and if a project site wants to develop under the new standards but is unable to meet the new standards for lot width or size, the developer may have to apply for a variance for the project. Commissioner Melcher stated that with respect to lot area, the conditions have been laid out indicating development can occur at the low end of the density range. He asked if such a provision should not be made for lot width as well to limit the development to the low end of the range. Mr. Buller indicated the Commission could make a statement of direction or intent. He suggested a statement could be added that development would be allowed only at the lower end of a range if a parcel is substandard in any way. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 10, 1991 Chairman McNiel complimented Ms. Fong on a good job on an arduous project. He opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, suggested that lots not meeting the minimum size requirement should not have to comply with the dimensions. He thanked the Planning Commission for permitting the owners to be present at the workshops and for considering their comments. He requested that building height be defined as the height of the building at the plate line where the separation is taking place, not the highest point of the roof line. He felt the distance between buildings would be excessive if the top of the roof were included when measuring from patio walls. Mr. Pitassi stated that the requirements call for another set of recreational amenities for each 100 units above the first hundred units. He asked if that meant that 105 units would require two sets of amenities. Chairman McNiel responded that the second set would not be required until the number of units reaches 200. Commissioner Melcher felt the wording should be clarified to indicate that intent. Mr. Pitassi questioned the need for a lockable storage space if the storage space is located within an enclosed garage. Chairman McNiel replied that lockable storage could be located outside of a garage. Commissioner Melcher felt that if the storage area is located within a secured garage provided for an individual unit, it may not be necessary to have the storage area lockable. Chairman McNiel stated the intent was to provide lockable storage for securing a barbecue kettle, lawn chairs, etc. He thought storage within a lockable garage area would not need to be separately locked. He suggested the wording be expanded. Commissioner Melcher asked if it was the intent to require that the storage area be located at floor level. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that was not intended as a requirement. Commissioner Melcher asked if storage located above the hood of a car would then meet the provision. Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel felt that may not accomplish what the Commission wished to provide. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it would be difficult to store a barbecue in an over-the-hood storage area. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 10, 1991 Mr. Pitassi requested the addition of "reasonably" in the Acknowledgment form signed by the applicant regarding familiarity with all the pertinent Codes, Laws, Ordinances, Policies, etc. He asked that skewing of buildings be permissible rather than mandatory, as shown in Section III Site and Landscape Design. Chairman McNiel thanked Mr. Pitassi for his participation. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, thanked the Commission and staff for allowing input. He requested flexibility in the requirement to provide additional recreational facilities for larger projects. He asked that the developer have the option of providing one large recreation building or pool equivalent to two or more smaller such facilities. He asked that the building separation requirement be reduced and submitted a proposal for various setbacks. He felt that increasing the setback from the curb of a driveway or a parking space and a building or between garages and the driveways would take away from the usable open space provided in the interior of the project. He proposed an additional category in the building separation and setback standards to require the distance from an enclosed patio/balcony to an enclosed patio/balcony or garage/carport to be 10 feet in the Medium or Medium-High designation or 15 feet in the High designation. He felt it is a benefit to maximize the exterior recreational areas available to the inhabitants including the private areas of a balcony or patio. Commissioner Melcher thanked Lewis Homes for their contribution in providing the graphics. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7270 Victoria Park Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, appreciated the team approach between the development community and staff. He felt that the majority of the issues had been worked out. He agreed that the wording should be revised to allow for skewing of buildings instead of requiring it. He felt the site would dictate the most appropriate layout and the Design Review process would permit the skewing of buildings to be required. He said that in conversations with staff it was indicated that if patio walls are 3 feet or lower the building separation would be measured from the building instead of from the patio. He requested that patio walls be permitted up to 5 feet high to allow privacy without triggering the measurement from the patio wall. Ms. Fong showed graphics of the building separation as contained in the current code, as exists in current practice, as proposed by staff, and as proposed by Lewis Homes. She said the current code requires 30 feet, but in practice most buildings have patios which encroach into the building separation with an actual separation of only 10 to 15 feet for landscaping and walkway, making the buildings appear much closer than the 30 feet. She said the proposal from Lewis Homes calling for a minimum 10-foot separation from an enclosed patio/balcony to enclosed patio/balcony or garage/carport is the same as the existing code in the Terra Vista Planned Community. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 10, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission had received valuable input at this evening's meeting. He thought the matter to be an enormous issue which will affect the rest of the multi-family development within the City and suggested the matter be continued to allow further discussions. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the issues regarding recreational facilities, building height, and building separation are extremely important. He preferred additional discussions in a workshop setting. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, suggested the item be continued to August 14, 1991, with a workshop to be scheduled prior to that time. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 to August 14, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , Qe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Section 17.08.040-P and Section 17.08,070-E to the Development Code establishing property maintenance standards and ongoing maintenance requirements for multiple family dwellings. Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette asked what recourse the City would have if maintenance standards are not met. Mr. Alcorn replied that as the standards are written it would be a misdemeanor infraction of the law. He said that would permit the City to prosecute for a violation. He said for a major problem, the City could use the abatement proceedings. He indicated that typically the City works to obtain voluntary compliance. Chairman McNiel felt the adoption of maintenance standards would be an opportunity to put the property owners on notice. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 10, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if the requirements would be equally applicable to common interest subdivisions, such as condominiums. Mr. Alcorn responded affirmatively that the requirements would be applicable to any multi-family. Commissioner Melcher asked if there will be some mechanism for notifying each buyer at the time of purchase that such standards exist. He thought it might be a valuable enforcement tool to require property owners/managers to furnish a copy of the ordinance to each tenant or to post the ordinance. Mr. Alcorn replied that such a requirement could be incorporated into the conditions of approval, but he suggested it not be made part of the Municipal Code. Commissioner Vallette felt such a requirement would have more strength if it were part of the Muncipal Code. Mr. Alcorn replied that it would be difficult to establish the policy as a development standard and the on-site property manager would not necessarily know the requirements. He said it would then involve additional staff time to monitor and regulate the posting. He felt it is more important to have the proper maintenance than to be sure that standards are posted. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be prudent to require that information regarding the standards be disclosed in CC&Rs for condominiums or included within rental agreements. He thought such requirements should be part of the ordinance in order to give the City the clout to make sure the standards are distributed. Commissioner Vallette agreed that it would make it easier for staff to receive input from rentere or condominium owners. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it was a policy question. He asked how far the City should go in "baby-sitting" a project. He said that generally the Development Code sets standards for development but not on implementation. He indicated that staff requires disclosure for such things as the freeway and the Fourth Street Rockcrusher. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the City requires disclosure for the freeway and the Fourth Street Rockcrusher, such disclosure may only be made at the time of the initial sale. He feared such disclosures would not be made at the time of resale. He thought it important that subsequent buyers are also informed. Mr. Bullet indicated the bottom line goal is to insure that the property is properly maintained. Commissioner Tolstoy felt rentere would help to see that properties are properly maintained if they were aware of the requirement. Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 10, 1991 Mr. Buller stated that the City may be approached by a disgruntled tenant requesting that the City file misdemeanor charges against an owner for failure to post the standards. He questioned if the City really wanted to get that involved in landlord tenant disputes. Commissioner Vallette responded that the City merely wants to be sure the standards are posted. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He feared apartment dwellers may want the City to arbitrate a myriad of small items in disputes with owners. He thought it would be satisfactory to advise property owners of the standards. He did not want the City to be brought into the middle of minor disputes between tenants and owners. Commissioner Melcher felt Chairman McNiel had raised a valid argument. He thought the Commission could add a posting requirement to a specific project through conditions of approval if the Commission felt it may be beneficial. Commissioner Tolstoy appreciated concerns raised by Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Melcher. He did not want to get the City involved in settling conflicts between renters and owners but wanted to be sure the City is advised when problems arise because of poor maintenance. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 8:35 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. · , , , Re ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13808 AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF EAST AVENUE - LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision of 49 single family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenues - APN: 225- 181-04, 06, 07, 08, 42, and 43 and 225-201-28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 91-15. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 10, 1991 Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested clarification wording changes to Engineering Condition 3 to specify the area to be eligible for fee credits and reimbursement from the Transportation Development Fee. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Camille Bahri, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated there were no objections to the conditions. Patrick McGuire, 6192 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to a letter which he had previously sent to the City objecting to the realignment of East Avenue. He felt his home will be unliveable because a solid wall will be built along East Avenue. He asked for an exemption for the cost of permits to relocate his water meter, electrical connections, and cesspool as he did not feel he should have to bargain with the developer for demolition permits and the construction of his new house. He thought the permits would be a no cost item for the City and he felt the City, not Lewis Homes, is forcing the relocation of the street. He thought eucalyptus trees should not be kept in a housing 'tract because of the fire danger and said there has been three fires in the trees already. He said the only way to fight a hedge fire is to saw the trees down and fight the fire on the ground and it is not possible to fight a tree fire 100 feet in the air. Chairman McNiel asked how the realignment of East Avenue would affect his house. Mr. McGuire replied a solid wall will be placed up East Avenue. He said he currently enters his house from East Avenue and has been told the City wants him to enter from the west side of the property, which means that everything on his lot is backwards and the realignment will come within about 8 feet of his front door. He said his house will be backwards. He asked that the City put it in writing that he will be given the permits free of charge. He said he could tear down his house himself. He said his cesspool and water would be located under the sidewalk and would therefore have to be moved. He thought the cost to rebuild and move should be borne by the developer, but not the cost for permits. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he was not familiar with Mr. McGuire's letter. He commented that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive fees. He indicated fees can only be waived by the City Council and only under explicit terms. He was not sure if even the City Council would be able to waive the fees under existing ordinances. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated Mr. McGuire's letter had been sent to the Community Development Department and Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, had responded. He said Mr. Gomez had indicated the City is sympathetic to Mr. McGuire's concerns but the time to address those concerns would be when Lewis gets into the working drawing segment of the project and begins the negotiations to acquire the right of way. He said the Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 10, 1991 City Council would have to make any determinations regarding the wavier of fees after the City has received more information. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if there is no amicable settlement of the acquisition of right of way, the matter would be forced into condemnation proceedings. He commented that in order to avoid that alternative, fee waivers may be appropriate; but it would be up to the City Council to work out the details whether it be between the City and Mr. McGuire or among Lewis Homes, Mr. McGuire, and the City. Commissioner Vallette asked if there was a staff member Mr. McGuire could work with. Barrye Hanson stated Mr. McGuire has already worked with Engineering. He said Engineering is now waiting for the final plans. Chairman McNiel asked if Lewis Homes had been conditioned to deal with the problems that Mr. McGuire is incurring. Barrye Hanson stated the potential problems were not each enumerated, but it is expected that Lewis will handle the matter. Chairman McNiel stated that the Planning Commission is limited by law as to what it can do. He felt he had established clarification that the responsibility lies with Lewis Homes and he thought he had identified Mr. McGuire's position of non-responsibility. He said it was up to Lewis Homes if they want to take the matter to City Council. He suggested that Mr. McGuire contact Tom Grahn, Barrye Hanson, and/or Ralph Hanson if he should have any additional questions. Commissioner Melcher stated the property has been advertised for sale. wondered if the conditions run with the property. He Barrye Hanson stated the conditions would run with the project. Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to see a condition that replacement trees meet the xeriscape requirement of deep-root watering and root barrier system. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if those are standard requirements. Mr. Bullet stated that under the Xeriscape Ordinance, a point system was established. He indicated the landscape architect has discretion on how to obtain the necessary points. He suggested the deep-root watering and root barrier system requirement could be added as specific conditions for the project. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the conditions should be added for all trees, not just street trees. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that deep watering is already a requirement of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 10, 1991 Chairman McNiel asked how many trees were scheduled to be retained. Mr. Coleman stated the applicant will be required under the Etiwanda Specific Plan to plant new windrows along with some existing trees which will stay, as shown on Exhibit I of the staff report. He reported that of the 239 trees only 52 were deemed ma~ure, healthy trees worth preserving by the arborist. He said the arborist strictly considered the trees and not their location in regard to specific improvements. Chairman McNiel thought perhaps all of the trees should be removed and replaced. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would not want to buy a lot with a mature eucalyptus tree on it because of the wind and possibility of fire. He felt they should all be replaced with the proper selection of trees, which should be planted in such a way that they will be watered properly. He said that would mean deep watering, not watering as part of a lawn or flower bed. He indicated they would need be properly staked (already part of the code) and they should have the root barriers. Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to agree because he thought several years from now there should not be some new windrows with a few old, dead trees in the middle. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it is extremely difficult and costly to remove a mature eucalyptus tree which dies or falls over. He felt the tree may also fall over on a building. He suggested that all the trees within the project be replaced except for the windrow along Summit Avenue. Mr. Coleman stated the Etiwanda Specific Plan gives the option to preserve trees in place or replace them. Commissioner Melcher agreed the trees should be replaced for the reasons already stated. He also did not feel it is appropriate for the City to pass along the potential liability for the trees to future buyers. Commissioner Vallette asked if it is possible for moisture sensors to be used for all the trees or if it would be prohibitively costly. Mr. Coleman stated the City does not know at this time if the area will be developed as a tract or sold off for custom homes and it may take years before it is developed as a custom lot subdivision. He indicated it would be difficult to irrigate the trees until the homes are sold. Commissioner Vallette asked about the maintenance of the trees along Summit and East Avenue. Mr. Coleman replied they would be maintained by the City. Commissioner Vallette asked if the moisture sensors could be specified. Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 10, 1991 Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if it may be possible to limit future arborist reports to trees along public rights of way. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated there is a City Ordinance in place requiring arborist reports on all trees. He said the City Council had appointed a task force to review the Tree Preservation Ordinance and he suggested projects should not be exempted on an individual basis from complying with the ordinance. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many times the arborist reports cover trees other than eucalyptus. He felt there are also times when it may be a good idea to maintain a eucalyptus windrow in its entirety. He did not feel the code should be changed. Mr. Kroutil suggested that the trees be removed and replaced at the time construction and grading are about to occur to avoid the removal of the trees several years before the property is developed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative tract 13808 with modifications to replace all trees except those along Summit Avenue; require deep-root containers and root barriers; require a soil moisture sensor in the irrigation design for the Summit Avenue windrow; clarify Engineering Condition 3 to specify the area to be eligible for fee credits and reimbursement from the Transportation Development Fee; and approve Tree Removal Permit 91-15 effective from the date of issuance of rough grading permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CMITIEA -carried , , , , , ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. Te CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or' revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 10, 1991 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to extend the hours of operation for an existing restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. Chairman McNiel stated the applicant had requested the items be continued until July 24, 1991. He opened the public.hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to continued Entertainment Permit 91-02, Conditional Use Permit 78-03, and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 78-03 to July 24, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , , Ve ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-19 - H & L CHARTER - The request to establish a vehicle storage and maintenance facility in a leased space of 4,560 square feet within an existing industrial building on 2.24 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 8801 Helms Avenue - APN: 209-032-59. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested a change to condition 5 to require site inspection for compliance prior to occupancy. He referred to a letter from Albert W. Davies, Inc., the property owner, requesting that Condition 12 be removed to permit vehicle storage prior to the completion of the improvements because of a need by the tenant. Coleman suggested the Commission could remove the condition, tie the condition to the issuance of the building permit for the screen wall, or set an actual time limit for performance. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Elaine Fickett, Co-owner of H & L Charter, 195 East Valley Boulevard, Rialto, requested deletion of Condition 12 to allow a speedier occupancy of the site. She said she would like to move in within a week if possible. Chairman McNiel stated if the condition were deleted or modified to permit storage of the buses prior to completion of construction, the City would have to be held harmless for any damage during construction. Ms. Fickett replied there is more than adequate space and she would agree to hold the City harmless. Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 10, 1991 Les Davies, property owner, 6239 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they would be constructing the wall. He said he has full insurance as a contractor and he had no objections to the remainder of the conditions. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Davies would prefer the occupancy have a specific period for performance or be tied to application for building permits. Mr. Davies felt he could submit the plans in about three weeks. Chairman McNiel asked how long H & L Charter had been in business. Ms. Fickett replied seven years. Chairman McNiel felt it should not hurt to delay occupancy a few weeks. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated occupancy could not commence prior to expiration of the 10-day appeal period. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette asked if a precedent would be set if the City allowed occupancy prior to the completion of the improvements. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission has previously allowed schedules to be adjusted to meet the needs of applicants. Mr. Bullet suggested that the Commission may wish to specify that they were simply waiving a timing mechanism for the screening of outdoor storage of vehicles for this type of use. He said that would not tie it to any other type of improvements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would only be willing to waive conditions on a case-by-case basis depending on the ramifications. Mr. Buller suggested the Commission may wish to tie the commencement of bus storage to the pulling of a permit for the wall. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-19 with modification to permit vehicle storage only after issuance of screen wall building permit. Motion carried by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried · , · , , Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 10, 1991 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-14 - ROCK SOLID CHURCH - The request to establish a church in a leased space of 3,520 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial building within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 8680 Helms Avenue - APN: 209-022-18. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette commented that some of the parking spaces on the site are currently cluttered with debris or stored manufacturing materials. Mr. Grahn indicated he would have Code Enforcement contact the owners. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that Code Enforcement also check out the removal of the bicycle racks. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Duke Downs, Pastor, 4550 Eucalyptus, Chino, reported that the previous tenant in the adjacent building had been evicted and the area will be cleaned up. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant was aware of all of the Fire Department requirements. Pastor Downs responded affirmatively and said they would not have any problems complying with the requirements. Chairman McNiel asked if the building will be large enough to service the church. Pastor Downs replied that the building will be a secondary church for his church in Chino and the Chino church would provide financial support. He reported that if the church grows too large, it will move to another building. Chairman McNiel commented that daytime functions will be limited because of the limited parking. Pastor Downs responded that there would be no more than two to three cars during daytime hours. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use was satisfactory but was concerned about the cost of the panic hardware and asked if the applicant had considered the cost. Pastor Downs responded that the cost of meeting the FAre Department requirements would not be as high as it would be if it were a larger building. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff could secure the cooperation of the Fire District to see that the assembly area is posted with the maximum occupancy. Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded that assembly areas are automatically Planning Commission Minutes -18- July 10, 1991 posted per Fire Department regulations; however, the maximum occupancy from the Fire Department's perspective would be higher than the maximum 84 figure as restricted by the limited parking. Commissioner Melcher suggested addition of a condition to require that the maximum 84 occupancy be posted. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-14, with modification to require posting of maximum occupancy by 84 people, as approved by the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Xe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-13 - INLAND EMPIRE STAGES - The request to establish a bus charter service within an existing building on 3 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 9567 8th Street - APN: 209- 171-38. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and provided three letters which had been received in support of the application. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Walt Neff, Partner, Inland Empire Stages, 959 Clark Street, Upland, reported that since purchasing the property they have paved for parking, applied new stucco and paint to the building and carport, replaced a chain link fence with a block wall, and pruned the vegetation. He said they had already completed about 75 percent of the requirements. He hoped they would be finished and ready to move the buses onto the lot within 30 days. Commissioner Vallette questioned the parking requirements and why they did not feel they would need 15 parking spaces when they have 15 employees. Mr. Neff said they have nine buses and the 15 employees work part time, so that there would never be more than 9 people at the facility at any one time. Chairman McNiel asked about growth. Mr. Neff indicated they hope to grow in the future, but they anticipate the growth will be minimal and over a long period of time. He said they had purchased the large lot as an investment. Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 10, 1991 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated he did not wish to decrease the required 15 automobile parking spaces. Commissioner Tolstoy supported maintaining the parking requirement at 15 automobile spaces. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vailerrs, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-13. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13919 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A subdivision of 19.3 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 225-161-19, 32, 33, and 34. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7270 Victoria Park Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Parcel 1 comprises 11 acres and will be 40 homes at most. He requested that Condition 3 limit the Highland Avenue improvements to only the frontage of Highland Avenue. He said the condition had already been imposed on the development of the projects to the east in order to be consistent. Mr. Hanson responded that the City will be tightening the parameters when Parcel 1 is reviewed. He suggested the condition be left as written as staff may wish to consider going across the Edison easement. Commissioner Melcher asked the intent of Condition 1, which requires that necessary improvements on Parcel 2 be constructed upon development of Parcel 1. Mr. Hanson replied the intent was that any public facilities adjacent to Parcel 2 would be constructed upon development of Parcel 1. Chairman McNiel felt the development along Highland Avenue which is consistent with the balance of Highland will be attached to this property as necessary to avoid letting the developer escape conditions by selling Parcel 2 to Caltrans. Mr. Luque stated he felt they were in general agreement that the development of Parcel 1 will be conditioned upon the necessary and appropriate improvements. Planning Commission Minutes -20- July 10, 1991 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13919. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14679 - HANDAH INTERNATIONAL - A residential subdivision and design review of a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes for the Development of 8 condominium units on 0.8 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located west of Amethyst Avenue on the north side of 19th Street - APN: 201-474-04. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 90-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested additional conditions regarding property maintenance and visitor parking. He indicated that the applicant had been provided with a copy of the conditions and had indicated they were acceptable. Commissioner Vallette asked if there would be an easement from the church to provide for the driveway across the church property. Mr. Hayes replied that the ~hurch owns the property where the driveway access is located. He said the project is conditioned to provide reciprocal access from the church property. Commissioner Vallette asked if there may be a problem in the future if the church site is sold. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering staff feels it would be better to handle traffic problems internally rather than on 19th Street. He said that anyone who attempts to redevelop the church site would be aware of the situation and the need for reciprocal access. Commissioner Tolstoy stated a reciprocal agreement would remain with the property. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Ho, Handah International, 301 West Valley Boulevard, #220, San Gabriel, stated he was available to answer questions. Planning Commission Minutes -21- July 10, 1991 Chairman McNiel felt the project had some tough site constraints and expressed appreciation for cooperation of the applicant. Mr. Ho indicated they had reduced the number of units from 11 to 8. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project was very nice for the size of the property. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14679 with modification to add conditions regarding property maintenance and visitor parking. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , , AA. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-42 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - The development of an integrated shopping center including 13 commercial buildings totaling 318,283 square feet and a service station/car wash building totaling 2,300 square feet on 31.13 acres of land with Phase I development consisting of 5 buildings totaling 267,960 square feet on approximately 22 acres in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 229-021-10, 15, 19, and 28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. BB. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13808 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A subdivision of 31.13 acres of land into 16 parcels in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 229-021-10, 15, 19, and 28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked which buildings will be built with Phase I. Mr. Hayes identified the buildings. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Potter, Hughes Investments, 2 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, commented that the project had only required two Design Review Meetings, which Planning Commission Minutes -22- July 10, 1991 he felt showed the good cooperation of staff and the Commissioners. He thought the input provided by representatives from Home Depot and K-Mart was valuable in helping to expedite the approval of the project. He introduced Geoff Reeslund. Geoff Reeslund, SGPA Architecture and Planning, 2603 Main Street, Suite 810, Irvine, presented a brief background of the project and changes made following Design Review. He indicated they had revised the building layouts, parking configuration, and access points to address Commission concerns. He reported they significantly redesigned the two major tenant buildings to incorporate new towers, grills, arches, tile medallion details, and additional planters. He said following the last Design Review Committee meeting they had submitted plans which satisfied Planning Conditions 6, 7, 12, 31, and 33 and Engineering Condition 14. Commissioner Vallette thanked the applicant for researching and submitting a project that showed they knew what was expected in the City. Mr. Potter indicated that the proposed in-lieu fee for freeway right-of-way landscaping would be approximately $120,000. He said Caltrans had indicated they are not interested in installing landscaping at this time because of maintenance and drought concerns. He asked if they could post a bond for the fee. He opposed the requirement for a licensed private security patrol between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. He reported that they do not sell their properties and management of the properties is an important issue to them. He stated he would prefer to have the requirement for security patrol left to their discretion and not be mandated without something to necessitate the patrol. He said of the 15 to 20 shopping centers they own, they have not experienced any problems even though they do not have on-going security except in the enclosed regional shopping centers. Chairman McNiel asked if they patrol other facilities. Mr. Potter said they have off-site property managers who are on site weekly. He said they have not had any problems that would necessitate security patrols on a daily basis. He felt the condition should be on an as-needed basis. He said they would have leasing problems if they had security problems. He asked for confirmation that the phasing discussed this evening would not require further approval by the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel concurred. Mr. Potter stated he had been told by Denise Hutt, Special Districts Technician, that Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 assessments pay for the on-going maintenance of parkways and median islands within the Victoria Community Plan. He said that as the project pays Landscape Maintenance fees in excess of $23,000 per year on a per acreage charge, the parkway referenced in Engineering Condition 12 should be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District rather than the project. He therefore requested elimination of Engineering Condition 12. He also thought that Lot "A" should not be included with Parcel 11, the K-Mart parcel. He indicated it is closer to Parcel 9. He Planning Commission Minutes -23- July 10, 1991 said because of the radius of Pioneer Way, Lot "A" is left over. He requested that they dedicate Lot "A" as part of the right of way for Pioneer Way. He agreed to landscape it, but felt it should be included in the Landscape Maintenance District. He said he thought staff may have thought the project was in Landscape Maintenance District 3 in the Industrial Specific Plan Area, which does not provide for maintenance of parkways. Commissioner Melcher felt the intent of the condition was to proFide for the cost of the assessment for maintaining the property which is across the street from the project, inasmuch as the parcels have no other purpose. Mr. Potter indicated he had been told the definition of the Landscape Maintenance District is to maintain parkways and medians. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel asked if there is a vehicle to permit bonding for freeway landscaping in-lieu fees. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City Council had upheld the fee question at their last meeting on an appeal. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering would not recommend bonding for freeway landscaping as bonds are difficult to collect and the timing for installation of the landscaping is undetermined. He said they would recommend an in-lieu fee be required. Chairman McNiel asked the reasoning for the security patrol requirement. Mr. Buller commented the condition was added as the result of Commission direction on two previous projects of equivalent size. He reported the condition was placed on the Town Center and the Foothill Marketplace. He stated that the managers of the Town Center project have indicated the security patrols are being used effectively. Chairman McNiel supported the requirement because he felt it may inhibit security problems. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the center is unique because it is right off the freeway. He strongly recommended the condition remain. Mr. Bullet questioned what the Commission felt would be a logical dividing point on which centers should require on-site security patrols. Chairman McNiel suggested a fact-finding session following a Design Review meeting to discuss various topics. He questioned if a phasing plan was included. Mr. Hayes responded the phasing condition was added in case the applicant decided to divide the remainder of the project into phases. He said Phase I includes the development of five buildings. He said any future phasing of the project would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -24- July 10, 1991 Commissioners Vallette and Melcher felt that Engineering Condition 12 should remain as written. Chairman McNiel stated the developer gave the impression that he feels he is paying twice. Mr. Hanson disagreed but stated he could not think of another case where a developer has double frontages with two parkways to maintain. ~e said staff felt it to be more fair for the center to pay for the maintenance than for all of the residents to pay for it. He thought the parkway is associated only with the center. He said that generally the only parkways maintained by the City in Victoria and Terra Vista are adjacent to rear-on single family residential developments. He said the condo project does the maintenance of the adjacent parkways. He indicated staff has strong City Council direction that parkways in commercial areas should not be maintained by the City. Commissioner Vallette suggested the developer could utilize a low-maintenance design and requested that the landscape design be approved by the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Potter felt the City should take over Lot "A," as the developer did not wish to retain ownership on a land-locked, non-buildable parcel. He requested that the City take the parcel in fee because it would be a liability to the developer. Mr. Hanson stated the City has no desire to assume the responsibility for the parcel. He indicated staff felt Lot "A" should remain with Parcel 11 because it is a larger parcel and could probably better absorb the maintenance costs. He said Lot "A" is separated from Parcel 9 by a street right of way. Mr. Potter did not feel parcels separated by a public right of way could be joined. Mr. Hanson replied that the Map Act does permit such parcels to be joined. Mr. Potter asked why the City did not want to take the parcel. Mr. Hanson replied the City does not wish to accept the potential liability. Commissioner Melcher stated that at the southeast corner of Haven and Church there is a landscaped corner which can never be developed. He asked who owns that parcel. Mr. Hanson stated that parcel is being maintained by an Assessment District because there is not a shopping center adjacent to it. Commissioner Melcher felt the parcel is owned by the Lewis Company. He thought the City is not in the business of taking on every piece of property which is undevelopable because it is cut off by virtue of other Planning Commission Minutes -25- July 10, 1991 infrastructure. He indicated the property still needs to be maintained by someone. Mr. Potter stated that because of the right-of-way which they must dedicate, they are left with an undevelopable piece of property. He thought it should be attached to the right of way. He did not wish to include it with any of the parcels because it would make it difficult to sell or lease the parcel. He agreed that they would landscape and maintain the property. $ Chairman McNiel stated that it was not an advantage to the City to accept the parcel. Mr. Potter requested that it be made a separate parcel because he did not want it attached to the shopping center. Commissioner Melcher felt that would be acceptable. Mr. Hanson stated staff would be afraid it would not be maintained and taxes would not be paid on it. He also indicated that if it were a separate parcel, it could be separately sold. Mr. Potter stated K-Mart would have problems doing a sale-leaseback if Lot "A" were attached to their parcel. Commissioner Melcher asked which parcels Hughes Investments would be keeping. Mr. Potter responded they plan to sell parcels to K-Mart and Home Depot. He was not sure which parcels Hughes would retain. He requested that Lot "A" be dedicated to the City as parkland with a maintenance agreement. He thought another option would be to create a separate parcel with a condition on the Conditional Use Permit for the shopping center to require that the parcel be maintained. He thought that would give the City leverage to be sure the area is maintained. Chairman McNiel stated that while the parcel is a disadvantage to the developer it also does not benefit the City to take it. Mr. Potter asked if there would not be a way to create a separate parcel with a vehicle to obligate the shopping center to maintain it. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, asked if there will be an Owners' Association for the project. Mr. Potter responded there will be CC&Rs with a declaration and common area maintenance agreement to provide for the construction and maintenance of the shopping center buildings and common areas. He said there would be a Common Area Maintenance Director. He felt some language could be drafted to satisfy the City and reported they had done something similar in Banning. Ralph Hanson agreed it may be possible. He said he would like to see a hold harmless for the City. Planning Commission Minutes -26- July 10, 1991 Mr. Potter asked if the Resolution could be reworded to allow flexibility to try to work out the problem. Barrye Hanson suggested Engineering Condition 12 be reworded to provide for including Lot "A" with Parcel 11 or providing some other method to guarantee the perpetual maintenance and ownership of Lot "A" to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Chairman McNiel stated he was concerned about the median island abruptly stopping, so he suggested that the median island extend the entire length of the street by widening the street by 2 feet to a total of 66 feet. He said that would mean 1 foot be taken from the parkway from each side of the street. He did not feel that would press the buildings back further. Mr. Potter asked why Chairman McNiel felt a median was needed the full length of the street. chairman McNiel stated a landscape median moves into the project and then ceases without any logical transition. Mr. Potter said the street's designed width goes from 120 feet down to 88 feet (including parkway). He said from a traffic movement standpoint a median is not necessary to control traffic movements into and out of the shopping center. He felt the additional right-of-way necessary to be acquired from other property owners and the additional construction costs would be approximately $160,000 to $170,000. Barrye Hanson stated the suggestion was merely to move the curbs out and reduce the parkways from 12 feet to 11 feet. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission was willing to go on record that when the north and south sides of Pioneer are developed, the setbacks from curb would be reduced by I foot. Mr. Buller stated a reduction in setbacks would require a variance and the item had not been advertised to include a variance. He said the City code permits the City Planner to allow a reduction in setbacks under a Minor Exception Permit if the the proper legal findings can be made and certain criteria on average landscaping and setbacks are met. He said those legal findings include a finding that the property is unique. Barrye Hanson thought Henry Rider's project at the northeast corner of Haven and 4th Street had voluntarily put a median in a local industrial street and was given some on-site landscaping credit. He said it is necessary from a traffic standpoint that the street be 66 feet instead of 64 feet if the median is built. Commissioner Melcher stated he merely wanted a sense from the Commission that if they were willing to allow the parkway to be reduced for this developer in order to obtain the median, they would be willing to philosophically extend the same consideration to those properties west of the point who would be similarly burdened by the median. Planning Commission Minutes -27- July 10, 1991 Chairman McNiel thought the may not be needed further west. the median should stop in the middle of this project. He did not feel Mr. Potter suggested the median be taken to the property line but requested the foot be taken from the parkway rather than the project. He thought a logical place to end the median might be at the Edison easement where the channel is crossed. Barrye Hanson stated Engineering would prefer not to install a median in the industrial portion from Day Creek westerly because the property is undeveloped and it is not certain where the driveways will be located and median breaks would be required. Chairman McNiel said the project is good and he felt it warrants a median along the entire length. Mr. Buller stated the minutes could reflect if it was the consensus of the Commission that latitude be given to the City Planner to process a Minor Exception Permit if required for the parking needed for Phase I. He said the Minor Exception Permit would have to be processed before pulling any permits. He asked the width of median island. Barrye Hanson responded 12 feet wide. Mr. Bullet asked what type of landscaping could be expected based on the Traffic Engineer's sight line. Chairman McNiel stated he had met with Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer, and there were some trees and low shrubs that could be used. Mr. Bullet suggested the median be stopped at the last project driveway instead of at the Edison easement. Chairman McNiel agreed that would be acceptable. Mr. Buller stated that when the satellite buildings are submitted on the parcels of land adjacent to the area, a Minor Exception Permit could be processed if necessary for those buildings. Chairman McNiel asked the other Commissioners if they concurred with the need for the median. Commissioner Vallette asked if the building would encroach on the setback. Mr. Potter thought it would encroach the i foot, but did not think it would be noticed because the setback is 45 feet. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the median should be extended to the southerly driveway and latitude should be given to the City Planner to process a Minor Exception Permit for the setback. Planning Co~unission Minutes -28- July 10, 1991 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette asked if staff might further research if there would be some use for Lot "A" if it were dedicated to the City. Mr. Bullet said the parcel is less than an acre and it would be landlocked. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City would not want it. Mr. Buller stated the parcel would be difficult to develop on its own. He said it is adjacent to an Edison corridor and may potentially be developed in conjunction with a use on the corridor, such as a wholesale nursery or commuter park and ride station. He suggested the project could go forward and staff or the applicant could reintroduce the parcel back to the Commission. Barrye Hanson indicated the landscaping is scheduled to go back to the Design Review Committee and he thought Mr. Potter may have some ideas by then. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-42 and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13808 with modifications to extend the median island from Foothill Boulevard to the most southerly project driveway and to permit an alternate method to guarantee the perpetual maintenance and ownership of Lot "A" as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , · Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed from 11:20 p.m. to 11:25 p.m. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS CC. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it was also time to select the delegates to the Design Review Committees. Commissioner Melcher nominated Larry McNiel for Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel accepted the nomination. It was the consensus of Planning Commission Minutes -29- July 10, 1991 the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitiea absent) that Larry McNiel would continue to serve as Chairman. Commissioner Melcher nominated Suzanne Chitiea as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Vallette seconded the nomination. Chairman McNiel reported that Commissioner Chitiea had indicated her willingness to continue to serve as Vice Chairman. It was the consensus of the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitiea absent) that Suzanne Chitiea would continue to serve as-Vice Chairman. Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Melcher if he wished to continue as an alternate to the Design Review Committees. Commissioner Melcher responded that it would be appropriate for him to do so, based on his discussions with the City Council during the appointment process. Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Vallette how comfortable she felt on the Commercial/Industrial Committee. Commissioner Vallette replied she felt comfortable. Chairman McNiel felt that Commissioner Chitiea should move to the Residential Committee and he should move to the Commercial/Industrial Committee. Me thought it important that there be some continuity on the two committees. Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested the changes be effective at the first meeting of August. Chairman McNiel thought that was a convenient date. Commissioner Vallette indicated that she was willing to remain on the Commercial/Industrial Committee, but she would be willing to switch if Commissioner Chitlea did not wish to switch to the Residential side. DD. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the terms of Commissioners Chitiea and Tolstoy expire on July 27. He said Chairman McNiel's term as the Alternate also expires on July 27. Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Tolstoy was still available to serve on the Trails Advisory Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy responded affirmatively. It was the consensus of the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitiea absent) that Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitlea would remain the delegates to the Trails Advisory Committee. Planning Commission Minutes -30- July 10, 1991 Chairman McNiel suggested that Commissioner Vallette serve as the Alternate as he felt it would be beneficial to her. Commissioner Vallette indicated she was willing but would also like to be the Alternate for the Tree Preservation and Design Review Processing subcommittees. It was the consensus of the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitlea ~bsent) that Commissioner Vallette serve as the Alternate. · , , , , Various dates were discussed for scheduling a workshop regarding multi-family standards. It was decided the workshop would be scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on July 18, 1991. , , , , Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, asked when Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Tolstoy could interview the candidates for bicycle member of the Trails Advisory Committee. It was decided to schedule the interviews for 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on July 17, 1991. , , , , , Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that the mayor had appealed the decision on the Wattson property because the Planning Commission had modified the conditions which had been recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission and acknowledged by the City Council. , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Chitlea absent, to adjourn. 11:40 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a July 18, 1991, workshop at 3:30 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center to review multi-family development standards. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -31- July 10, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 26, 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 Chaz~3er 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: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitlea STAFF PRESENT: Curt Billings, Engineering Technician; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 4, 1991. Motion: Moved by Eelchef, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of May 22, 1991, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY - A request to vacate a portion of an alley south of Ninth Street from Vinmar to Sierra Madre Avenues - APN: 207-243-07 Commissioner Melcher requested that Item A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. He asked if the gates on Sierra Madre will be locked. Curt Billings, Engineering Technician, replied that the gates would not be locked unless the residents provide a lock. Commissioner Melcher said he had wondered about a lock, as the staff report indicated several residences may be using the alley for access to their lots. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Commissioner Melcher stated he was in total sympathy with why the alley is to be closed off, but he felt the situation may lead to problems. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Chitiea absent), to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue· ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A public hearing to comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue· Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification on the process of adoption of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Bratt stated that the comments to the draft EIR and the written responses would become the final EIR. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated the Planning Commission would review the written comments before the EIR is forwarded to City Council for final certification. He said the public comment process would technically end upon the close of tonight's public hearing, but staff typically responds to all comments submitted up until the final certification. Commissioner Melcher questioned the amount of park land being requested under the Quimby standard. Ms. Bratt replied that under Quimby standards a municipality can require up to 5 acres of park per 1,000 population if there is already existing parks at that ratio. She said the current City basis is 4.689 acres per thousand. Commissioner Melcher asked if the 4.689 figure is based on developed park acreage. Ms. Bratt responded that it includes land which is owned or developed including trails and trail heads. Commissioner Melcher asked about the comment that the impact would be less than significant. Ms. Bratt replied that there would be a significant impact if the City required less than the General Plan goal for parks, but the impact will be less than significant if the proper amount of park land is provided. Commissioner Melcher asked if the development standards would change in the future if the Hillside Development Ordinance is changed. Ms. Bratt replied that development would be based upon the standards in effect at the time of approval for such development. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Hillside Development Ordinance should be strengthened to avoid adverse impacts. Mr. Henderson commented that the act of grading will cause an impact, so impacts could not be reduced to less than significant. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Planning Commission should reevaluate the Hillside Development Ordinance based on experience with the project now in process to be sure the Ordinance is accomplishing the objectives of the Commission. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the level of development achievable within the Ordinance guidelines is not the same as the goal of the Commission. He questioned if the wildlife corridors would remain viable. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 26, 1991 Ms. Bratt reported that staff is currently reviewing the resource management plan to address those concerns. Commissioner Melcher asked if all hiking and equestrian trails will be available to all City residents. Ms. Bratt responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked the level of development of East Avenue. Mr. Bratt replied that it will be a collector street. Commissioner Vallette questioned the upper limit of development. Ms. Bratt stated the forest station sits on a prominent knoll and development would be north to that site. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Kearney, Landmark Land, 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Corona, stated their 762 acres is located at the northwest portion of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said they had been working over two years on the preparation of the plan with both the City and the County. He stated they are currently processing their development within the County. He said only the lower portion of their project is located within the City's Sphere of Influence. He indicated they are opposed to any annexation into the Sphere of Influence or the City boundary until the plan is approved. He presented a package of comments and stated he wished to reserve the right to present additional comments because some of the land uses had been changed since the plan they had seen. Mike White, Standard Pacific, 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard, Coeta Mesa, stated he is the owner and developer of Tract 13565 in the City. He said that when the tract was annexed into the City in 1989 the City Council approved a Development Agreement which sets forth certain standards. He asked for clarification that the Development Agreement would not be superseded by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said they planned to meet with staff during the next week. Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 14751 Plaza Drive, "A", Tustin, submitted a letter with comments. She said their primary concerns regard land use, open space mitigation, the legality of the open space mitigation, and the Hillside Development Ordinance. She disagreed that estate lots would be more in line with the County General Plan. She said the County does not have a minimum 1 acre lot size, as the City would like to impose. She reported that they had asked staff for documentation regarding the Quimby numbers. She expressed concern about the commercial land use locations and said it was her understanding that the area is not in the Equestrian Overlay District. She said they would like to reserved the right to review staff's later materials and return to comment at a later time. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 26, 1991 Richard Heilman, 5660 San Marino, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the designation of Neighborhood Commercial in Subarea 6 at the northwest corner of Wilson and Wardman Bullock Road. He thought the designation is not consistent with the General Plans of either Rancho Cucamonga or San Bernardino County. He commented there is no other Neighborhood Commercial in the City north of Route 30 except for the Haven corridor, where it extends to Lemon. He felt the increased traffic, noise, and parking lot lighting will create negative impacts in the residential area. He thought the density in the .area will be too low to support Neighborhood Commercial. He complimented staff on the technical preparation of the document but asked why so much taxpayer money was being wasted on a plan when it was entirely possible nothing will come of it. He was concerned about the financing for the rest of the area and commented he lives within a Mello-Roos District. He thought the County and City were perhaps needlessly spending money because of bickering caused by egos. He suggested the County and City get together and produce a quality product. He reported that the San Sevaine wash has been completed north of 24th Street and has been completely fenced in, making animal movement impossible. He felt that with the vegetation growing in the area it will be a high fire area and he thought the fence presents a danger to wildlife because of the fire hazard. He wondered why the City's EIR recommended the area be left open but the County is fencing it off. Jim Lynch, 11640 Mt. Whitney Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said he appreciated the concerns regarding wildlife habitat and the development of the foothills. He did not feel development should be allowed if the impacts cannot be mitigated. He asked why so much scrub habitat is to be eliminated if scrub habitat resources are dwindling. He was concerned that the wildlife corridors may not be viable. He suggested that hiking and equestrian trails should not be included in the wildlife corridors because of conflicts with the animals. He thought development should be limited to south of the utility corridor in the Oaks area to protect against a human impact upon the bog. He wondered about economic and tax liability for the City and did not feel a lot a residential development is good for the City. He thought the City is approaching a condition of being overdeveloped in the residential area and feared future bankruptcy. Chairman McNiel thanked the participants for their comments, both written and oral. Motion: moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to July 24, 1991. Motion carried by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 26, 1991 Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that interested individuals could telephone the City to make an appointment to discuss =heir concerns regarding the items. , , , , E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 - RICHARD STENTON - Modification of conditions of approval to allow land uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided for research and development (1 space per 350 square feet) within an existing industrial complex on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Buffalo and 6th Street - APN: 229-261-78. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - The request to establish a "mini-mall" (swap meet) in a leased space of 103,552 square feet within an existing industrial center on 13.77 acres of land in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-026-28. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Related file Conditional Use Permit 86-06. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Anna-Lisa Mernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Condition 6 were deleted from Resolution 86-78 and the proposed project does not materialize or does not continue as a use. He asked if that could cause a problem. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when the project was first proposed, the Commission felt it was important that the leasing agent advise perspective tenants that the parking ratio is 1/350 square feet. He said if the condition were deleted, the applicant would still be subject to the same parking requirements. Commissioner Vallette questioned the justification for requesting a parking ratio at 1/150 for the swap meet use. Ms. Hernandez replied that the applicant had submitted a detailed parking study which was deemed satisfactory to staff. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, 10370 Commerce Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, reiterated the applicant had provided a parking study demonstrating that a 1/150 parking ratio would be sufficient. He suggested the Commission could modify the Resolution to require that the owners notify any future tenants of the maximum parking ratio of 1/350 after processing of Conditional Use Permit 91-03 for the swap meet. He requested that the condition requiring removal of graffiti be changed to a 72 hour deadline to allow time to act because he felt 24 hours was unreasonable. He thought the requirement for a Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 26, 1991 minimum of four security personnel during hours of operation and 24-hour security while the facility is closed to be restrictive. He requested the condition be changed to require security adequate to handle any problems and said the management profile had recommended two security people. Mr. Clouse requested that the number of people in the management team be reduced from the required six to ten to whatever is adequate for the facility, stating that the property manager will be on site. He requested a modification to Conditions 8 and 9. He said he thought the City Council's intent in recommending Conditions 8 and 9 was to address a concern regarding sales tax revenue monitoring and the quality of vendors within the project. He reported that each vendor must secure a seller's permit from the state. He was concerned that the requirement for each vendor to use a cash register may not be enforceable by the owner and he thought the cost of obtaining a cash register would exclude some of the potential vendors. Mr. Clouse requested clarification of the definition of a promotional sale triggering the necessity for obtaining a Temporary Use Permit. Commissioner Vallette asked the maximum vendor capacity. Mr. Clouse replied that the maximum capacity is based on requirements of the Building Department for aisle width, exits, etc. He said there will be a maximum of approximately 200 vendors occupying approximately 50,000 square feet of the 103,552 square foot building. James Page, Carnival Malls, 6221 Warner Drive, Los Angeles, stated his operation is not a swap meet. He indicated the building looks like a retail mall and his plan should be the criteria for new facilities. He reported that even though the requirements permit the use of chicken wire and wood between stalls, they would be using steel stud and dry wall because it will provide a better quality. He showed pictures of the proposed lighting. He indicated the use of more expensive lighting and dry wall can add interesting shapes. He said the tenants will be leasing on a permanent basis rather than for one weekend only. He commented that his tenant lease requires that a business license be obtained and that the tenant keep records for tax purposes. He said his attorney had drawn up the lease and had indicated they could not tell their tenants how to conduct their business including how to handle cash. Commissioner Melcher appreciated the use of studs and Sheetrock. He noted the maximum interior partition height of 5 feet, 9 inches imposed by the Building Department. Mr. Page responded they had resolved the problems with the Fire Department and Building Department and had redesigned the facility to meet codes. He said they have a number of fire exit doors, fire alarms, and sprinklers. He felt the system is a good one and exceeds most retail stores. Commissioner Vallette questioned the use of interior neon lighting. Mr. Page replied that they no longer felt they would be able to use neon lights for the interior signs because there may be some problems with fire codes. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Vallette requested that if they determined they could use neon lighting, that the colors not be the same as the exit lights. Deran Yalian, 9071 Wildflower Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was a partner in Carnival Malls. He said they manage property all over the United States. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller commented that the City does not know for sure how many security personnel will be necessary. He reported that Condition 16 was added to provide for a public hearing to review the use after 12 months because the use is new and the City has no experience. He suggested an initial requirement of two security personnel for the first 50 tenants and one additional security person for each additional 75 tenants. He did not feel comfortable with merely using the term "adequate." He thought the Commission may wish to decrease the size of the management team or base it on the number of tenants. He agreed that a cash register may be a burden on a small tenant and reported that the City Council had wondered how to best monitor the use. Mr. Buller clarified that Condition 12 requires a Temporary Use Permit for outdoor special events. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Temporary Use Permits was merely condition in the Municipal Code. commented that Condition 12 regarding an awareness condition duplicating a Mr. Bullet suggested that Condition 16 be changed to require a public hearing to review the project 12 months after release of occupancy rather than 12 months from the date of approval. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City. Attorney, agreed with the applicant that the applicant can not guarantee that his tenants will obey the law. He said he understood the City Council's discussion centered on encouraging and promoting a business environment. He believed there is a legal justification to require cash registers in order to promote the municipal purpose but indicated there could be no guarantee the tenants would use the registers. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be more comfortable if staff and the applicant mutually revised the conditions regarding security personnel and on- site management team. He felt the initial numbers may be too high and commented that because the use would be governed by a Conditional Use Permit, the City would have the ability to review the use and require additional personnel. He felt the use may provide an incubation environment for new businesses and felt the additional cost of a cash register may defeat the purpose. He thought the project may be a tremendous opportunity for the City. Chairman McNiel asked if any existing City ordinances or state laws require a business to have a cash register. Mr. Hanson responded negatively. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Melcher commented that Mr. Moon's request for modification had suggested a site average on a day-by-day basis not exceeding i space per 350 square feet. Mr. Bullet suggested that if the Commission wished to retain Condition 6, it could be modified to allow a more intensive parking ratio only when considered through a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Melcher commented that a letter had been received from John Richards of Mission Land Company objecting to the application. He felt the record should note that Mr. Richards' comments had been considered and the Commission thought the concerns had been properly addressed by the application. Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Chitlea concurred. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding Conditions 5, 6, and 9. He felt the applicant and staff could work out the details regarding security and management staffing. He thought cash registers would be an excessive requirement. Commissioner Vallette requested that Condition 5 be modified to include two indoor and two outdoor security people at build-out. She thought the number of management personnel could be modified and both conditions should include a progression as the number of vendors increase. She suggested that the managers of the property lease cash registers to the vendors. She requested that a condition be added that dead trees and landscaping be replaced before opening. She did not feel the two exterior trash areas would be sufficient and suggested that staff consider requiring additional capacity. Chairman McNiel agreed that the collective trash from all the vendors could overwhelm the site. Mr. Coleman con~nented that Condition 2 requires daily trash pick-up. Commissioner Vallette felt staff should determine if there is sufficient capacity for the trash. Chairman McNiel agreed there should be a progressive system for security and management personnel. He suggested lockable cash drawers be provided by the managers of the facility to discourage vendors from utilizing cigar boxes and help deter pilfering. He thought the landscaping should be upgraded and indicated the maintenance of the parking lot will be critical. He felt the concept for the project is good and it will service the community. Mr. Bullet suggested that action be postponed until later in the agenda to permit time for staff and the applicant to meet and consider revised conditions. It was the consensus of the Commission to defer action until later in the agenda. Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 26, 1991 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 9:10 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED - The development of Phase III of a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96 acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven and Highland Avenues - APN: 201-271-65 and 71. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested that Standard Conditions N1 and N4 be revised to refer to Haven Avenue. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John O'Meara Diversified Shopping Centers, 2910 Red Hill, Costa Mesa, stated they had developed the the shopping center in 1986 and had undergrounded 1,200 feet of electrical lines along Haven Avenue at that time. He objected to the additional undergrounding requirements along Haven, including the necessity to reservice a house across the street from the center and the requirement for in-lieu fees for future undergrounding along Highland. He projected the Haven undergrounding would cost $200,000 and the in-lieu fee would be approximately $80,000. He commented that the current buildings only comprise about 8 percent of the shopping center. He requested that the fee be waived because they had completed all undergrounding requirements requested in 1986 and Caltrans will have to complete the undergrounding when they construct the freeway. He said the land is basically Caltrans land. He said the new undergrounding requirements would so financially impact the project it may preclude ever finishing the center. He said their understanding had been that they merely needed to return for design review for the additional buildings and he saw no connection between completing the two buildings and the undergrounding requirements. Mr. O'Meara requested that they be permitted to build the new trash enclosure to the same specifications as the current trash enclosures in the remainder of the center. He said the enclosure is located behind the center and would be out of public view. He suggested they add a pedestrian access to the new trash enclosure but felt the additional requirements were excessive. He requested that Engineering Conditions 1 through 3 and Standard Conditions regarding the Haven Avenue median, street improvements on the east side of Haven, and reconstruction of the southerly drive approach on Haven Avenue reference that the conditions are consistent with the approved conditions for the McDonald's improvements which are already bonded. He requested that Standard Condition D2 reference that the requirements be per the development plans already submitted. He commented that Standard Conditions E16, E17, M4, M6, N1, and N4 are duplicate conditions with the McDonald approval. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 26, 1991 Chairman McNiel asked Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, to confirm that the conditions contained in both the McDonald's approval and the current project requirements are consistent. Mr. Hanson responded affirmatively. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that City Council had established a policy regarding the construction of trash enclosures during the development of the NuWest Shopping Center and had directed staff to apply those standards to all future commercial shopping center development. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher commented that the City has elected not to construct the median on Haven in the area because it will be torn out by Caltrans in the process of developing the freeway. He was sympathetic to the request to delete the requirement to underground the utilities along Haven. Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel stated that if the policy had been in place when the shopping center was originally developed, the developer would have been required to underground the entire area. He agreed that the undergrounding that remains is not in relationship to the remainder of the development of the center, but rather in relationship to the entire center. He thought the developer had successfully deferred undergrounding which otherwise would have been required. Commissioner Vallette asked if the undergrounding would have to be disturbed when Caltrans builds the freeway. Chairman McNiel responded that could not be determined at this time. He commented that since the original center was built, the policy has changed to require that trash enclosures be decidedly enhanced because of problems with some trash enclosures. He asked how the Commissioners felt about the developer's request to match the existing enclosures. Commissioner Melcher felt the developer should be permitted to match the existing trash enclosures with the addition of a pedestrian access. Commissioner Vallette reported that the Design Review Committee considered that the rear of the building is accessed via a pedestrian walkway from the apartment complexes behind the center. She said the Committee felt the enclosure should be consistent with the new policy. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the enclosure is in view of pedestrians from the apartment complex, it should be constructed according to the new standards. Chairman McNiel commented that the new enclosures are designed to alleviate problems caused by the wind picking up the trash. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Melcher agreed the enclosure should be updated. He commented that the center currently has parking lot lighting which does not conform to standards because of an omission when the center was built. He wondered if there had been any consideration given to requiring that the lighting be revised to meet standards. Mr. Bullet responded the issue had not been considered. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15 with the deletion of Engineering Condition 4 requiring undergrounding of utilities along Haven Avenue. Chairman McNiel reiterated that the undergrounding requirement is consistent with policy and is not inconsistent with what may occur in the future. Mr. Hanson stated that staff does not feel that Caltrans will provide the undergrounding along Haven. He commented it is expected that Calftans will leave as many lines above the ground as possible. He indicated that if the utilities are already underground when the freeway is constructed, Caltrans will certainly have to keep the lines underground and replace any damaged lines. He said the City will have to provide a certain amount of money to construct the freeway and requiring the developer to underground would save the City money. He said it is doubtful that the lines along Highland can be undergrounded in their present location and that was why staff had recommended the use of an in-lieu fee. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a freeway offramp is planned for the area. Mr. Hanson replied two ramps are proposed for the area but staff does not have a project proposal from Caltrans as yet. Co~nissioner Vallette modified her motion to delete Engineering Conditions 5 as well as Condition 4. Commissioner Melcher withdrew his second. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Moved by McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Develo~nent Review 89-15 with Engineering Conditions 4 and 5 intact as written and with provision that Engineering Division confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the McDonald's approval. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Vallette asked the cost for undergrounding on Highland only. Chairman McNiel felt the cost is not relevant because the developer had been relieved of the cost during construction of Phases I and II. He thought the undergrounding will occur and the developer should pay their fair share instead of leaving the burden to the City. Commissioner Vallette thought the cost of undergrounding may prohibit the developer from completing Phase III and there is also the possibility the Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 26, 1991 lines would be moved at the time of development of the freeway. She felt the City needs to be sure the business needs of the community are met. Mr. Guarracino commented that Engineering Condition 5 would only require payment of a fee and the lines would not be undergrounded until it becomes more practical to do so, perhaps at the time of construction of the freeway. Commissioner Vallette again asked the cost for the undergrounding. Mr. Hanson responded that staff does not normally calculate those costs for the Planning Commission meeting, because it has been the Commission's policy to require the undergrounding for consistency regardless of the cost. Chairman McNiel commented that undergrounding is a cost of doing business similar to providing curb and gutter. He said the City has a goal to underground utilities wherever possible regardless of cost. Commissioner Vallette asked if the utilities are on Caltrans land or on land within the project. Mr. Hanson replied they are on Caltrans land, but City policy has been to underground utility lines adjacent to development, even if it is on railroad land or public right-of-way land. Chairman McNiel commented that developers adjacent to washes underground to the opposite side of the wash. He wondered if it would be possible to require an in-lieu fee for the undergrounding along Haven. He asked the basis for determining in-lieu fees. Mr. Hanson replied they would be computed at today's costs. Chairman McNiel commented the City would then have to make up the difference between the cost of undergrounding at today's rates and the ultimate cost at the time the undergrounding is performed. Commissioner Vallette asked if the undergrounding on Highland was originally part of the condition of approval for Phase III or if it was just now being added. Mr. Hanson replied that the undergrounding was not a condition of the original overall project because the policy was expanded after the original shopping center was built. Commissioner Melcher stated that typically the undergrounding. extends to the first pole south of the applicant's property or to the far side of the right of way if the property abuts an existing right of way. He thought the applicant had already complied with that condition because the right of way to the south is not an existing right of way, but merely someone else's land. Mr. Hanson stated the Commission had established a precedence in at least three other cases. He said two cases involved an in-lieu fee and were Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 26, 1991 appealed to the City Council. He reported the City Council had upheld the Planning Commission's decision. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15 with Engineering Conditions 4 and 5 intact as written and with provision that Engineering Division confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the McDonald's approval~ Motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -failed to carry Motion: Moved by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15 with Engineering Condition 4 deleted and with provision that Engineering Division confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the McDonald's approval. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for rational for deletion of Engineering Condition 4 and not 5. Commissioner Melcher responded that the City has determined not to build the median in the stretch where the freeway will be built because the median may be altered by Caltrans. He therefore did not feel it was fair to ask the developer to work on Haven Avenue when the City is not willing to spend the money to build the median. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to assess an in-lieu fee at a percentage ratio of the ultimate cost rather than a fixed dollar ratio. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the in-lieu fee would be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for the project. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15 with modification to collect an in-lieu fee for the undergrounding of utilities along Haven Avenue and with the provision that Engineering confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the McDonald's approval. Motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -failed to carry Commissioner Vallette suggested the item be continued until Commissioner Chitiea returned from vacation. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a possibility of getting a conceptual answer from Caltrans regarding how they plan to deal with the land in the future. Barrye Hanson responded that staff could make the request of Caltrans but it would probably take a long time to get an answer. Commissioner Melcher suggested the condition be reworded to waive the fees and requirement for undergrounding if the applicant could demonstrate with some reasonable probability that Caltrane will pay for the undergrounding at the time they construct the freeway. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15 with modification to waive Engineering Condition 4 requiring Haven Avenue undergrounding if, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant can provide assurance from Caltrans that the utilities will be undergrounded at Caltrans expense upon construction of the freeway and with the provision that Engineering confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the McDonald's approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH, PASTOR FORMST HINDLEY - The request to establish a church and school in a leased space of 8,429 square feet within an existing office park on 12.59 acres of land in the Office Professional zone, located at 10601 Church Street - APN: 1077-421-31. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked what percentage of the project is leased and what percentage of the parking area is consumed. Mr. Guarracino responded approximately 50 percent of the project is leased and the remainder of the building is designated as office space at one space per 250 square feet. He reported there currently is an overage of parking for the two phases which have been built. He commented that prior to development of Phase III the developer will have to submit a revised site plan indicating sufficient parking is available. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Con~nission Minutes -15- June 26, 1991 Forrest Hindley, Pastor, Willows Community Church, 8968 Archibald Avenue, #300, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they plan to limit the class size for Mommy & Me classes to 22 mothers and he said they would keep parking demand to a maximum of 34 spaces during the day. He indicated they would be willing to mark the spaces to designate no church parking in front of the adjacent copy shop. He said they do not wish to hurt any businesses located within the center. He felt the site would permit the church to grow. Commissioner Melcher asked the size of the congregation. Pastor Hindley replied approximately 120 people attend services. He said they plan to hold two services. Commissioner Melcher asked if the church plans to build in the future. Pastor Hindley responded that they may not be able to afford to build. Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher questioned how the windows on the southeast side would be closed off. Mr. Lasley stated they were still in the process of reviewing the construction documents for the tenant improvements and had not as yet approved them. He was not sure how they would solve the problem. He thought they may fill in the area with something to match the adjacent wall with a score line around it so that it could later be removed. He said they did not want to use spandrel glass. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the window treatment would be reviewed by the City. Mr. Guarracino stated it would normally be reviewed in plan check by staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the treatment return to the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis. Mr. Lasley agreed to the review. Pastor Hindley stated they were not choosing to close off the two outer windows. He indicated they wanted to block off the two center windows and would be placing window coverings over the two outer windows. Commissioner Melcher requested that any exterior modifications be presented to the Design Review Committee. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette commented that the Conditional Use Permit request did not allow for day care. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Lewis needs to address the parking issue for buildings within the next phase. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-17 with modification to require that any exterior modifications be approved by the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that the number of security personnel and management staff be tied to the amount of leased space rather than to the number of tenants. He suggested requiring two security people plus four to six management personnel from the time of release of occupancy up to the first 25,000 square feet of leased space with the addition of one security person and one management staff person for each 12,500 feet above that. He thought the number of people could be adjusted by the Commission during the 12-month review and said the security personnel should secure both indoor and outdoor activities. Mr. Bullet recommended deleting the requirement for a cash register and substituting language requiring the management entity to notify and monitor the vendors on their responsibilities for licensing and record keeping. He recommended the review by the Planning Commission be conducted 12 months from the release of occupancy rather than from the date of approval and suggested addition of a condition requiring that all dead or dying vegetation be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to occupancy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would not be possible for the Planning Commission to review the use at any time if problems arise. Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively. He also commented that staff may require additional security guards in connection with the Temporary Use Permit required for special outside special events. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Clouse and Mr. Page agreed to the conditions. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 26, 1991 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-06 with modification to allow a more intensive parking ratio only when considered through a Conditional Use Permit and to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-03 with modifications as- suggested by Mr. Buller. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14795 - HANDAH INTERNATIONAL - A residential subdivision and design review for 13 condominium units on 1.23 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of the extension of Madrone Avenue - APN: 207-201-10, 11, and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Ho, Handah International, architect, 301 West Valley Boulevard, #220, San Gabriel, agreed with the conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration, and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14795. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , · , , The Planning Commission recessed from 10:55 p.m. to 11:05 p.m. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 26, 1991 Chairman McNiel suggested that Items J, K, and L be postponed until later in the meeting. , , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-15 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - A request to establish a wholesale/retail silk flower arrangement custom manufacturing use within the existing Arrow Business Park on 9.6 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 9087 Arrow Route, #120 - APN: 209-013-19. This item had been withdrawn by the applicant. , , , , , Ne ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14120 - ETIWANDA HEIGHTS COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 68 single family lots on 53.05 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north and south sides of Summit Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-111-22 and 225-171-02, 08, 11, and 16. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 91-21. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated Assistant Planner Tom Grahn was available to answer questions regarding the written staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Andreasen, Andreasen Engineering Company, 580 North Park Avenue, Pomona, questioned if there are any fees available from the William Lyon development on the opposite side of Highland Avenue. Barrye Hanson, Senior City Planner, stated there may possibly be some fees available and staff would check. Mr. Andreasen asked if secondary bonding is needed for full improvement of Summit Avenue, as it was already bonded by Watt. Mr. Hanson replied it would be needed but indicated staff might be willing to accept a rider on the existing bond. Mr. Andreasen asked if it would be possible to use existing storm drain plans as developed for Tract 13812. Mr. Hanson said that may be possible. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette commented that there will be substantial tree removal and she requested that a deep-root watering system be included to help establish a strong root system. Planning Commission Minutes -19- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is a City standard for irrigation which includes deep watering. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated there is no limitation on what the City can require. He suggested the minutes should reflect that staff proceed with approval of irrigation plans that will provide the trees with the best likelihood of healthy establishment, including deep watering. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Landscape and Irrigation Plan could be approved by the Design Review Committee on a consent calendar basis. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the standard requirements should be revised, if necessary, to reflect that trees should receive deep watering and proper staking. Commissioner Vallette wanted to be sure trees will have the best start possible. She said she would like to be involved in the discussion. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant understood the condition. Mr. Andreasen confirmed that he understood and stated there are some unique means of irrigating and maintaining existing and replacement eucalyptus trees on the adjacent Tract 13812. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14120 with modification to require Design Review Committee approval of the landscapin~ and irrigation plans. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he abstained because the item went too fast. , , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-22 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK - The request to establish an administrative and office use in a leased space of 8,100 square feet within an existing industrial park in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 9495 9th Street - APN: 209-032-24. Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 26, 1991 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, was available to answer questions regarding the written staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. David Buxbaum, Vineyard National Bank. 9590 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, accepted the conditions. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-22. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Pe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Section 17.08,040-P and Section 17.08,070-E to the Development Code establishing property maintenance standards and ongoing maintenance requirements for multiple family dwellings. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-03 to July 10, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried , , , , Je ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-04 - THE WATTSON COMPANY - A request to modify the median break location on Foothill Boulevard, to add a median break location on Foothill Boulevard, and to change the land use designation from Light Industrial to Regional Related Commercial for an area of approximately 26 acres within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the east side of Interstate 15, south of Foothill Boulevard. These requests are in conjunction with the development of a ±60 acre retail/commercial center located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, and 20. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 90-37 and Tentative Parcel Map 13724. Planning Commission Minutes -21- June 26, 1991 Ke ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - THE WATTSON COMPANY - A request for master plan approval of a ±60 acre retail/commercial center containing approximately 550,000 square feet of leasable space and a request for approval of conceptual site plan and building elevations for the Price Club facility in the Regional Related Commercial and Light Industrial designations of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Interstate 15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03. through 13, 15, 16, and 20. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Related Files: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-04 and Tentative Parcel Map 13724. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13724 - THE WATTSON COMPANY - A subdivision of 56.91 acres of land into 15 parcels in the Regional Related Commercial and Light Industrial designations of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Interstate 15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, and 20. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-04 and Conditional Use Permit 90-37. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested the addition of a condition requiring bicycle storage spaces. Commissioner Eelchef asked if the elevations shown on the wall included the changes and were what the applicant proposed for approval. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Phillip Ramming, The Wattson Company, 840 Newport Center Drive, #655, Newport Beach, voiced concern about constructing the complete intersection improvements at Etiwanda and Foothill and the potential impacts on an existing, unowned structure on the northeast corner. He requested that Engineering Condition 6 be clarified that the widening of Etiwanda Avenue be only in the area contiguous to their property. He asked that language be added to Engineering Conditions 16 and 17 to provide for reimbursement to The Wattson Company if the temporary drainage facilities are used by someone else. He asked if Engineering Condition 14 duplicated any of the drainage fees. Chairman McNiel asked Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, to comment on Mr. Ramming's questions. Mr. Hanson responded that Condition 14 did not duplicate any of the drainage fees. He said the intent of Condition 6 is to widen Etiwanda Avenue adjacent to the project plus any necessary transition lanes at the boundaries. Mr. Ramming stated the other side of the street is still undefined. Planning Commission Minutes -22- June 26, 1991 Mr. Hanson stated a reimbursement clause was not included with Conditions 16 and 17 because staff felt it highly unlikely that other development will use the two systems because they are interim. He indicated that as the major project in the area, it was felt The Wattson Company should bear the cost. He said nothing would preclude the applicant from approaching the City Engineer at a later time for re£mbursement if such use would occur. Mr. Ramming said the existing facility on the northeast corner at Etiwanda and Foothill is close to the setback and the property does not belong to them. He did not feel they should make changes to existing structures they did not own. Mr. Hanson responded the City does not have specific plans at this time and modifications would be made in the plan check process. Mr. Ramming agreed that was satisfactory. He requested that the records be changed to indicate the applicant's name is "Foothill Marketplace Partners." Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked that the requested change be conveyed in writing. Mr. Ramming agreed to that. He appreciated the work that had been done by the Commissioners, Brad Buller, and Scott Murphy. He asked if a site plan would be attached as an exhibit to the Conditional Use Permit resolution of approval. Commissioner Melcher felt that was an excellent suggestion. Commissioner Vallette asked if a site plan were included as an exhibit if it would mean the Commission was voting on more than the Parcel Map and concept. Mr. Murphy replied that the Resolution references a Master Plan, conceptual site plan, and Price Club elevations. Mr. Bullet stated there are several site plans including one which reflects only the landscaping. He said typically the resolutions reference an entire staff report and the exhibits which were included in the staff report. Mr. Murphy suggested using the site plan depicted on Exhibit B-1 of the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as developments occur with new leases signed and new tenants introduced, changes are made. He wondered if a site plan were included in the early stages if that would mean the applicant would have to return every time they wanted to change the site plan. Chairman McNiel suggested a site plan be included as a point of reference. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that a site plan could be included as a point of reference, but wanted it noted that the site plan may change quite a bit. Commissioner Melcher felt inclusion of a site plan would clarify which site plan the conditions were written against. Planning Commission Minutes -23- June 26, 1991 Mr. Murphy stated that any significant changes to the master plan would require an amendment to the master plan, at which time new exhibits could be provided. Mr. Buller stated that master plans have taken various forms depending upon the project involved. He said the term master plan has been interpreted to mean a variety of things, not merely a site plan. He indicated a master plan may include architectural concepts, sign programs, etc. He said the exhibit could be attached as a conceptual site plan. It was the consensus of the Commission that Exhibit B-1 from the staff report would represent the conceptual site plan. Mr. Ramming agreed that would be helpful. He said their main objection to the resolution was the historic preservation conditions. He felt there should be a logical nexus between conditions and what is on the site. He also felt there should be a relationship between the scale of the mitigations and what is on the site. He felt the Historic Preservation Conditions did not have relevance to what is on site and represented an inappropriate economic burden of $350,000 to $400,000. He said the historical designation did not occur until after they had met with staff several times. He thought the sponsorship of the Oral History Program with regard to wine making families was not truly relevant to their site as the families had moved away from the site many years ago. He agreed to the documentation requirement in Condition 2 if the houses are demolished, but requested that the condition be modified to waive the documentation requirement if the houses are moved. He asked that the time frame for advertising the Guidera and DiCarlo homes be cut to 60 days with a 30 day waiting period following the advertising. He thought the advertisement would get sufficient exposure during a 60-day period. He indicated the applicant fully supports Conditions 4 and 5. He asked that demolition permits be issued at the time of grading permits instead of at the building permit issuance stage. Mr. Ramming felt there is no logical connection between the applicant's property and the construction of a barn at the Chaffey-Garcia house. He said they had been told the total budget for reconstruction of the barn is only $120,000, and they felt it was improper that they be required to fund $100,000 of that budget. Commissioner Melcher asked why the advertising period of 180 days was considered a problem. Mr. Ramming replied that they anticipate being under construction within 180 days and they did not want to have to wait for the expiration of the advertising period. He said they would not object to continuing the advertising if they were not ready to pull a grading permit within the time frame. Commissioner Melcher did not feel the plans would be reviewed within that length of time. Mr. Ramming replied they anticipate proceeding as quickly as possible and he agreed to advertising as long as possible. Planning Commission Minutes -24- June 26, 1991 Chairman McNiel asked if it would not be possible to relocate the houses elsewhere on the site if necessary. Mr. Ramming stated they had considered grading around the houses, but it would add enormous costs to the grading. He said City staff had tried to get the Metropolitan Water District to accept the houses as caretaker homes, but he did not feel the houses are of particularly high quality and the Metropolitan Water District has not indicated an interest in them. Commissioner Vallette commented that even if the Guidera and DiCarlo houses do not fit the concept of what is a fine house, that would not necessarily mean the houses do not have historical merit. Chairman McNiel said the Chaffey-Garcia house was in very bad shape before being restored and is now an asset to the community. He said there is a possibility the houses will have to be moved and he did not feel such a move could be completed with a 60-day period. Mr. Ramming said the houses are in close proximity to Foothill Boulevard and could delay construction. He asked that if an interested party is found to take the houses, that the recipient pay the cost of moving the house. He indicated they had today received a letter from the Plies Companies. He felt the letter was in conflict with the settlement agreement which they signed. He said page 5 of the settlement agreement stated Plies would cooperate with Foothill Marketplace Partners in obtaining final map and would not oppose the final map. He said the letter gave a strong implication that Foothill Marketplace Partners had not been working with them and they had not been informed about the plans for the property they are selling to Foothill Marketplace Partners and the entire master plan. He reported that they first met with Plies in September, one month after purchasing the property, and showed the plans and explained a road would not be available. He said additional meetings were held on January 24 and March 14, 1991, and the plan was not vague. He commented that the Plies contend that Foothill Marketplace Partners did not comply with the traffic requirements; but in fact the traffic report had been updated and was felt to be completely valid. He said in addition the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan had contemplated the proposed use. He thought the project as designed is in the best interest of the community. Daniel Plies, Plies Companies, 22706 Aspen Street, Suite 701, E1 Toro, stated they owned the adjoining 38+ acres. He referenced a letter dated June 25, 1991, regarding the project. He thought the proposed site plan is short sighted and damaging to other property owners in the block. He requested a continuance of the public hearing to allow a meeting between the City, The Wattson Company, and Plies. He objected to the traffic plan b~cause the site plan does not provide for street access from Foothill to the Plies property. He thought the traffic study was too confined in its scope and the environmental review was inadequate. He contended that the proposed traffic circulation pattern does not coordinate with the street pattern established by neighboring Tentative Tract 9326. He enumerated the exhibits attached to his letter. He said the proposed resolutions did not include their parcel. He reported that on May 10, 1991, they gave limited consent conditional upon the Planning Commission Minutes -25- June 26, 1991 closing of escrow of the northerly 9.7 acres of their property and they did not consent to any other portion of their property. He was surprised they had not been notified of five Planning Commission workshops. He said they had provided the Wattson group with a copy of the Austin-Faust traffic study which had previously been prepared for the Plies Companies. He said they also provided various traffic circulation plans which would be acceptable to the Plies Companies. He said they have owned the property since the 1970's and have been working on plans for development for the past six years. He felt the plans should be coordinated. Chairman McNiel stated he felt it was unthinkable that the Plies Companies would be in escrow to sell property to augment additional property and not be aware of what was proposed for the land. Mr. Plies stated they did not know of the applications until February 1991 when they filed for an extension of their map which was expiring in March 1991. He said at that time he met with staff regarding the applications. Mark Nitikman, Latham & Watkins, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, stated they entered into an agreement with Wang, the previous owners of the property, who transferred the agreement to the Wattson Company. Chairman McNiel stated the City could not get involved in business disagreements between private citizens. Mr. Plies stated he would like to keep to the issue of the traffic studies and what is good for the community. He said they have been left out of the loop. Mr. Nitikman referred to Figure F in a January 25, 1989, Planning Commission staff report. He said the Metropolitan Water District needed more property and as a result, a street' which had been planned in the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan had to be eliminated. He said the revised street configuration was shown on Figure F indicating a street would connect the properties with Etiwanda Avenue and with Foothill Boulevard. He stated the new proposal plans to dead-end all other properties just north of the road the Plies Companies had been told they would have to build. He said the Wattson project will limit the access and would not provide access for the Plies property to Foothill or Etiwanda. He said the traffic study done by the Keith Companies looked at the traffic implications of the project only to the boundaries of the project. He said there was no comment on the effects on Arrow Route, Etiwanda north or south, or on Foothill west of 1-15. He felt CEQA requires an expanded traffic study and must address air quality impacts. He felt the project will create congestion on Foothill and Etiwanda and would increase the congestion on 1-15. He felt the planning was contrary to the City's specific plan for the area. He said mitigation cannot be deferred under CEQA and mitigation has been deferred to future studies. He said that abdicated the responsibility of the Planning Commission to the City Engineer. He said environmental issues must be dealt with in the beginning of the process. He felt there were serious questions about the most appropriate traffic pattern, whether traffic impacts will be properly mitigated, tree preservation, and air quality necessitated an Environmental Impact Report. Plan~ing Commission Minutes -26- June 26, 1991 Mr. Ramming stated he was not sure how the road plan proposed by the Plies Companies would improve the traffic situation. He was confident that the concerns brought up by staff and the concerns regarding the traffic on either side of the project are covered admirably by the Environmental Impact Report that was done for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He thought that many of the documents presented by the Plies Companies actually support the direction taken by Foothill Marketplace. He said they purchased an option to purchase the property in 1990 and had .to file litigation to force that right. He thought the Plies Companies should have reserved a right across the property that they were selling for the road they wished to have. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated the traffic study referenced by the Plies Companies analyzed three or four versions of a specific proposal for the Plies properties presented to the traffic engineer for analysis. The analysis produced a report that under the conditions shown, that type of development would be best served by specific street patterns. He said it analyzed a project which was a continuous Office/Commercial project stretching between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. He indicated the report did not result in a recommendation that the area required any particular street pattern for ultimate overall planning. He stated a 1989 Industrial Specific Plan Amendment and the Foothill Specific Plan adoption separated the Commercial and Industrial properties in the block. He said the proposed project conforms to the Industrial Specific Plan Amendment, which did not discuss connecting the two uses or connecting Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard. He reported that the Figure F of Exhibit 6 referenced by Mr. Plies shows potential access points to the Regional Related Commercial development, not the entire block. He reported that the project before the Commission this evening was reviewed with respect to the existing Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the existing Industrial Area Specific Plan. Mr. Murphy referenced Figure E of the Plies Companies Exhibit 6 and said the figure indicates access should be taken from a cul-de-sac street off Arrow Route if the area is developed as Light Industrial. He said the text of the staff report indicated the street layout was dependent upon whether the property is to be developed Regional Related Commercial or Light Industrial. Mr. Hanson stated that Exhibit 9 shows a letter to the City from Mr. Plies' engineer indicating a road alignment going from Arrow to Foothill, but does not include the response to that letter. Mr. Hanson stated the City's response stated the plan would be considered during the Specific Plan Amendment process. He said there was no indication of the City's support for such a street and during the Specific Plan Amendment process it was decided the street would not go through. Mr. Rougeau commented that City staff felt that a connecting street was undesirable if the parcels along Foothill are developed as Commercial and the remainder developed as separate Industrial parcels. He indicated staff feels that to plan a Commercial project from Foothill to Arrow is not in compliance with any of the adopted plans. Planning Commission Minutes -27- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Rougeau's opinion of the Austin-Faust engineering firm. Mr. Rougeau responded the company is a very competent traffic engineering firm which compiled the City's overall traffic model. He thought some of the reports and letters written to the Plies Companies have perhaps been misinterpreted by the Plies Companies. He did not feel the conclusions reached by the Austin-Faust studies for the Plies Companies are in disagreement with any of the studies the City has approved or reviewed. Commissioner Melcher asked about the comment from Austin-Faust's June 14, 1991, letter that the limits of the study were severely confined. He asked if that would make the study invalid. Mr. Rougeau agreed that the study was limited to the project because staff felt the overall regional implications had been addressed by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and its associated traffic and environmental studies. He said the traffic study prepared for Foothill Marketplace was intended to be specific to the project to address more detailed concerns. He reported that staff had asked for revisions of the study, which Austin-Faust had not reviewed. Mr. Buller stated there had been an interest in looking at alternate land uses for the Plies property other than the straight Industrial land uses currently permitted. He said the street was considered as a possibility of extending the potential for Commercial development further south. He indicated the opportunity was made available to the Plies Companies to develop a master plan which would prove such an option would be feasible. He said that opportunity generated the master plan and the traffic study prepared for the Plies Companies. He stated the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan both call for a separation between the Industrial and Commercial areas. He reiterated that no street is designated in the Industrial Plan. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Rougeau if he felt traffic study prepared by The Keith Companies was adequate for the Foothill Marketplace project. Mr. Rougeau agreed the overall study was acceptable as corrected by staff. He said staff was waiting for final clarification on one item. Mr. Bullet gave background on the Historic Preservation Conditions. He said they resulted from a consideration for designation of Landmark status of the structures on the property. He reported the structures were deemed not to be worthy of Landmark status, but worthy of a Point of Interest designation. He said the recommendations were forwarded to the Planning Commission and referenced in a City Council action. He stated City Council had seen the conditions and did not object to any of the conditions. He said the Planning Commission had the right to modify any of the conditions, but comments had been made by Council Members that the applicant was getting off lightly. He suggested the Oral History condition could be capped not to exceed a certain amount. He reported the Historic Preservation Commission felt the homes should be documented whether they were demolished or moved. He commented that Planning Commission Minutes -28- June 26, 1991 Metropolitan Water District has indicated to staff a desire to meet on-site to inspect the interior of the homes; however, the Wattson Companies have not been able to schedule such a meeting. He suggested the advertising could begin immediately and an aggressive marketing effort would indicate whether the Condition should be changed and the applicant could return to the Commission if they felt the time frame needs to be changed. He said staff would not object to tying demolition permits to the issuance of grading permits instead of building permits. He-reported the Historic Preservation Commission felt the maximum $100,000 contribution for reconstruction of a barn at the Chaffey-Garcia house was appropriate and the City Council had not objected to that condition. Commissioner Melcher asked the City Attorney to comment regarding relevancy of requiring the reconstruction of the barn to the proposed project. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the condition is particularly unusual. He said the conditions are specific mitigation measures to support and justify a mitigated Negative Declaration so far as it relates to cultural resources on the project site. Commissioner Melcher did not feel there is a cultural resource at present on the project site. He felt that if the two old houses represent something of the City's past which is worthy of saving, Historic Preservation Conditions 1 through 6 adequately address the historic aspect. He did not think Condition 7 was relevant. Commissioner Vallette asked if the canopy on the service station on Etiwanda and Foothill could be preserved or at least documented if it must be removed to complete the intersection. Barrye Hanson responded that the final plans for the intersection have not been drawn and it is not known for sure that they canopy will have to be removed. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Planning Commission would review the proposed removal. Barrye Hanson replied that perhaps the Historic Preservation Commission would review the plans. He said they would obtain as complete an intersection as possible, but Engineering would respect any historic structures. Mr. Buller asked if the intersection would require any dedication of additional property from the northwest corner. Barrye Hanson responded that it may possibly require additional property. Commissioner Vallette expressed concern that the Commission review any changes to the structure. Mr. Buller suggested the resolution be revised to provide that if alterations to the existing buildings are required, that the structure be reviewed for its Planning Commission Minutes -29- June 26, 1991 historical significance by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission and appropriate mitigation measures be established. Chairman McNiel asked if the building had been considered. Mr. Buller replied that the project proponents liked the historic nature that the service station has and they have indicated an interest in carrying out the essence in the project but the actual distance of the canopy from the right of way has not been determined. He said the Historic Preservation Commission has not considered the significance as yet. Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant's engineer presented a design depicting the canopy in the middle of the right turn lane. Commissioner Melcher felt that if a burden fell on the applicant because of the structure, the developer should be eligible to recover costs from future development of the other three corners of the intersection. Commissioner Vallette felt that was satisfactory. Chairman McNiel asked if the City ever had an agreement with the Plies Companies based on anything other than the possible creation of a potentially proposed site plan. Barrye Hanson stated there was no agreement. Chairman McNiel asked if a conceptual site plan was presented by the Plies Companies. Mr. Murphy responded a formal application was never submitted and there was only a preliminary review. Barrye Hanson stated there was a note placed in the City's file that the applicant had withdrawn the preliminary review. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant was in concurrence with what was discussed by the City Planner. Mr. Ramming indicated they would like a reasonable cap on the Oral History Program condition. He said they would be willing to leave the advertising time frame so long as they could return to the Commission to request the time frame be shortened if necessary. He requested that anyone accepting the houses be required to pay for the transportation of the houses. Chairman McNiel felt that no one would accept the houses if they had to pay the moving costs. He felt the requirements were unbelievable light. Mr. Ramming asked that Historic Preservation Condition 7 regarding the construction of the barn be removed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Oral History Program condition refer only to families who had lived on the property. Planning Commission Minutes -30- June 26, 1991 Mr. Buller replied it would not necessarily be limited to someone who had lived on the property. He said the condition was to ask for participation in the Oral History Program and would include any families who had developed and farmed in the area known as the Italian wine making area. He said other property developers may also be asked to participate. Commissioner Tolstoy stated they applicant was being asked to participate in the Oral History Program, not to fund the entire program. Mr. Murphy replied that the Oral History Program will be a compilation of the different areas of the community. Mr. Ramming stated he had been told the City has a program and they were being asked to pay for the City to implement it. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Oral History Program is already in place. Mr. Buller replied that the format of the Oral History Program has been agreed to with a consultant under contract to the City. He said it is assumed it will take approximately $1,000 per interview. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that it is unknown how many people will be available. Mr. Murphy stated staff has an indication of who is available. Mr. Ramming suggested a $5,000 cap. Chairman McNiel felt the cost may exceed $5,000 and $1,000 per interview may not be sufficient. Commissioner Melcher suggested the wording be revised to provide that the applicant underwrite the cost of not more than six interviews. Mr. Murphy said he felt there are probably three to four people who will be available and know the history and background of the area. Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Tolstoy agreed up to six interviews would be fair. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there was no connection between the project and the reconstruction of the Chaffey-Garcia barn. Chairman McNiel asked how much ground the Chaffey-Garcia House sits on. Mr. Murphy thought it to be approximately 1/2 acre. Chairman McNlel asked if it would be possible to move the houses from the applicant's property. Planning Commission Minutes -31- June 26, 1991 Mr. Murphy thought it would be a very tight fit. Mr. Bullet commented that the master plan approved for the Chaffey-Garcia property calls for a replica of the barn that was related to the house. Commissioner Vallette stated she had to leave the meeting because of a prior commitment. She agreed that Condition 7 appeared excessive. She said she felt confident the concerns of the remainder of the Commissioners were the same as her concerns. Chairman McNiel excused Commissioner Vallette at 1:30 a.m. Chairman McNiel asked if there is a park site where the City could utilize the houses. Mr. Buller stated that one of the work programs for the Historic Preservation Commission was to look at land banking for the purposes of relocating homes that are of historical significance that must be moved. He said when the City first approached the Metropolitan Water District regarding their use of the homes, the District was receptive to the suggestion. He said the District has since felt frustrated and feels the developer does not seem to be interested or cooperative in helping them analyze the homes in order to make a decision. Commissioner Melcher asked if the houses could be moved and used for affordable housing. He suggested the applicant contact Bill Ruh to see if he would be interested. He felt that the HABS/HAER surveys need to be made whether the houses are demolished or moved because if the houses are moved, the opportunity to obtain the survey no longer exists until the new owner wants to develop the property the houses sit on. He said if the houses are burned, destroyed, or vandalized in the meantime, the opportunity would have been missed. He thought the applicant's responsibility for moving the houses should end at the point the houses are moved to a new site. He did not feel The Wattson Company should be charged with the responsibility of putting in the foundation. He thought the person receiving the house should have a vested interest in the house. He suggested that Historic Preservation Condition 7 be deleted. He felt that if the ultimate design for the intersection of Foothill and Etiwanda requires modification of the structure at the northeast corner, that the developer should be entitled to reimbursements from the other three corners of the intersection. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the upgrading of the intersection requires removal of the canopy or alterations, he felt the structure should be documented. He did not feel that each person at the intersection should pay for it. He said if it needs to be moved because the intersection has to be upgraded, it is caused by The Wattson Company and they should do the documentation. He thought the people who own the building would normally have the first obligation to do whatever needs to be done; however, as they were not proposing any changes and the intersection improvements may cause the removal, he felt The Wattson Company should bear the cost. Commissioner Melcher agreed that was reasonable. Planning Commission Minutes -32- June 26, 1991 Mr. Buller stated the Historic Preservation Commission may want mitigation measures beyond documentation. Commissioner Melcher said he would like to see the applicant's financial exposure with respect to that structure be defined because he thought if the Planning Commission eliminated Historic Preservation Condition 7 and the applicant had to go before the Historic Preservation Commission with respect to the service station, Condition 7 may suddenly reappear. Chairman McNiel asked if it was possible to define the potential costs. Commissioner Melcher agreed that certain street improvements may be needed by a developer in order to deal with the effects created by their project. He felt is was fair for a developer to pay for such improvements even though future development will enjoy the improvements. He was not comfortable about extending that concept to an historic structure because he did not feel that affects the daily comings and goings of the people. Mr. Buller said that if the developer determines in his drawings that the structure is in the ultimate right of way required to do the street improvements, the burden is on the applicant to acquire the right of way or the City must acquire the right of way through eminent domain. He said if it includes the structure, then it must be determined if the entire structure or only parts need to be taken. He suggested perhaps the matter could be continued. Mr. Rougeau felt the canopy will be involved in the intersection improvements. He said the improvements and any purchase of the right of way are covered by the City's fee structure so far as reimbursements. Me said the value of the right of way will be strictly determined on the value of the property exclusive of any historical designation. He said therefore the physical improvements and right of way will be automatically taken care of by the fee structure. He said only the cost of the historical survey or relocation would be separate. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the Historic Preservation Commission may not even designate the building. Commissioner Melcher stated there is already an application in process for the northeast corner. He said that property would enjoy the benefits of the intersection having been built. Mr. Rougeau stated that applicant would bear the cost of improvements by virtue of hie fees. He said it pays back for the physical street items and the right of way. Commissioner Melcher stated that if the cost for the historic mitigations is as simple as documentation, it should be borne by Foothill Marketplace Partners. However, he thought that if relocation or reconstruction of a replica at some other site were to be required, that cost should be shared by the developers of the other three corners. Planning Commission Minutes -33- June 26, 1991 Mr. Murphy suggested revising the condition to provide that if alterations are required, they be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission. He said the recommendations would then be forwarded to the City Council for action with the Landmark designation. Mr. Bullet stated the Commission would be making a courtesy advisory review to be forwarded either to the Historic Preservation Commission or the City Council. Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to include a condition that the cost be shared by the other corners of the intersection. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel it was fair to require the southeast corner or the northwest corner to participate. He said the condition is such only because there is a piece of property that wants to develop and another property which has a building and only those two properties should have to participate. Commissioner Melcher agreed it would be acceptable to have any alterations return to the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there should be some discussion of the Plies situation. Chairman McNiel stated he had asked questions that were generated by the letter to establish relevance and was told that the traffic study which applies to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and this property is sufficient in the eyes of the City's Traffic Engineer. He commented that the proposed development from The Plies Companies did not proceed and the designations are Light Industrial instead of Commercial. He thought there is no conflict with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He reiterated that in the eyes of the City, no agreement had ever been reached with The Plies Companies. He stated the traffic plan based on Light Industrial was always connected to Arrow, with the exception of a request by The Plies Companies for access to Foothill Boulevard. He said there appeared to be a business disagreement and the parties are seeking to use the City as leverage. He did not feel the City should get involved. Commissioner Tolstoy commented the property was owned by The Plies Companies for many years and the land use designation was Industrial and they never applied to have the designation changed to Commercial. He said the land was always thought to be Industrial even when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was discussed. Chairman McNiel felt the questions had been addressed. Motion: Moved by Eelchef, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-04 with modification to change the name of the applicant to Foothill Marketplace Partners. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -34- June 26, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE -carried Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-37 with modifications to change the name of the applicant to Foothill Marketplace Partners; to require the applicant to underwrite the cost of not more than six oral history interviews, the applicant to pay for relocation costs of the Guidera and DiCarlo homes to the point of delivery only, review by the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission if any alterations are required to existing buildings at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, and the addition of bicycle storage space; to permit demolition permits to be issued at the time of issuance of grading permits; to delete Historic Preservation Condition 7 regarding the reconstruction of the Chaffey-Garcia barn; and to include Exhibit B-1 as an Exhibit to the Resolution depicting the site plan upon which the Conditional Use Permit was approved. In addition, the architectural condition at the northwest corner of the Price Club shall be as represented by the drawing captioned "Plan @ Entry" in Exhibit E of the staff report. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE -carried Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13724 with modifications to change the name of the applicant to Foothill Marketplace Partners and to provide review by the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission if any alterations are required to existing buildings at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERSz NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE -carried , , , , CONSIDERATION OF ADDING PET SHOPS AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN ScOtt Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -35- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agreed with the staff report that the use would be inconsistent in the area. It was the consensus of the Commission that the addition of pet shops as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Commercial/Office District of the Foothill Boulevard ~pecific Plan would be inappropriate. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that there would be no Design Review Committee Meeting on July 4, 1991. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bruce Mauner, Creative Environs Architects, 4382 Brooks Street, Suite A, Montclair, asked if the preliminary review process in Rancho Cucamonga is optional. Chairman McNiel replied that the preliminary review process is provided as a courtesy, allowing developers to ask if a proposed idea is realistic. He confirmed it is an optional review. Mr. Mauner stated his firm had submitted plans for a Design Review for the development of three parcels on the southerly portion of the Plies property and were told by staff members Jerry Guarracino and Steve Ross that they could not submit the plans without going through a Preliminary Review. He said they then submitted the plans for preliminary review, but it was their clear intention to submit the application for Design Review. He felt he had been denied the right to submit the plans for Design Review. He said the lack of review by the Planning Commission affected some of the actions taken by Mr. Plies. Chairman McNiel asked what the plans were for. Mr. Mauner stated they submitted designs on three buildings to provide office space on the three parcels on Arrow Highway. He said they were required to master plan everything from Foothill Boulevard down to their property. He said the incidence occurred in September and October of 1989. He reported they received letters dated November 20 and December 8, 1989. He asked the Commission to not take lightly the June 25, 1991, letter from The Plies Companies. Chairman McNiel responded that he did not take the letter lightly. He said he asked questions on everything in the letter. He said the Commission did not receive the packet until 7:00 p.m. this evening, even though The Plies Companies had been involved since February. Planning Commission Minutes -36- June 26, 1991 Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested Mr. Mauner submit any documentation he may have to justify his statements. Mr. Buller said he would investigate the allegation that staff had refused a formal application and fee for the project. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn. 2:05 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -37- June 26, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 20, 1991 Vice Chairman Chitiea called the adjourned meeting of the dity of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer , , , , PRESENTATION OF ENGINEERING DIVISION'S FISCAL YEAR 91/92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, presented the 91/92 Capital Improvement Budget. The report was received and filed. II. 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. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces· Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the workshop for both items would be taken together. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated that the purpose of the workshop was to provide an opportunity to review the information supplied by the development community and Chamber of Commerce and review their recommendations regarding the compact parking issue. This workshop had been specifically requested by the developers and the Chamber to allow for discussion of this important issue. In addition, the developers had raised a second issue regarding the parking requirements for shopping centers. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, gave an oral staff report. John Potter, Hughes Investments, asked if there could be discussion regarding the secondary issue of parking ratios for shopping centers. Mr. Coleman indicated that, if the Commission desired, this issue could be added to the Planning Division work program. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that this issue would be discussed after the compact parking issue.- Rance Clouse, Chamber of Commerce representative, questioned how the new parking requirements would affect existing development. Mr. Coleman responded that staff's intention would be to apply only the new standards to new development; they would not apply to restriping or repaying of existing parking lots nor would they be applied to additions. He said property owners would have the option of using the new standard when restriping their parking lots. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, indicated that they hired a traffic engineering consultant to survey vehicle sizes at actual projects within Rancho Cucamonga. He stated that the survey data provided for the Commission showed that the City is comparable to the national averages. Commissioner Melcher stated that the universal size parking stall seemed to be the optimal solution. He supported the development community's recommendation of down-sizing all parking spaces to a universal size of 8 1/2 feet wide by 18 inches long. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Vice Chairman Chitiea indicated that, in her observation, the trend seems to be toward bigger cars, trucks, and vans in Rancho Cucamonga because of the young families. She stated that although a universal size parking space had its advantages, she preferred either decreasing the length, but not the width, or reducing the percentage of compact space allowed. The public hearing was closed. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that the consensus appeared to be a "one-size-fits-all" parking space and the only outstanding issue was the size of the stall. He indicated that staff would bring this item back on August 14, 1991 for Commission decision. In addition, he stated that the secondary issue of shopping c er parking ratios would also be placed on the same agenda for consi tio whether to place them on the work program. T s adjourned at 9:30 p. m. u sub tted, Y Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - June 20, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 12, 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 ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from Richard Dahl Enterprises requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider their action taken at the May 29, 1991, meeting regarding General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 4). Mr. Buller stated the matter would be discussed under Commission Business. Mr. Bullet stated a request had been received from the applicant for Item R, to continue the matter to July 10, 1991. Mr. Buller reported that the applicant for Item S had requested that the matter be continued to June 26, 1991. Mr. Bullet announced that a staff training session on historic preservation would be conducted on June 20, 1991, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. He invited the Commissioners to attend. Commissioner Melcher stated he would attend. Chairman McNiel announced that Design Awards had been presented on June 3, 1991. He presented Commendations to the following staff members for their work on the winning projects: Arlene Banks, former Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, Brett Hornet, former Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; and Cindy Norris, Associate Planner. Following presentation of a slide show depicting the award winning projects, Chairman McNiel thanked Assistant Planner Lori Moore for her work in coordinating the Design Awards presentations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that the minutes from the Adjourned Meeting of April 4, 1991, not be acted upon until a future meeting to permit three of the four Commissioners present to vote upon the minutes. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 18, 1991. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 2, 1991. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of May 8, 1991. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and Vallette abBent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 16, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 - ROCKFIELD - The request for an extension of a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan of 84 single family lots of a previously approved tract map consisting of 154 single family lots on 67.85 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of 24th Street east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-111-02 Be DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14192 - NIX DEVELOPMENT - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tract map consisting of 65 single family lots on 19.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of 19th Street between Hellman and Amethyst Avenues - APN: 202-061-12, 14, 40, and 44. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 12, 1991 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13281 - COVINGTON HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 114 lots of a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 199 single family lots on 33 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District of the Victoria Planned Community (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-081-06. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 - AKINS - A request for an extension of a previously approved County tract map consisting of 182 lots on 117 acres of land, located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-24, 25, and 26. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13674 - MIGHTY DEVELOPMENT - A residential subdivision consisting of 18 single family lots on 11.29 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Amethyst Street north of Valley View Drive - APN: 1061-401-03. Commissioner Melcher requested that Item A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt Items B, C, D, and E of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification on what was being given the time extension. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the time extension was for those lots and homes for which permits had not yet been pulled. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, indicated which 42 lots had not yet recorded of the 84 originally approved. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 12, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from "OP" (Office Professional) to "FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) for an ± 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to include the ± 8.3 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and establish standards for development - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from April 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Je ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked by what mechanism the new design guidelines would be extended to cover the property located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Mr. Murphy responded that staff recommended the corner be removed from the Office Professional District of the general City under the Development Code and be added to Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in order to set up standards as an activity center to be consistent with other elements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 12, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if the design guidelines presented for the Tetra Vista Community Plan, the Victoria Community Plan, and the Industrial Specific Plan would not be applicable to the frontage from Rochester to 1-15. Mr. Murphy responded that was correct, but indicated the proposed design guidelines are virtually identical to those in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be appropriate to require that an applicant proposing the first project at each of the activity center intersections develop a master plan indicating the potential for all four corners. Mr. Murphy stated it would be possible to add such a requirement if the Commission determined that would be appropriate. He indicated that at the Milliken activity center, staff has had discussion with the property owner on the south side of Foothill and Milliken and the owner is considering carrying the activity center concept over to Orchard. Commissioner Melcher stated that although he did not expect to change the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, he did not particularly favor the activity center concept. He did not feel that there will be heavy pedestrian traffic because of the busy arterial streets bordering the projects. He was concerned about bringing two-story buildings up to any of the intersections because there is no clear distinction on how far the activity center extends from the intersection. He said some of the streetscape treatments extend to the first driveway and the comment that the standards may extend to the next street made him question the wisdom of permitting two-story development at all. He felt the openness of intersections is more desirable. He felt two-story buildings will cause an intersection to appear closed in. He asked for a definition of street furniture. Mr. Murphy replied it would include benches, light standards, bollards, trash receptacles, bike racks, and bardscape treatment and patterns. He said it would include objects placed between the curb and building face. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to extend the definition to include the myriad of warning and traffic regulation signs required by the City. He said the City requires developers to go to great expense to provide high-end pieces of equipment for the street frontage and he felt the signs should be similarly upgraded. He asked if the section on the north side of Foothill between Deer Creek and Haven is covered. Mr. Murphy responded that three of the four corners are already developed and the remainder would be controlled by the Development Code. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the intent of including evergreen trees in the landscape concept section would be to include pine trees or conifers. He commented that Lewis has proposed supplementing the Tetra Vista frontage with pines or conifers. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 12, 1991 Mr. Murphy replied that the intent was not to tie down specific tree types other than those that are common in the activity centers of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan already. He said it was purposefully left open to allow review on a case-by-case basis to be sure that appropriate materials would be selected for each corner. He said it could include pine trees or canopy trees. Commissioner Melcher was concerned about the practicality of maintaining potted plant materials as suggested in Figure 3. Mr. Murphy replied that the exhibit was taken directly from the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He said the intention of the activity center was to provide a hardscape surface from the curb to the building face with trees planted in tree wells with grates over the top. He said the potted plants were included as a way of trying to soften the building elevations. He did not know if the long term maintenance had been evaluated. Commissioner Melcher asked if the intent was to include focal theme towers, clocks, or kiosks on each corner. Mr. Murphy replied that the intent was that a focal point be created at the corner, possibly through a raised planter area, water element, etc. He said theme towers, clocks, or kiosks were not intended for every corner. Commissioner Melcher asked if Caltrans will permit the suggested crosswalk treatment in Foothill Boulevard. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the plan was processed through Caltrans, and they acknowledged that the treatment is a possibility. He said Engineering and Planning have not yet submitted specific plans regarding the street furniture and street paving patterns. Commissioner Melcher wondered if Caltrans will accept such an intensive level of development. Mr. Buller stated that so far two projects have been submitted at Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and Caltrans modified the request on the south side. Commissioner Melcher asked if a work program has been scheduled to select street furniture. Mr. Bullet stated the work program had been removed from the Planning department's budget and incorporated into a capital improvement program, which was later cut. He said he would pursue the matter with the Community Development Director. Commissioner Melcher wondered if 75 to 150 feet would be adequate to accomplish the transition contemplated between the formal corner treatments at the activity centers to the informal parkways. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 12, 1991 Mr. Murphy responded that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan transition area is only 75 feet, which was being doubled because the developers felt a larger area may be necessary. Commissioner Melcher asked if the general guidelines apply to only the activity centers or to the entire street frontage. Mr. Murphy responded that most of the suburban parkway areas would be reviewed under the Terra Vista or Victoria Community Plans. Commissioner Melcher questioned the median tree selections. Mr. Murphy replied that the Crape myrtle and Rhus lancea were the only trees Caltrans found acceptable for the median area. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff had reviewed the comments submitted by Lewis Homes. Mr. Murphy responded that staff had reviewed the comments and incorporated them into the design guidelines where staff felt it was appropriate. Commissioner Melcher asked if the design guidelines for Terra Vista Foothill Boulevard commercial sites were relative. Mr. Murphy stated it was provided as background information. He indicated the design guidelines were intended to leave the use of two-story elements at the corners and the length the activity centers would extend from the corners up to the discretion of the Design Review Committee subject to the site specific plans submitted. Commissioner Melcher felt that if the formal bardscape is extended to the first driveway, it would defeat the landscape parkway transition. Mr. Murphy stated that if the hardscape extends to the first driveway, the driveway would create the break and the parkway transition concept would not be used. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, thanked the City for the opportunity to provide information for the development of the amendments. He felt it was a productive process but he thought there should be further fine tuning. He requested a continuance to work out the details on specific items and suggested a workshop might be scheduled. He thought other comments from Lewis Homes' May 22 alternate provisions should be included. He asked if it would be possible to expand the concept proposed by staff regarding street furniture and stated he would like to introduce other issues and have an opportunity to meet further with staff. Chairman McNiel asked if staff felt the item should be continued. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 12, 1991 Mr. Buller stated that depended upon the comments that Lewis Homes wished to present. He said if Lewis Homes was merely looking for clarification, he felt that could be handled later. He thought the document presented is consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel asked if the item were to be continued if there were any projects in process that would be negatively affected. Mr. Buller stated that staff has been alerting developers that changes would be forthcoming. Mr. Oleson felt Figure 3 should be revised because he did not feel it accurately represents a potential activity center with 25-foot setbacks. He thought the graphic shows setbacks of approximately 100 feet. He said they would prefer to see a 25-foot setback with the building separating to an interior plaza. He suggested a concept similar to Century City with large plazas located between large buildings. Mr. Buller stated the Commission could direct that staff meet with Lewis Homes and return at a later meeting. Mr. Oleson volunteered to have consultants to Lewis Homes participate in the process. Commissioner Melcher suggested the Commission proceed with Development District Amendment 91-01 and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 to add the ± 8.3 acre parcel to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan but continue the other items regarding the establishment of standards. Mr. Buller recommended that the items be kept together. Commissioner Chitiea felt Commissioner Melcher had some good points regarding clarification. She was comfortable with the document as a whole and felt there is sufficient latitude in the design review process to make appropriate decisions. She did not feel the first corner to develop at an intersection should master plan all four corners but thought all corners should be sensitive with respect to hardscape and landscaping. Commissioner Melcher thought the document should not necessarily give examples because that may tend to stifle creativity. Commissioner Chitlea stated that when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was first developed, people asked for examples. She indicated the examples were never meant to be all encompassing. She suggested adding "but not limited to" language. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continued Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91-01, and Environmental Assessment and Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 12, 1991 · Motion carried by Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-04 to July 10, 1991. the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , , Planning Commission recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:35 p.m. , , , , , Ke ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 - RICHARD STENTON - Modification of conditions of approval to allow land uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided for research and development (1 space per 350 square feet) within an existing industrial complex on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Buffalo and 6th Street - APN: 229-261-78. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.) Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-06 to June 26, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , Le ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - The request to establish a "mini-mall" (swap meet) in a leased space of 103,552 square feet within an existing industrial center on 13.77 acres of land in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-026-28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file Conditional Use Permit 86-06. (Continued from May 8, 1991.) Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-06 to June 26, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 12, 1991 AYES: NOES '- ABSENT , , COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.) Ne ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.) Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Tetra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 July 10, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 12, 1991 Qe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13321 - C & G CONSTRUCTION - A subdivision of 2.08 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of La Senda Road, west of Sapphire Street - APN: 1061-101-07. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Barbara Krall, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the improvements to La Senda would extend to the west boundary of the project. Ms. Krall responded they would extend to the west boundary where the property joins La Senda. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Corrington, C & G Engineering, 965 North 2nd Avenue, Upland, stated they had no comments regarding the staff report. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel questioned the street improvements. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the street pavement would be 26 feet wide, which is 10 feet less than the minimum street width, but consistent with other streets in the area. He said a lien agreement would guarantee ultimate standard public street improvements. Commissioner Melcher complimented staff for their imaginative solutions to the problems associated with the parcel map. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13321. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried Re ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13808 AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF EAST AVENUE - LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision of 49 single family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenues - APN: 225- 181-04, 06, 07, 08, 42, and 43 and 225-201-28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 91-15. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 12, 1991 Chairman McNiel reiterated that the applicant had requested a continuance to July 10, 1991. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13808 and Vacation of a portion of East Avenue to July 10, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED - The development of Phase III of a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96 acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven and Highland Avenues - APN: 201-271-65 and 71. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· Chairman McNiel stated that the applicant had request a continuance to June 26, 1991. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15 to June 26, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , · , , Te ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-11 - MANHIRE CONSTRUCTION - The request to establish a contractor's office and yard within an existing 12,186 square foot industrial building on 1.19 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 9595 Lucas Ranch Road - APN: 210-071-42. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jim Manhire, Manhire Construction, 1905 O'Malley Way, Upland, questioned the need for the relocation and reconstruction of the driveway. He said the Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 12, 1991 existing 30-foot wide driveway has worked for the past 14 years. He reported they were considering future changes to the building which may not work with the relocated and widened driveway. He requested they they not be required to move the driveway until the future changes to the building. Commissioner Melcher asked how long it would be necessary to defer the decision on the driveway. Mr. Manhire responded that within two to four years he anticipated expansion would be necessary. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea requested that engineering respond to Mr. Manhire's request. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that Mr. Manhire had also objected to the sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. He was concerned about the driveway not meeting standards and felt it was not as safe as the standard design. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Manhire stated he had discussed the sidewalk and street lights with the City Engineer. He said there are currently no sidewalks on the street and he felt the City Engineer had agreed to delete the condition for the street light. Mr. Manhire thought there is currently enough light on the street. He felt some of the trees would not survive and said he would submit a landscape plan to address the trees which will be lost. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Hanson stated the City Engineer had agreed the sidewalk would probably not be necessary. He felt the box regarding street trees on Section M.3. of the standard conditions should remain checked. Commissioner Melcher asked how the City would get a sidewalk if it were presently deferred and the street should later develop. He thought City policy generally staggered street lights on opposite sides of the street. Mr. Hanson responded that was generally City policy, but the City Engineer had made the decision that a street light would not be necessary. Commissioner Melcher stated his concern was regarding the long term. He questioned if others would not be required to put street lights and sidewalks on the project side of the street. Mr. Hanson replied that most of the property on the south side of the project is already developed. He felt there would be potential for a sidewalk to the north, but it would stop at this property. Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 12, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Commission had generally required small segments of sidewalk and lighting with the understanding that as other parcels develop or redevelop the sidewalks and lights would be continued. She said that is consistent with City policy to encourage alternate methods of transportation. She preferred retaining the requirements for street lights and sidewalk. From a safety standpoint she felt it to be appropriate to relocate the driveway at the present time. She thought the balance of the parcel could be master planned around the appropriate driveway location. Commissioner Melcher agreed the project should be approved with the original conditions prepared by staff. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners wished to consider deferment of the improvements. Commissioner Chitiea felt the proper driveway should be constructed at the present time. She thought in-lieu fees could be collected for the sidewalk and street lights and did not feel the City should pay for sidewalks and lights. Chairman McNiel felt any deferment should be tied to a specific completion date. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not unsympathetic with trying to assist the applicant in postponing expenses which have no immediate importance. Mr. Hanson commented that problems can arise in trying to collect on lien agreements. He said a lien agreement was utilized in the previous project because the street could not presently be physically built. He said the sidewalk would be disruptive to some of the street trees. He indicated staff may still determine that a street light may not be needed based upon spacing. Chairman McNiel agreed that the driveway is presently hazardous. sidewalks are required of all other projects and he felt it appropriate to require one. He said would be Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-11. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried · , , , · Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 12, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for a residential subdivision and design review of 73 single family homes on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Almond Street, between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Scott Murphy, associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff was satisfied that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adequately addresses all of the City's concerns. Mr. Murphy replied that several issues still need to be addressed regarding circulation, the slope of Big Tree Lane, and the addition of a another road. He indicated the applicant has placed the road on his plans. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the report had considered the deer and bird population. Mr. Murphy responded that five biological species were identified as being endangered (mostly in the Cucamonga wash). He said the birds are a migratory species and the deer could easily move into other areas that are not being developed because there is national forest to the north and other undeveloped land to the east. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Prakash Sakraney and Steve Morton, Sahama, 10700 Jersey, #705, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they would hold their comments to be project specific. Art Bridge, 8215 Banyon, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had hiked on the property 65 years ago and a number of years ago he purchased 20 acres adjacent to the property. He showed slides of the area and some larger homes. He felt the property should be closely scrutinized to be sure that proper development takes place. He felt the additional houses will wipe out the mountain landscape. He said he had been working with staff in order to develop his property, but he wanted to protect the area. Chairman McNiel stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to gather public input on the draft EIR rather than to do Design Review on any houses. He said Mr. Bridge would be advised of any development before it occurs. He said the City is doing all it can to protect the community and had recently tried to get City standards applied to property being developed in the County within the City's sphere of influence. Mr. Bridge stated he had read the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and intends to use those standards when he develops. Catherine Bridge, 8215 Banyon, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the proposed vesting tentative tract would fall under the Hillside Development Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 12, 1991 Chairman McNiel responded affirmatively. Mrs. Bridge stated that if the Hillside Development Ordinance standards are strictly enforced, that would be satisfactory. She thought low density should be imposed under the strict standards required by the Hillside Development Ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that Concept Study C in the EIR depicts an average lot size of 3.23 acres (25 dwelling units). He said the proposal which Sahama is proceeding with calls for 73 single family lots on 113 acres. He commented that the Hillside Development Ordinance discusses buildable acres and the use of a formula to determine how many units might be possible. He said the formula would permit 115 units on the project. He said the developer is proposing i acre lots. Mrs. Bridge felt the area to be fragile, with fire being a hazard with the steep canyons and different results being reached by various earthquake studies. Mr. Morton stated that Sahama had contacted Mr. and Mrs. Bridge and he again invited them to discuss the project. Commissioner Chitlea asked if staff was currently looking for any direction as to a preferred plan, such as the various concepts included in the EIR. Mr. Murphy said staff and the developer would welcome any direction. He said such information might help staff, the applicant, and the Design Review Committee when they review the specifics of the project. He reported that by the time the final EIR returns to the Commission, the project will have been through Design Review once. Commissioner Melcher thought the document is very important and he regretted that Commissioner Tolstoy was not available to give his comments. He requested that the public hearing remain open until Commissioner Tolstoy could be available to comment. Chairman McNiel asked if such an action would conflict with legal timelines. Mr. Murphy stated the City has one year from the time a complete application is submitted or knows what the impacts could be. He said that deadline is approaching, as the EIR must be finalized by the beginning of August. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitlea stated she had long been concerned with the area. She said there have been a number of proposals and she felt the density needs to be kept as low as possible. She said she would have preferred 5 acre parcels. She felt the strictest standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance need to be imposed. She thought the streets and the impacts upon services and heritage trees should be considered. She felt all possible should be done to minimize the impact on the area. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 12, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated he sensed a discrepancy between the sensitivity of Commissioner Chitiea and the Hillside Development Ordinance. He said the Ordinance will still permit the development of large, ihappropriate, oversize houses which do not relate to the land form or the environment. Chairman McNiel stated he is in the construction business and sells materials that go into high-end houses. He said the trend seems to be that "gaudy" is in. He felt the development needs to be sensitive to land. He thought the EIR was a well-done in-depth document. Mr. Murphy stated staff would take the testimony received tonight and the written comments and incorporate that into the final EIR which would be brought back before the Commission. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission could make comments at the next hearing or in writing prior to then. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated comments can be make up to the time the EIR is certified by the City Council. He said those comments can be incorporated into the final EIR by way of addendum pages. Ve ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13694 - INTECH VENTURES OF CALIFORNIA - A subdivision of 10.5 acres of land into 3 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route between Red Oak Street and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-09 and a portion of 209-144-06. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report and suggested an additional condition to change a proposed street name from Vincent Avenue to White Oak Avenue and the addition of Standard Condition Cl to require private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bill Grimes, J. F. Davidson Associates, 3880 Lemon Street, Riverside, agreed to the modified conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked if Vincent Avenue is an existing street that would require a name change for any resident. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the street has not been named as yet and staff felt Vincent Avenue would create a conflict. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13694 with modifications to change the name of Vincent Avenue to White Oak Avenue and to require private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 12, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , , We ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15060 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential tract subdivision of 10 lots on 124.76 acres of land to create planning areas for future development of Victoria Lakes South within the Victoria Planned Community, south of Base Line Road and east of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 207-161-35 and 38 and 227-171-03, 08, 20, 22, and 23. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 90-37. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated a more accurate survey had been completed and it was determined the windrow is not on the property and is not proposed for removal. He said the tree removal permit only covers mature trees which are not healthy. He suggested deletion of Condition 20a regarding the removal of the north/south windrow. He also suggested a revision to the Conditions to require completion of the park prior to occupancy of the final 5 percent of the units within Phase I. Commissioner Chitlea felt the trail connections between the regional center and Victoria Lakes Park should return to the Design Review Committee for final approval. Commissioner Melcher asked when the lakes will be constructed. Mr. Hayes reported that the developer has indicated it will be part of the Phase I park. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the park had gone through the Parks Commission for final design. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 4490 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, questioned if Community Services Department Condition 1 requires a 12-foot wide concrete pathway around the lake or if other options could be considered. Chairman McNiel asked if the Fire District was requiring the pathyway for emergency access. He asked if Engineering and/or the Fire Department were trying to eliminate the decomposed granite which had been proposed. Commissioner Chitiea commented that the idea had been to eliminate an engineered look wherever possible. She asked if the pathway could not be maintained the same as the Community Trails (decomposed granite). She said Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 12, 1991 the idea was to have a meandering natural walkway traversing through boulders. Mr. Hayes stated that staff had proposed a 12-foot concrete walkway on the west side and a 12-foot DG pathway on the east side. He said the Fire Department wants to be able to travel all around the lake. Commissioner Chitiea thought a 12-foot concrete pathway surrounding the lake would be contrary to the park idea. She felt such a design would change the entire concept of the park. Brad Buller, City Planner, thought that an "all weather driving surface" may include turf block or some other approved surface. He suggested that the material could be further researched with the Fire Department. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, wondered if such conditions would be necessary in the tentative tract approval, or if they should be in the document which controls the construction of the lake. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the design of the lake is the purview of the Park Department. He said he understood they had already approved the concept and the next step would be the construction designs. Mr. Buller stated that the park development plan would be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission. He indicated the Planning Department would review the plan. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she wanted to be sure that the Lakes Committee (including Chairman McNiel and herself) would still be involved in the final steps. Chairman McNiel asked the minimum dimension from the edge of the lake and the property line for the development of homes on the east side of the northern most lake. Mr. Luque stated it is approximately 35 to 40 feet from the edge of the lake to the wall. Chairman McNiel commented that 12 feet of that would be the path. Mr. Hanson stated the area includes a grade. Larry Ryan, RJM Design Group, 27285 Los Rambales, #250, Mission Viejo, stated that if there is flexibility to allow materials other than concrete, it would be possible to incorporate the desired aesthetic appearance while providing the vehicular access around the lake. Commissioner Chitiea asked how they would prevent adjacent grass from overflowing into the decomposed granite area. Mr. Ryan stated that steel edgings approximately 1/4 inch thick could be used to contain the grass. He said that would be contingent to the Engineering Department's approval. Planning Commission Minutes -19- June 12, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea asked if the pathway could be made curvilinear around rocks and boulders as previously discussed. Mr. Ryan stated the horizontal line will be rather fluid with boulders biting into it, but the clear zone between the boulder outcroppings will have to provide for the vehicular access. Chairman McNiel stated that some changes had been made at the request of the Maintenance Department which he felt destroyed the visual aspects of the lake. Mr. Luque stated he felt they would be able to design a path 12 feet wide that would only appear 8 feet wide. He requested that recordation of the final map not be held up pending Southern California Edison approval of the trail connection between Terra Vista and Victoria Greenway Systems. He asked that Southern California Edison approval be tied to development of Area VII. Mr. Hanson stated the property belongs to Southern California Edison. Mr. Bullet suggested the wording be changed to prior to issuance of building permits for any phase of the master tract. Mr. Hanson stated the City wants to get the parkway landscaping with the master tract. He said there would not be a design to bond on until it was approved. Mr. Bullet thought that because Southern California Edison would probably not allow as much development on their land as on other land, the City would be sufficiently protected by bonding for the normal amount of landscaping. Mr. Hanson said the City prefers to have the approved plan. Mr. Luque stated the plan for the link within the trail will be available, it just may not have been approved by Southern California Edison. Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to take the risk with Edison to move the project along. Mr. Luque questioned where the enriched pavement crossings would need to be provided. Mr. Hayes stated the condition was added because there may be a possibility to provide enriched paving across major streets where signalization may occur later. He said Planning and Engineering Divisions would coordinate those locations during the plan checking process. Mr. Luque agreed to the condition. He objected to the requirement to master plan the corner parcel at Base Line and Etiwanda which does not belong to the William Lyon Company. Mr. Coleman stated the master plan was requested because the City did not want a developer to wall off a portion of the large block without adequate street circulation or drainage. Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 12, 1991 Mr. Luque stated he did not feel he should have to connect to the adjacent property. Mr. Hanson stated that master planning does not necessarily mean the properties have to connect. He said it is merely to show a logical design to the east. Chairman McNiel asked the size of the adjacent property. Mr. Luque responded that it is 10 acres. Mr. Buller stated that the adjacent property owner has approached the City and advised they would like to switch the use to Commercial from the current Low Medium Residential designation. He said the Low Medium designation on the not-a-part parcel would not have the same development standards as the Low Medium located within the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Luque asked for clarification that the City's intention is to make Victoria Lakes Circle a part of the park rather than a private street. Mr. Hanson confirmed that was correct. Mr. Luque questioned the requirement that the park be constructed prior to occupancy of the final 5 percent of the units within Phase I. He said that different housing products are planned for the area, and they would like the flexibility to adjust to market conditions by building some of the homes within Phase II prior to the completion of Phase I. He said the apartment project in Phase I would probably be the last portion built and would be tied to the development of the mall. He requested that he be permitted to work with staff to agree on a formula for when the lake would be built. Commissioner Melcher stated that requiring the park before occupancy of the last 5 percent of units from Phase I would technically allow 95 percent of Phase I plus all of other Phases prior to the park. Chairman McNiel asked how many units are in Phases I and II. Mr. Luque responded there are approximately 300 single-family units and 200 multi-family units and approximately 530 units in Phase II. Chairman McNiel suggested allowing occupancy of 50 percent of the total projected units prior to completion of the lake and park. Commissioner Chitiea felt that would allow a lot of units before the lake. Mr. Luque stated the lake will take a year to build and over $4,500,000. He said they could not afford to build the park without selling some houses. He questioned if Fire Protection District Condition 7 requires a concrete path between the trail and a launching ramp. He felt that would be an attractive nuisance and would not be aesthetically pleasing. He proposed reinforced turf areas. Planning Commission Minutes -21- June 12, 1991 Chairman McNiel felt that should be satisfactory. Commissioner Chitlea asked if there was going to be a 'water play element in the park. Mr. Luque responded there will be. He said he was working with Community Services and they were considering a touch feature to turn on the water with a design to allow the water to drain into the lake. Helen Diamond, 12559 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned where her access would be if the portion of old Base Line Road north of Lot X were vacated per Engineering Condition 5. Mr. Hanson stated the City felt the road would eventually be vacated upon redevelopment of the Diamond property and staff proposed that the William Lyon Company provide an alternative access west of Victoria Park Lane. Ms. Diamond stated she had a business with a Base Line address. Mr. Hanson stated City records indicate the area is not a dedicated road. He said attempts are being made to keep access in the same area. Chairman McNiel stated that if old Base Line Road is vacated, the Diamonds would receive half of the land and they would be ensured access. Mr. Hanson stated that if alternate access could not be obtained, the road will not be vacated. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated tonight's action would not vacate the street because vacation would require the approval of City Council. He said the Diamond's parcel would be guaranteed street access. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel proposed the park be completed prior to the start of construction of the second half of the units. He said that would give the applicant the latitude to build any mix of product on any part of the project. Mr. Bullet suggested the park be completed prior to occupancy of the 500th unit and prior to issuance of building permits for the 501st unit. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Luque if that would be acceptable. Mr. Luque responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked if the William Lyon Company had begun discussions with Nabisco regarding the street vacation. Mr. Luque stated they were currently in the process of obtaining a title search and would contact Nabisco following that process. Planning Commission Minutes -22- June 12, 1991 Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea wanted to be sure the boat ramps are designed properly and do not provide an attractive nuisance. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a negative declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 15060 with modifications to delete the condition approving removal of the windrow, provide for completion of the park prior to occupancy of the 500th unit and issuance of building permits for the 501st unit, and require the trail connection between Terra Vista and Victoria Greenway Systems be approved by Southern California Edison and the City prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CMITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , , Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and Vallette absent, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed from 11:35 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. , , , , Xe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 13962 - ARROYO DE LOS OSOS, LTD. - The subdivision of 17.04 acres of land into 8 parcels in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Baker Avenue and Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-191-13, 16, 24, 25, and 41. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Ye ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-20 - ARROYO DE LOS OSOS, LTD. - The development of 17.04 acres for a mixed office/commercial master plan, consisting of 11 office/retail buildings totaling 190,950 square feet with Phase 1 development consisting of 6 two-story office/retail buildings totaling 113,450 square feet on 3.21 acres of land in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Baker Avenue and Red Mill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-191-13, 16, 24, 25, and 41. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 91-19 and Parcel Map 13962. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -23- June 12, 1991 Commissioner Melcher agreed with staff's recommendation that action on the Tree Removal Permit be deferred until approval of the final tree perpetuation plan. Commissioner Melcher asked how Engineering would respond to resident Don Olsen's objections to the project. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that staff feels traffic from the site can be adequately handled on Foothill Boulevard. He reported that a signal is planned at Foothill and Baker but it is not in the current budget. He said that because 2/3 of the cost will be borne by Caltrans, Mr. Olsen's letter will be forwarded to Caltrans. He stated the perpetuation of the San Bernardino Road and Foothill intersection was considered necessary at the time of the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He reported the proposed project would rework the intersection and make it more negotiable. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Crean, Managing General Partner, Arroyo De Los Osos, 507 Via Verde, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he appreciated the City's assistance on the project. He provided a letter from the Red Hill Green Homeowners Association to the north of the project. The letter expressed the support of the Association for the project. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated that one of the City Council members had expressed a desire to retain the trees on the property. Commissioner Chitlea stated she would like Planning Division Conditions No. 3, 4, 7, and 9 changed to require Design Review approval. Commissioner Melcher expressed appreciation for the developer's willingness to work with the City to make a positive contribution to the City. He supported the project. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 13962. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-20 with modifications to require that the details for the lower tenmini of the cheek walls, central roof gable wood member detail, south elevation of Building "G," courtyard building base detail, and gable roof accent detail return to the Design Review Committee for approval on a consent calendar basis. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -24- June 12, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , 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· (Continued from April 10, 1991·) AA. 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. (Continued from April 10, 1991.) Chairman McNiel stated staff had requested that the items be continued to a workshop on June 20, 1991, following Design Review. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 to June 20, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Dick Dahl had submitted a letter indicating his client, I. S. Properties, would be willing to perform a traffic study in connection with General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 4) to support their request to change the land use to Commercial. He said Mr. Dahl requested that the Commission reconsider their action recommending the use remain as Medium Residential. He said Mr. Dahl also had requested that the Commission consider an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow an interim use of a golf driving range without a full zone change to Commercial. Commissioner Chitiea asked if golf driving ranges typically have to be covered with netting and/or the high fencing. Planning Commission Minutes -25- June 12, 1991 Chairman McNiel indicated such precautions would have to be taken if there is a possibility of danger. Commissioner Chitlea felt such a danger would exist along the freeway. did not think the use would be attractive. She Commissioner Melcher suggested the Commission stand by their decision made at the previous meeting and direct staff to direct the applicant to apply for any changes in the normal course of events. Mr. Buller stated the applicant also could ask the City Council the same questions they were asking the Planning Commission at the time the amendments are forwarded to City Council for final action. Chairman McNiel stated Mr. Dahl had contacted him and asked if he would be willing to reconsider the decision and direct staff to consider Commercial. He said that he then realized the City would have to do all the work at City expense. He said with a Conditional Use Permit there may be a possibility to allow the interim temporary use without any fixed Commercial use designation. He felt that would be a viable option. Mr. Buller stated that when the City Council directed staff to consider redesignations of multi-family residential zoned areas, staff did not have a lot of time to allocate to perform additional studies for other uses. He said if the applicant submits an application with fees to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow an interim use, staff would proceed. He said Mr. Dahl had indicated his client would be willing to pay for any studies necessary to forward the matter. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitlea, that the original recommendation to City Council remain and the City not go to the expense and time necessary to investigate Commercial use for the benefit of the applicant. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried Chairman McNiel stated he felt the Commission could entertain the possibility of a Conditional Use Permit provided appropriate fees are paid and appropriate information provided. Commissioner Melcher agreed the idea would be worthy of consideration. Commissioner Chitlea stated it could be considered. Mr. Bullet questioned what might be issues which might prevent the Commission from finding the use to be a possibility. He said Mr. Dahl did not wish to proceed if there was strong feelings the use may not be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes -26- June 12, 1991 Chairman McNiel felt a trailer on a dirt patch would not be acceptable. He thought a traffic report would need to show that the use would be acceptable without risks. Commissioner Melcher asked if the use would produce revenue for the City, such as through an admissions tax. Mr. Buller stated it would not be subject to an admissions tax and questioned whether it would produce revenue for the City. He said the Commission would also have to consider if the use would subject the property to payment of an in-lieu fee for freeway landscaping, as the property is adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner Melcher thought it should. Commissioner Chitiea stated she didn't know as she felt the use to be an interim use. Commissioner Melcher requested that consideration be given to possibly change the Planning Commission policy regarding the use of at least two exterior surfaces for development in the Industrial area. He felt the use should be discretionary rather than mandatory. He indicated one of the projects which received an award for Design Excellence had only used one material. He thought that showed that projects can be successfully completed without multiple wall materials. He suggested the language be revised to allow the Design Review Committee or the Commission to require additional materials where they feel it would benefit the design. Mr. Buller announced that on June 13, 1991, there will be a budget hearing before the City Council and on June 19, 1991, the Council will be reviewing the RV issue. ADJOURNMENT Motion: adjourn. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to 12:30 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a June 20, 1991, workshop following Design Review at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center to review the Engineering Capital Improvement Budget and compact car parking spaces. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -27- June 12, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 29, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Co~nission 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, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary, Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that Item D be continued to permit Principal Planner Dan Coleman to make the presentation. OLD BUSINESS D. TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried with Tolstoy absent, to continue Trails Implementation Plan to a future date. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Commercial and Office as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01. 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I- 15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the' Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 22, 1991.) (Continued from May Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 29, 1991 Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 22, 1991. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM~NGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01. (Continued from May ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I- 15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will m Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 29, 1991 consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office Professional as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 22, 1991.) (Continued from May Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented a recap of the actions at the previous meeting, indicating that the Commission had recommended denial on General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). He said the Commission had recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 2), changing the land use designation to Commercial and Office, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 2), changing the land use designation to Community Commercial and Commercial Office. General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 1): Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no testimony, he closed the hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not convinced about the viability of single-family homes adjacent to the freeway. He questioned the use of sound walls on other properties near the freeway. Commissioner Chitiea felt the effects of the freeway would be easier to mitigate if the property were developed under Medium standards. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission should follow the City Council's direction to lower the multi-family ratio. She agreed with staff's recommendation to redesignate the area as Low Medium Residential. Commissioner Chitiea felt perhaps some Low Residential should be lowered to Very Low Residential to reduce the number of multi-family units. She questioned the advisability of placing single family homes in the area with regional related uses nearby. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 29, 1991 Commissioner Vallette did not feel the City would be capable of providing all the necessary services if densities are not reduced. She felt that a 32 percent multi-family density goal is desirable. She thought multi-family densities may make good planning sense for some isolated areas, but that the designation should be lowered in the interest of good planning for the City as a whole. Chairman McNiel commented that there will always be a greater number of multi- family properties in the eastern portion of the City because that is where the most available land is located. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the other Commissioners felt the area has enough exposure to be successfully used for Commercial purposes. Chairman McNiel stated some Commercial is already located immediately south of the subarea and he felt a Commercial use could be made viable. Commissioner Melcher stated that the church had only requested Commercial for a small triangular portion of the subarea. He did not feel the entire subarea should be Commercial. He indicated that a consultant had provided a report justifying Commercial for Subarea 2. He felt there appears to be an overabundance of Community Commercial in the City. However, he thought the area appeared to be an undesirable place to live because of the proximity to the freeway and he did not feel individual single-family homes would be appropriate. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated that if the Commission wished to consider Commercial, it would be necessary to readvertise. Commissioner Melcher felt it may be appropriate to parallel the freeway with a buffer zone, similar to Subarea 5. He was concerned abut isolating the present Low Medium. Commissioner Vallette felt the church should apply separately to designate their property as Commercial. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that along the Interstate 30 freeway corridor there is a predominance of Low and Very Low designated land uses. He stated that a Low Medium Residential designation does not preclude clustering of houses and buffering from the freeway. He said that staff had studied noise contours and felt that the noise issue could be mitigated. He commented that if it is determined that none of the land under consideration should be redesignated it would be unlikely that the City could meet the goal set by City Council. Commissioner Vallette felt that in keeping with the goals set by the City Council and recognizing the input from the public, Subarea 3 should be redesignated as Low Medium. Commissioner Melcher felt social goals were being considered in addition to planning philosophy. He thought Subarea 4 to be better suited for Low Medium Residential. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 29, 1991 Chairman McNiel agreed that Subarea 4 is obviously better suited for Low Medium Residential, but he did not feel that Low Medium would work for Subarea 3. Commissioner Vallette commented that the Commission was acting under the direction of City Council to indicate those parcels which would be appropriate to redesignate at lower densities. She felt quality of life issues are relevant to planning. She thought the Council was reacting to concerns of the community to lower the multi-family ratio to 32 percent at build-out. She did not feel the 32 percent goal could be met without lowering the designation on Subarea 2. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the 32 percent goal is appropriate, but she felt that lowering the density may be more appropriate in other parts of the City. Commissioner Vallette questioned if the City would be able to meet the goal if Subareas 3 and 5 were not reduced. Mr. Warren responded that it would be possible to reach a 35 percent goal if available land were reduced at the following ratios: 75 percent in Etiwanda, 50 percent in Victoria, and 25 percent in the remainder of the City. He said it was felt that Etiwanda would give the best opportunity to reduce multi- family acreage because there is more open area. He said that in the areas where the acreage is surrounded by more development, it will be even more difficult to lower the density. Commissioner Vallette indicated that a planned community offers more amenities such as parks, paseos, etc. and she felt it would be more difficult to lower the densities in Victoria. Chairman McNiel stated he was not sure the 32 percent goal is achievable. He thought the problems of proximity to the freeway could be successfully mitigated. He commented that there is other Low Medium adjacent to the freeway in the community. Commissioner Melcher commented that Subareas 3 and 5 have a combined acreage of approximately 59 acres. He said planning staff's projections are based on build out at 62.5 percent of the range, which would mean a difference of 5.25 units per acre, which would equate to a total of 300 units. He asked the impact of 300 more multi-family units on the percentage. Mr. Warren stated that the total projected number of units in the City would be approximately 53,000 to 55,000 if the multi-family ratio is 32 to 35 percent. He commented that 300 additional multi-family units would equate to a 600 unit spread between multi- and single-family units. Mr. Buller comented that the Commission had already recommended denial of the change for Subarea 1 (approximately 14 acres). Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 29, 1991 Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions reconxnending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 1) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion received the following tie vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -no action Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that under the Planning Commission's regulations, a tie vote on an action which involves a recommendation to City Council is forwarded to City Council with no action. General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 4) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 2): Mr. Warren gave a brief synopsis of the reasoning behind the recommendation for Low Medium and the request for a master plan. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi-Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, ~220, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that the staff report indicated a total unit reduction of 1,400 to 1,500 would need to be reached city-wide, and said the staff's recommended changes in Etiwanda would equate to a reduction of 1,267 units. He felt other areas of the City should have to reduce their percentage as well. Mr. Pitassi stated he represented a client on the south side of Miller and he showed some preliminary plans for a multi-family project. He discussed clustering of units and the ability to create open space in such a multi- family project- He felt the project would result in a 10 to 11 unit per acre product with the units being ownership type on fee simple lots. He felt that even though City Council had issued a mandate to lower the number of multi- family units, good planning would dictate multi-family zoning because of the major and secondary arterials bordering and traversing the site. He did not feel a Low Medium designation would give the ability to mitigate the traffic and commercial impacts. He indicated that because of the elevated freeway, the noise impacts would intensify as the distance from the freeway increases. Jeff Burum, Diversified Pacific Development Corporation, 6057 Della Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to a letter he had submitted at the May 22 meeting. He said he had been following the affordable housing issue and how that relates to the Housing Element in the City. He agreed with the City Council's directive to down-zone, but felt it should be economically viable for the property owners in the area. He said if the existing standards in the Etiwanda Specific Plan are changed to the normal Low Medium standards, the housing product generated would probably result in houses selling in the Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 29, 1991 $250,000 range. He suggested an overlay district allowing for the development of smaller lots with corresponding lower prices. He said that staff had indicated that elsewhere in the City developers have merely put larger houses on smaller lots and the smaller lots have not resulted in more affordable homes. He suggested a development ratio of house size to lot size. He felt that would be economically feasible for the developers. He said he had considered some different locations in the area and felt if new standards were adopted in an overlay district it would be possible to buffer by placing 8 units per acre next to the freeway (duplexes and triplexes) and situating the smaller lots on the exterior. He said that would not hurt the property owners and would forward the objectives of the City Council. He requested the Commission direct that smaller lots should be considered. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission recognized that 10,000 square foot lots would not be viable if the areas were redesignated. Mr. Burum stated that it is an idea used in other cities when a developer uses optional development standards to cap the size of homes placed on lots. He said that if people are not willing to adhere to the capped ratio, they would simply build under the normal standards applicable in the area. Commissioner Vallette suggested the idea may have merit because she felt that developers have definitely placed larger homes on smaller lots to maximize profitability. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Burum felt the loss of 8-14 designation would be potentially detrimental to the affordable housing supply and was suggesting that the land could be utilized for a more affordable product subject to some optional development standards. Mr. Burum responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher felt the idea may deserve further exploration, but he did not feel that development standards were part of this evening's agenda. Mr. Buller stated that the issue was brought up at the neighborhood meeting and staff felt there is merit for further discussions. He said the Planning Commission could direct staff to obtain the City Council's direction regarding the issue. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Con~nissioner Chitiea felt the Low Medium designation is appropriate because of the size, location, and mitigating factors. She felt further study of how to achieve a lower priced product is worthy of consideration. Chairman McNiel said he thought it was a great concept but he had doubts abut achieving anything under the heading of affordable housing. He stated the community now has 3,000 to 4,000 square foot lots in the community which do not satisfy the affordable housing requirements. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 29, 1991 Commissioner Melcher stated that even if the houses do not meet the official affordable housing guidelines, it would be delivering housing that people can more easily afford. He felt that considering Mr. Burum's proposal may help the lower middle income worker. Chairman McNiel commented there was a consensus of the Commission to seek City Council direction on whether to further study a modification to the development standards for Etiwanda. Commissioner Melcher felt that master plan requirement could address the issues raised by Mr. Pitassi. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recon~nending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 4) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 2) changing the land use designations to Low Medium and requiring a master plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 3): Mr. Warren outlined staff's reasoning on Subarea 5. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed Commissioner Melcher stated his position was the same as on Subarea 3. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Vallette felt the area should be Low Medium. Chairman McNiel asked the use designation across East Avenue in Fontana. Mr. Warren responded that it is in the Heritage Village Community Plan and is designated Office along East Avenue. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, stated that Fontana is also considering an amendment to allow a variety of Commercial uses in the area. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 29, 1991 91-03 (Subarea 3) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion received the following tie vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -no action General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 4): Mr. Warren gave a brief presentation regarding the reasons staff did not recommend a change from Medium Residential for Subarea 6. He indicated Base Line Road is heavily traveled and the southern border is a freeway on-ramp, which would generate significantly more noise because of vehicle acceleration. He stated that because staff did not have an in-depth traffic analysis it had to be presumed that any use other than residential would generate significant amounts of traffic above what was planned for at Medium Residential. He indicated it was felt that increased traffic could effect the central core of Etiwanda; and because the philosophy of the Etiwanda Specific Plan is to retain a rural character, staff did not feel comfortable with suggesting a Commercial or Office use. He indicated the property owner had proposed Office and Convenience Commercial. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jeff Sceranka, Century 21 Dahler, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho Cucamonga, showed a map of the'area depicting the Village of Heritage adjacent to Subarea 6- He indicated a significant amount of housing will be developed in Fontana. He presented a letter proposing that the subarea be designated Commercial and suggesting that the area is heavily impacted by commuter and shopping traffic flows. He thought the majority of Etiwanda residents will go to Fontana to shop as soon as a neighborhood shopping center is built in the Heritage Village area. He thought the proximity of the freeway on/off ramps would assist in making the center viable. He thought the City should opt for Commercial in order to keep tax dollars from going to Fontana. He said he understood a traffic analysis would need to be conducted. Chairman McNiel asked how many feet of frontage is located on Base Line. Mr. Sceranka replied 339 feet. Commissioner Vallette asked if Mr. Sceranka was considering the already designated, under construction commercial sites on Milliken and Highland and on Base Line and Milliken. Mr. Sceranka thought those centers would only address the needs of a localized area. He indicated the area east of Milliken should support additional Neighborhood Commercial. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 29, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Sceranka's clients control all of Subarea 6. Mr. Sceranka responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher felt the site would be an awkward configuration for Neighborhood Commercial development. He thought less than 400 feet of frontage in an area which may have traffic congestion would be difficult. He asked if the Commission were to direct staff to study the feasibility of Commercial for deliberations during the next General Plan cycle, if Mr. Sceranka's clients would be prepared to underwrite the cost of a traffic analysis. Mr. Sceranka stated the clients were in the audience and could answer that question. Chairman McNiel felt an 11 acre parcel may not be large enough. Mr. Sceranka thought the designated 5-acre site at the corner of Base Line and Etiwanda would not be able to attract developers to develop Neighborhood Commercial. He stated several developers have expressed interest in a Base Line/freeway location. He said the developers will go to the first sites available along the freeway, whether it be in Rancho Cucamonga or Fontana. Dick Dahl, representing I. S. Properties, Inc., 5444 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that if the property is designated Commercial, the owners do not plan to develop as Commercial in the immediate future. He said they propose an interim use of developing a recreational facility, such as a golf driving range and potentially a miniature golf course if the driving range proves to be successful. He thought the City lacks sufficient recreational facilities. He said the site has been reviewed by one of the major companies who develop golf driving ranges and they considered the site to have good potential for such a use because of its proximity to the freeway and the future church on the west. He said there would be no impact on existing residential. He reported that the Vons shopping center at 19th and Carnelian is only a little over 10 acres. He said his clients would be willing to fund a traffic study when they are ready to develop the site for commercial uses. He did not feel a traffic study would be necessary for a recreational facility because it would operateat off-peak hours. He thought the area will have to grow more before it can support a commercial use. He commented that the shopping center at Etiwanda and Base Line is only 3-2 acres. Commissioner Melcher asked if the client would be willing to fund a traffic study at this time. Mr. Dahl responded they did not feel a traffic study should be necessary at this time. Commissioner Melcher stated the Commission had recom~aended commercial applications along Foothill Boulevard based upon studies indicating that additional commercial could be supported. He said those studies had been Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 29, 1991 funded by the property owners. He con~nented that without a detailed traffic study, staff felt that commercial use in Subarea 6 would not only increase the traffic in the immediate area, but also increase the traffic along Etiwanda Avenue. Bernie Svalstad, Partner in I. S. Properties, Inc., 1811 Westcliff Drive, Newport Beach, stated that most of the property in the area cannot be developed for probably two to five years because of the cost associated with installing the necessary storm drain and the need for an assessment district. He stated they were suggesting an interim recreation use in order to alleviate having the property sit vacant until the storm drain is constructed. He said they wanted to assist the City in deleting 154 multi- family units and would also bring sales tax revenue to the City. He felt an aesthetically pleasing Neighborhood Commercial center could eventually be developed. He asked that the matter not be continued to another General Plan cycle. He did not wish to perform a traffic study based on Commercial use because the property would not be developed as commercial for another three to five years and the figures would then be outdated. He said a similar interim use had been developed in E1 Toro in a retention basin. Commissioner Melcher commented the property owners had requested the Commission consider Neighborhood Commercial even though staff had indicated that without a detailed traffic study, Neighborhood Commercial would not be the most appropriate land use. However, the owners have indicated an unwillingness to underwrite the cost. He was therefore reluctant to postpone the decision to another cycle without more indication of cooperation from the property owners. Mr. Svalstad indicated they did not object to conducting a study when they are ready to develop the site as a commercial use. Commissioner Chitiea stated that in order for the City to consider a land use change, a study would have to be provided indicating that the area could support additional commercial uses, even if the implementation were to be in the future. Mr. Svalstad suggested a study be conducted in relationship to a driving range because that would be the only imminent use- Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette commented that to the west the area is already designated Low Medium residential. Chairman McNiel commented that Mr. Dahl had indicated a church had purchased the property in order to build a church. Mr. Buller stated the zoning is for Low Medium and a church would require a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 29, 1991 Con~nissioner Vallette questioned if sites have been designated for commercial sites in the Etiwanda North area. Mr. Henderson responded that other areas in the plan are already designated for commercial and the City had already received a request for expansion of those areas. He felt that even if a shopping center is built along East Avenue in Fontana, not all Etiwanda residents will necessarily go to Fontana to shop. Chairman McNiel felt that eventually the site may be commercial but commented that without a supporting traffic study, he was not prepared to recomend commercial. He indicated the applicant could approach the City at a later time to change the area to Commercial. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Commissioner Chitiea felt the proposal may have merit, but without the necessary supporting information she also was not willing to recon~nend the change to Commercial. She thought that looking at the proximity to the freeway, the site would appear to be desirable for a retail use. She was uncomfortable with leaving a Medium Residential designation if the City did not really want residential. She thought that comercial may be the best use, but commented that the owners were not willing to fund a study at the present time. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 4). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p-m- to 8:55 p.m. General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 5): Mr. Warren gave a brief synopsis of the reasoning for recommending Low Medium Residential. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, but there was no testimony. closed the hearing. He Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 29, 1991 !~otion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 5) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 6): Mr. Warren presented a review of the matters discussed at the previous meeting. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, presented a copy of a letter she had sent to the City in April regarding her property. She felt the railroad tracks to the north of the property, the freeway to the east and south, and East Avenue to the west would make the area unpleasant for residential uses. She requested that the eastern portion of Subarea 8 be changed to Commercial or left at Medium Residential. She indicated that the property could not be viably developed as Residential, particularly if the developer were required to pay for the freeway landscaping. She felt the proximity to the freeway presents a safety hazard. She indicated that the property would not be developed for at least five years because of the assessment district needed to finance the drainage facilities. Ralph Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, felt that their property is an entrance into Rancho Cucamonga. He said they would not sell their land for industrial use. He commented that they are interested in Rancho Cucamonga because they have been in the City for a long time. He felt a Residential zone would be inappropriate. He indicated East Avenue has a lot of traffic during school hours. He did not feel the property could be economically developed at Medium Residential because of the requirement for a 30-foot sound wall. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the Kleinman property is separated from the remainder of Subarea 8. He was not sure that a Commercial designation would be the best use. He questioned the projected traffic count on East Avenue in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 29, 1991 Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, replied that it would depend upon where the freeway off-ramp is located. Commissioner Melcher asked staff to comment on the Kleinman's comments. Mr. Henderson felt there was not much difference north or south of the Santa Fe railroad tracks. He felt there would be less traffic if there are no Route 30 freeway ramps at East Avenue. He thought the parcel to be a small, awkward size parcel located on a secondary arterial street. He suggested the Commission may wish to leave the Kleinman's property at Medium and reco~nend that the remainder of Subarea 8 be designated as Low Medium. He commented that the western portion of Subarea 8 is adjacent to Low Medium Residential. He said similar conditions exist in Los Angeles County where single family residential is adjacent to the freeway, but has no access to the freeway. Commissioner Chitiea felt there was some merit in considering separation of the two portions of Subarea 8. Chairman McNiel agreed the Kleinman's property should possibly be separated from the remainder of Subarea 8. He did not agree that the site should be Commercial. He indicated that East Avenue will be four lanes and will be heavily traveled. He said it also may have a freeway off-ramp. He thought the western portion of Subarea 8 should be Low Medium and the eastern portion should remain Medium. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Melcher commented that the only access to the property will be East Avenue. He asked how many points of ingress/egress would be permitted on the approximately 600 feet of street frontage. Ms. Miller replied that on an arterial there is a difference between a street and a driveway. She said that only one street would be permitted, but driveway standards permit one for every 300 feet. She indicated deceleration lanes may be required. Commissioner Melcher felt a single-family designation would make the parcel particularly inefficient. He preferred to see the property west of East Avenue be redesignated as Low Medium, and the property east of East Avenue remain at Medium because of the property configuration and constraints. Commissioner Vallette felt that Low Residential would endanger fewer people if the proximity to the freeway truly represented a safety hazard. She supported Low Medium Residential for all of Subarea 8. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 6) with a modification to recommend changing the land use designations to Low Medium for the portion of the subarea west of East Avenue and recommending denial of the Amendments for the portion east of East Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 29, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS COUNTY REFERRAL 88-05 - UNIVERSITY CREST - Preliminary Plan of Development, Master Tentative Tracts, Tentative Tract Maps, and Final Plan of Development for 1,239 single family units and commercial, school, park, and open space on 1,111 acres in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere area; request for review of the City's requests to the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City Council had received a copy of a letter Mr. DiIorio sent to the Chairman of the County Planning Commission protesting that he did not feel City staff's comments to the County Planning Commission represented the position of either the City Council or the Planning Commission. Mr. Buller requested clarification as to whether the comments made by staff reflected the position of the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Joe DiIorio, President, The Caryn Company, P. O. Box 9216 South Laguna, presented a letter stating that the University Crest is an integral part of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He thought the County's Etiwanda North Specific Plan to be superior to the City's. Mr. DiIorio indicated the County plan has reversed density to draw it to the north. He said County staff had determined the project warrants a 10 percent density bonus, but City staff does not agree. He said the project will preserve 675 acres of open space. He stated the project is proposed with higher than the County's minimum standards. He reported that the project is committed to paying more than the City's requirement for parks, schools, roads, and fire protection. He said a 50 foot right of way on cul-de-sac streets (versus a City standard of 60 feet) does not increase the density. He reported the project employs reverse lot grading with pads only immediately under the houses. He said the remainder of the lots will have natural grading. He stated they had supplied a report from a registered geologist stating there are no fault problems in the area and there is no Red Hill fault. He reported the project will provide 3 acres of local park for every 1,000 residents on site plus an additional 2 acres per thousand residents on either Southern California Edison surplus property or at two other locations. He said their traffic studies show there will be insignificant traffic on Etiwanda Avenue. He felt the City should not have approved other tracts already in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. He stated the majority of the landowners in the area have protested the City's proposed annexation. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 29, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. DiIorio was talking about a County plan or a Consortiumplan. Mr. DiIorio stated the Consortium Plan is the County Plan, or soon will be. Commissioner Chitiea stated Mr. DiIorio had first proposed 25 percent equestrian 1/2-acre estate lots, but the percentage had since decreased. She asked what had happened to the equestrian lots which no longer have access. Mr. DiIorio stated they were willing to have equestrian lots if they can transfer units to another area. He said the City had indicated they could not transfer lots. He said he had made a commitment to build an equestrian center as part of the community hub, but staff did not want it there and he could not guarantee it would be built. He said he had purchased land to specifically build the equestrian center. Commissioner Chitiea stated that was not reflected in the plan before the Commission. Mr. DiIorio stated the triangular piece of land could be converted to equestrian lots if they could transfer units elsewhere in the area. He said he had no current interest in building equestrian lots. Commissioner Vallette questioned the County's rationale for the 10 percent density bonus. Mr. DiIorio stated the County felt the development has superior development so it would permit the units to be transferred to another area. Commissioner Vallette asked the acreage of the school site. Mr. DiIorio replied it is 9-10 acres with an adjacent park. Commissioner Vallette asked if the land had been donated to the school district or if it was only available for the district to purchase. Mr. DiIorio responded that a Community Facilities District has been established to collect an additional fee to be used to acquire all school sites in the Etiwanda North area. Commissioner Vallette asked the composition of the Consortium. Mr. DiIorio replied that it has varied. He said the University of California, Betty McNay, and he had formed it when they first proposed the University Crest development. He indicated that others had joined later. He said the Consortium had agreed to produce a Specific Plan on 6,000 acres. He indicated some members had later dropped out: namely Landmark, Cheng, and Watt. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 29, 1991 Chairman McNiel stated the project has been in process for a long time. He indicated that because the project proponents and the City were at odds, the City began processing a separate Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Commissioner Vallette requested clarification on the background regarding the Consortium's Specific Plan. Commissioner Chitiea responded that a compromise could not be made in some areas in the Consortium's plan, and when they reached an impasse, the Consortium withdrew their application from the City and began processing in the County. Commissioner Vallette asked if the County is in favor of future annexation to the City. Mr. Buller stated the County's General Plan has provisions to encourage annexation to local cities. Commissioner Chitiea supported staff's position on requiring 60-foot street rights-of-way, curvilinear streets, 1/2-acre equestrian lots with access, and collector status of Vintage; implementation of the Hillside Ordinance; objection to locating school sites within the fault zone; confirming that parks will be on Edison surplus land; and suggested street alignments to alleviate traffic impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Buller requested that the Commission indicate if they disagree with anything staff had presented in the verbal or written staff report or in the correspondence forwarded to the County. Commissioner Vallette stated she read the report in detail. with the concerns raised by Commissioner Chitiea. She concurred Commissioner McNiel concurred. Commissioner Melcher stated that if unanimity were indicated, there is a struggle between two differing points of view, the City's and the project proponents'. He felt the outcome would be somewhere between the two differing points of view. He requested that staff continue to advance the City's perspective. Mr. Buller stated that staff was working on the development of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to be approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He said that plan would then be presented to the County. He said it was unfortunate that the County appears ready to make a decision on the University Crest project before the adoption of the Specific Plan. He said it was making it difficult to present the bigger picture when focusing on the individual project. Commissioner Vallette felt it is important to emphasize the need for a total direction, not just a specific portion. Planning Commission Minutes -18- May 29, 1991 Commissioner Melcher wondered if the City had considered the area-wide and state-wide implications of the potential transfer of the McNay property. Chairman McNiel stated that the City feels the development of the 6,000 acres will have a tremendous impact on the balance of the community. He did not feel the City had ever approached the project without considering potential impacts to the remainder of the community. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the proximity of development to the bog and bluff were also considered. Commissioner Melcher wondered if it might be worthwhile to look at how the City could accommodate more of the concepts of the County's Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He felt that because the property is located outside of the City, the applicants are processing the project through the County as a leverage. Mr. Buller reported that when the issue came up, the City Council processed a resolution regarding the matter and established a subcommittee to consider the regional, local, and City/County issues. He indicated that the subcommittee is still in existence. Commissioner Melcher stated that he supported staff's actions. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to support staff's action. COMMISSION BUSINESS Mr. Buller stated the Commission would need to adjourn to the Design Awards Program to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 3, 1991, in the Council Chamber. Mr. Buller announced the City had received two awards to be given by the American Planning Association (APA): Outstanding Planning for the Xeriscape Ordinance and Meritorious Award for the Hillside Development Ordinance. He said the awards would be presented on Monday, June 3, 1991, at the APA award ceremony. Mr. Buller said there would also be a Planning Commission Workshop on Thursday, June 6, following Design Review regarding Foothill Marketplace. Mr. Buller reported that Commissioner Vallette had asked if the Co~nission should select alternates to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Subcommittee and/or the Development Review Processing Subcommittee. He indicated the matter could be brought back on a future agenda. Planning Comission Minutes -19- May 29, 1991 PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe DiIorio, President, The Caryn Company, P. O. Box 9216 South Laguna, stated that Betty and Jack McNay had purchased 1,500 acres in 1978 in order to prevent it from being developed. He said every dime the University of California receives from this project will go toward acquiring environmentally sensitive land. He felt the area to be developed is not sensitive environmental property. He said the other major player in the project is Jon Mikels. Mr. DiIorio stated the City Council Subcommittee had never met with the Consortium. He said he was not asking the City to give anything and he would like to see the developer and the City work together. ADJOURNMENT Motion: adjourn. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to 10:55 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Awards Ceremony on June 3, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -20- May 29, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 22, 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 Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Pla%nner~ Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Engineer , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, announced that the Design Awards Program would be held on Monday, June 3, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the April 24, 1991, minutes as amended. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY - A request to vacate a portion of an alley located west of Malachite Avenue and south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-261-20. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Consent Calen~,= PUBLIC HEARINGS Be ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Ce VARIANCE 91-04 - LUNA - A rec&ueat t~ al~o~ a. reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet and a reduction in the minimum lot depth from 150 to 130 feet for a two-lot parcel map in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report regarding Parcel Map 13693. She indicated the standard school condition would need to be added to the Resolution. Steve Role, A~eistant Planner, presented the st&~f report on Variance ~1-O4. Chairman Mc~iel opened the public hearing. Steve Luna, applicant, 7090 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the Commission approve the option with Parcel 1 taking access from Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 accessing Northridge Drive. Linda Frost, President of Northwoods Properties Community Association, stated their position had not changed. They did not agree that the lots should face Northridge Drive, but felt strongly that if the Commission determined they should front Northridge Drive, that the parcels should be subject to the CC&Rs of the Community Association. She did not feel her Low Medium density tract should be mixed with equestrian lots. She stated there would be a potential for up to five lots fronting Northridge Drive. She indicated one of the biggest concerns is the potential for parking RVs and large horse trailers on Northridge Drive. She requested that the Community Association be involved in the Design Review process if the Planning Commission determined the lots should front Northridge Drive. Charles Doskow, attorney representing Northwoods Homeowners' Association, 222 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, urged the Planning Commission to consider the applicant's original proposal with Parcel i taking access from Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 taking access from Cabrosa Place via an easement across Parcel 1. He wondered why the Planning Commission was spending so much time on a total of less than one acre. He indicated that the Trails Committee had approved the layout with both parcels taking access from Cabrosa Place and also the option with only Parcel 2 fronting Northridge Drive. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Vallette indicated that the Commission had heard the residents' concerns regarding access to Northridge Drive and was concerned with meeting the needs of both parties involved as well as making a decision reflecting good planning sense. She said it was for this reason the Planning Commission was spending so much time on one acre. She felt that good planning dictates that access should be from Northridge Drive. Commissioner Melcher liked the compromise of fronting Parcel 1 on Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 on Northridge Drive. He did not feel Parcel 2 should be subject to all provisions of the CC&Rs of the Northwoods Properties Community Association. He thought new CC&Rs should be drawn up for Parcel 2 to include only the applicable provisions of the Northwoods Homeowners' Association. He indicated that Northwoods has two styles of architecture, one with wood and one of stucco. He felt the homes on Parcels 1 and 2 should be of appropriate quality construction but it should not be necessary to restrict the architectural style. Commissioner Chitlea stated that the function of the Trails Committee is not to approve tract layouts, but to indicate if trails can he accommodated. She reported that the committee did not support a layout with one lot ta/~ing access from Cabrosa Place and the other lot fror~ting Northridge Drive. She stated that the equestrian trails would not be adjacent to the Northwoods community because they would be located to the north of the two parcels. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher regarding the CC&Rs. He felt they should be tailored to the issues of compatibility with streetscape on Northridge Drive only. He felt both lots should face Northridge Drive. Chairman McNiel stated that the decision on this parcel will affect the remainder of the lots to the north of Northridge Drive. He thought the question to be if some, none, or all of the lots should face Northridge Drive. He said that it would require the paving of more ground if the lots do not face Northridge Drive. He stated that the parcel to the west has easy access to Cabrosa Place and the parcel to the east could be a flag log, but more streets would have to be built in order to avoid fronting future lots to the east onto Northridge Drive. He indicated that there has to be a boundary where lots sizes change. He said the trails will not access onto or into the community to the south. He did not oppose taking access to Parcel 1 from Cabrosa Place. Cammissioner Tolstoy stated that if Parcel 1 faces Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 faces Northridge Drive, then a side yard would face a front yard. He felt both front yards should face Northridge Drive. Commissioner Melcher stated that the lot to the west of the two parcels fronts Cabrosa Place. He felt fronting Parcel 1 to Cabrosa Place would provide a better view from the cul-de-sac. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13693 and Variance 91-04 with modifications to front Parcel 1 on Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 22, 1991 Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 on Northridge Drive and provide a variance of the lot depth for one lot only. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 - HWANG - A residential subdivision and design review of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on Wilson Avenue west of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 91-05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VARIANCE 91-03 - HWANG - A request to reduce the minimum corner lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet and the minimum Lot area from 20,000 s~uare feet to 14,502 squ. are feet on Lot 28; to reduce the minimum lot depth from 150 feet to 146.19 feet and 145.75 feet on Eot~ 11 and 1.4, reepectively; and to reduce the minimum average Lot size from 22,500 square feet to 22,228 square feet within Tentative Tract 14207, consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on Wilson Avenue west of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01· Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and a letter from resident Nicholas Crow in opposition to the variance for lot size reduction. He also opposed the configuration of Lots 24 and 25 and objected to a house being placed on Lot 25 in its proposed location of 25 feet from his property line. Commissioner Vallette questioned the minimum setback from property lines for side yards. Mr. Hayes responded that the minimum setback is 10 feet and the house on Lot 25 would be placed 10 feet back from the 15-foot equestrian trail. Commissioner Melcher questioned why the developer is not being required to underground the utilities on the opposite side of Beryl Street, but instead is being conditioned to pay a fee to the City for future undergrounding. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the main problem with undergrounding the utilities now would be the difficulty in providing services to existing homes. Commissioner Chitiea asked the rationale for determining that Lots 24 and 25 should front Beryl. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 22, 1991 Mr. Hanson responded that it is anticipated that Wilson will carry three times more traffic than Beryl. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Dahl, 5444 Carnelian Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the applicant was in agreement with the directions and conditions put forth by the Design Review Committee and staff. However, he questioned the flipping of the house on Lot 27. He said the houses will have a step design and if the house were flipped, the design would be backwards. He indicated they had attempted to preserve the mountain view for the homes to the south of the project. Commissioner Vallette asked the determining factor in the number of trees to be preserved on Wilson. Mr. Dahl responded that the trees need to be removed in order to construct Wilson Avenue. Commissioner Vallette stated the trees appear to be healthy. Mr. Dahl stated that two .of the trees blew over during the last major windstorm. ~e indicated that staff recommended the trees be removed. Nicholas Crow, 9080 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, asked the justification for a zoning variance and if one is routinely granted when requested by a developer. Chairman McNiel stated that all variance requests are reviewed. He indicated that the request had gone through the Design Review Committee and the layout of streets is one factor considered. He stated that the variance may be granted if the Commission felt it would not have a detrimental effect. Mr. Crow felt that Lots 24 and 25 are out of alignment. He thought the Planning Commission should not grant a variance because one lot would be 27 percent less than the zoning requirement. He stated he was pleased the Commission tries to conserve streets. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Crow understood the rationale for the orientation of Lots 24 and 25. Mr. Crow felt-that Beryl is very narrow and is traversed at a fast past as the traffic moves down hill. Chairman McNiel stated that Beryl is a smaller street and will carry a lot less traffic than Wilson. He reiterated that City staff feels access to Beryl will be safer. Ed Rumble, 9090 Cottonwood, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned the number of homes to be built. He stated a large sign had been posted on the property indicating 27 homes would be built, the public hearing notice stated 28 homes, and he thought there was now a possibility of 31 homes. He felt each lot should be a minimum one-half acre. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 22, 1991 Mr. Hayes responded that there is a potential for 28 homes. Mr. Rumble asked if the development would be exempt from undergrounding utilities. Mr. Hanson stated that all new services to the tract will be placed underground, but the developer will not be required to underground the line to the south of the tract. Mr. Rumble indicated that even though the trees scheduled to be removed for the construction of Wilson may not be healthy, they may have birds nests in them. He asked if Wilson could be rerouted slightly to save the trees. Mr. Hanson stated that the alignment shown on the plan was considered to be the optimum after a thorough analysis. Mr. Rumble asked if the additional houses will impact on the water supply. Mr. Hanson replied that the water district had not objected to the houses. Bob Kirkpatrick, KHR Associates, 4602 Valley View, Yorba Linda, stated he was the project engineer. He said the trees along Wilson are to be removed only because of the street alignment. He indicated the first design submitted provided for Lots 24 and 25 to take access from Buckthorn Avenue, but that design was rejected by staff. He said the two lots will share a hammerhead driveway. He stated that each house had been custom placed on the lots with stepped foundations. He indicated a condition requiring that the house on Lot 27 be flipped would require additional grading. He said there is currently a 2 foot elevation difference inside of the house. He requested that the condition be deleted. He stated that the Design Review Committee had requested that Lot 28 be a numbered lot and the developer had concurred. Commissioner Vallette asked the square footage of Lot 28. Mr. Kirkpatrick replied 14,500 square feet. Commissioner Chitlea stated that the Trails Committee was concerned that on Lot 27 a horse trailer would not be able to access to the side yard. She asked if the house could be moved north to allow such access. Mr. Kirkpatrick thought the house could also be slightly rotated to open up the area to make the side yard accessible. Commissioner Chitiea indicated that would address the concerns of the Trails Committee. Chairman McNiel asked if the developer would be willing to return the elevations for the house on Lot 27 to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that would be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 22, i-,i Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the Trails Committee should also review the replotting of the house to be sure proper access is provided. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked the minimum centerline radius which could be used for Wilson. Mr. Hanson replied the 1,400 foot radius plotted would be the preferred minimum. Commissioner Melcher was concerned about the size of Lot 28 because more than half of the area will be sloped. He asked if the Wilson centerline could be moved north to enlarge Lot 28. Mr. Hanson responded that a study would have to be done to determine if the centerline could be moved north. Chairman McNiel asked the speed limit for Wilson. Mr. Hanson stated the street is designed to be constructed for 50 mph. Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to pursue moving the centerline in an effort to perhaps save some of the trees. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing again. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated the City had provided the Wilson alignment over two years ago and all of the design work during the last two years had been predicated on that alignment. He said they had attempted to enlarge Parcel 28 by working with Engineering and Planning. He indicated they had looked at what would happen if the radius were moved to 1,000 feet but there was minimal change to the yield on the lot to the south. He stated that to make the change now would not necessarily improve the subdivision, but would cause an extreme hardship to the developer. He said the change would only mean about a 1-foot shift in the centerline. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette wanted staff to try to save as many trees as possible. She requested that she be informed before any trees are removed. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, responded that when the precise location of the toe of the slope is determined, staff will consider the specific tree removal permit with the intention of saving additional trees if possible. Chairman McNiel discussed the design speeds. He stated the design was difficult because of the parameters of Wilson Avenue. Commissioner Melcher was concerned that Lot 28 would not be appropriate for the neighborhood because of the useable area after grading. He asked if Lot A and Lot 28 could be combined. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that would mean the City would assume the maintenance. He said one consideration had been to make the lot an equestrian rest stop, but that idea was deemed not appropriate. He stated it was also felt the area would not be appropriate as a pocket park because of the proximity to Heritage Park. He said both the Trails Committee and the Design Review Committee had debated the issue. Commissioner Chitiea commented that the resolution required the developer to contact the property owner to the south in an attempt to combine the two parcels. She asked if the developer had contacted the other owner as yet. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Kirkpatrick responded that they had not contacted the owner as yet, but would do so. He said that if the effort should prove unsuccessful, they would furnish the City with proof that a good faith effort had been made. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Move~ by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Er~virorm~tal AsseBsment and Ter~cative Tract 14207 and Var~a~e 91-O3, with modifications to rel~la~ ~he house 27 to the satisfaction of the Trails Advisory Committee and Design Review Committee and to preserve as many trees as possible in the eastern portion of the windrow along Wilson Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. , , , , , Fe TIME EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 11738 - HERMOSA/ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. ~NORDIC] - A subdivision of 2.48 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District, located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street - APN: 1074-051-01. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. There was no testimony, and Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 22, 1991 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Time Extension and Modification to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 11738. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-25 - DARLENE WEBER, WISE OAK SCHOOL - A proposal to build an approximately 1,050 square foot multi-purpose room addition and to operate a private elementary school on 1 acre within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Variance 90-12 and Tree Removal Permit 91-14 to transplant a single palm tree to a new location on site. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaratioa. He VRRI~NCE 90-12 - DARLENE WEBER, WISE OAK SCHOOL - A request to reduce the required side yard setback for a school use from 20 feet to 9 feet and the required side yard landscape setback from 10 feet to 3 feet at a private elementary school on 1 acre in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-341-04. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette asked if emergency vehicle access met safety standards. Mr. Guarracino responded affirmatively. improved by the circular driveway. He said access would be vastly Commissioner Melcher asked if the Fire Department had inspected the building. Mr. Guarracino replied that the applicant would have to pull occupancy permits and both Building and Safety and the Fire Department would perform final inspections. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Sewasky, R. C. Drafting Services, 10445 Cordon Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that a 12-foot strip across the front of the property will be dedicated for street widening. He said the Fire Department had recently inspected the building and had two recommendations which would be addressed. He reported the Fire Department indicated the the driveway will be sufficient for turnaround purposes. He said the applicant had worked with the City to upgrade the building and the site. He further reported that Building and Safety had requested some modifications. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy asked the time line for completion of the work. Mr. Sewasky stated he understood the applicant is planning to pull permits as soon as possible so that the work can be completed before the fall semester. Commissioner Melcher stated the site plan depicts a 7-foot high wall. asked if the wall will indeed be 7 feet high. He Mr. Sewasky responded they will match the existing wall. Commissioner Melcher asked if 7-foot high walls are permitted. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded they are permitted subject to a minor exception. Darlene Weber, Owner/Director of Wise Oak School, 9224 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they would comply with whatever the Planning Commission desires. She felt the improvements will enhance the community and improve safety for their students. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitlea felt the redssign of the driveway will faci-litate ingress and egress. She supported the project. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposed improvements will enhance the area and he supported the project. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-25 and Variance 90-12. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-18 - BOOTH - An appeal of certain conditions of approval for the development of a building contractor's office and storage yard totaling approximately 8,500 square feet on 1.35 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9037 Charles Smith Avenue, east of Rochester, north of 6th Street - APN: 229-271-41. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and a letter from the applicant's attorney protesting the in-lieu freeway landscaping fee. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked the City attorney to comment on the letter submitted by the ap~licant's attorney regarding the freeway landscaping. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, replied that the City feels there is a rational relation between the property and the freeway. He said the landscaping will be used to screen the outdoor storage and the only effective way =o screen the outdoor storage would be by such landscaping. Commissioner Melcher asked how the 91 cents per square foot figure was generated. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, responded that Engineering had calculated the figure from a landscaping proposal from Caltrans. He said it would be fairly minimal landscaping. Commissioner Melcher commented that in essence the City collects money and will landscape a large area in the future. He was concerned that the City will have collected the money and it will not be enough to pay for the landecaping. Chairman McNieX opened the public hearing. John Dalrymple, 9037 Rochester, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that landscaping along the freeway should be paid for by all who use the freeway. He reported that outdoor storage will be minimal and there are approximately eight eucalyptus trees already along the freeway. He indicated they had been unable to secure the permission of the adjoining property owner to conetruct a wall where the City had first requested, but they were willing to construct the flood mitigation wall on the north property line in compliance with the revised conditions. Lyle Krebs, 10302 Carrari Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that because most of the freeway is elevated he felt the expense incurred by the applicant would be a waste of money. Chairman McNiel stated that the City policy has been to require that individuals developing projects adjacent to the freeway provide money for landscaping of the freeway. He said the landscaping should provide trees which would eventually grow high enough to provide proper screening. Mr. Krebs asked that the City consider the small businessman trying to earn a living. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked the Caltrans design for the freeway landscaping. Mr. Guarracino replied that it includes irrigation, hydroseeding of groundcover and shrubs, and seedling trees. He said Caltrans does not have the funds to install the landscaping at the present time. Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt that the freeway landscaping will not do a great deal to screen the applicant's property at the present time. He pointed out that the applicant would be providing trees adjacent to the property line on the applicant's property. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that because of the elevation of the freeway, the screening done on Bite will provide only partial coverage. He said trees would need to be planted higher up on the slope of the freeway in order to provide more effective screening. He said it would take some time to establish, but the small size of plantings should provide a healthy root system which would eventually provide rather significant screening in a reasonable length of time. He said the screening is meant to soften the effect of the adjacent industrial uses. Chairman McNiel stated that the condition has been consistently applied to other development adjacent to the freeway and the City Council has upheld the policy in the past. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the 1-15 freeway is a window to the community and the City should attempt to provide a pleasant view. Commissioner Melcher stated he agreed with the goal but wondered if it w~--uld be possible to tie the requirement to the land but have the payment rendered at the time the landscaping is installed. Mr. Hanson responded that would be difficult, in that a lien would have to be placed on the property. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the method of collecting would be foreclosure. Commissioner Chitlea felt that would be a serious mistake. She thought it is appropriate to provide landscaping along the freeway because it helps soften the effect not only for the freeway travelers, but also those looking at the freeway from within the community. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 89-18. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE - affecting storage and parking residential properties. Review of current City regulations of Recreational Vehicles on private Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 22, lqql Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Irene Luevano, 7728 Montecito Court, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter in support of retaining the existing ordinance. She showed two pictures depicting a boat on a trailer stored in a driveway which she felt constituted an unsafe condition. She presented a petition signed by 34 homeowners living near the boat. The petitioners were in favor of retaining the ordinance and listed concerns about street parking congestion, visual obstruction of pedestrian traffic, and potential lowering of aesthetic value of the neighborhood. Ms. Luevano reported that she had previously lived in E1 Monte and at that time she fought to be permitted to park her RV On her lot but the driveways in E1 Monte are longer. She indicated that her own RV is not parked at her home because she felt the driveways in Terra Vista are too short to accommodate storage and the CC&Rs state that RVs cannot be stored within view of the street. She requested that the moratorium on enforcement be removed. Suzanne Tucker, 6575 Ash Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that fifth wheel trailers, heata, and RVs are in her neigh~rho~. Me sai~ they have long driveways and she felt they should have the ability to use the driveways to store RVs. She thought that if a vehicle can be stored safely, it should be allowed. Frank Fisher, 6240 Malvern Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived in the City since 1967 and owns a boat, motor home, and fifth wheel. He said the motor home sits in his driveway but does not obstruct anyone's vision. He commented that his motor home is fully self-contained and can be used to store earthquake supplies. He indicated he had never had any complaints from neighbors. Chuck Adinolfi, 7648 Fennel Road, stated he had lived in his home for 10 years. He indicated his lot is wide enough to store his camper on a special slab and he has stored a camper there for 10 years. He reported that he had invested over $70,000 on his unit. He stated there are no RV storage spaces available in Rancho Cucamonga. He requested an amendment to the ordinance to permit RV storage in the front yard areas with perhaps the addition of screening. He felt appearance and safety concerns should be addressed. He thought that on all new planned communities, the developer should set land aside for RV storage. He said the City affords great consideration for tree preservation and trails. He requested that tracts be grandfathered in to permit RV storage. He asked if the City had conducted any special studies regarding fires or hazards associated with RYe. Robert Arcinage, 7650 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the plan to require developers to set aside land for RVs. He thought developers should not be required to set aside land for a special interest group. He felt RVs should be kept in rear yards, not front yards. He thought the ordinance should be kept as is or made stronger. Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 22, 1991 Lyle Krebs, 10302 Carrari Street, Rancho Cucamonga, felt RVs should not be permitted to park on streets. He thought residents want a polished community and RV parking creates clutter and litter and interferes with street sweepers. He felt RV parking at homes causes friction between neighbors. He indicated he knew of one man who is converting a 60-foot bus to a mobile home and who is polluting the air by spray painting the bus. He thought the City was not strictly enfar~ing the restriction on working on vehicles in driveways or side yards. William Odom, 7649 Fennel Road, stated he did not own an RV but his home is in full view of several RV vehicles and RV vehicle attachments. He felt the ordinance is unfair to residents who take good care of their vehicles and do not encroach on the sidewalk. He said he understood that the ordinance is for safety and the betterment of the community, but he felt it should be directed at those who have unsightly or unsafe RVs. He suggested the City provide a City-run storage area. Ron Zebarth, 9602 La Colina, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has stored an RV on his lot for nine years. He suggested that if the City decided to retain the ordinance, the ti~M~ limit for storage should be extended to seven days to allow visitors to stay for a week. He indicated the ordinance does ~ot cover RV parking on the streets. He stated that i~ grsndfathering is not permitted, it will penalize the residents who have had RVs in the City for a number of years and it will change their lifestyle. He felt a permit process could be used in which the applicant would have to prove residency prior to ordinance adoption. He did not think grandfathering would be hard to police. He said he would be happy to work with the City on defining recreational vehicles. Sabrina Luboch, 11965 Rue Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had lived in her tract for 14 years. She said they had been ticketed for parking their boat in front of their house and they were the only house ticketed. She said the boat fits on their driveway. She felt that the ordinance should be 'applied equally. She said they have moved the boat to her parents' house, but it now requires driving an hour just to pick it up. She thought there is not enough room in the City to store the RVs and she felt the issue should be placed on the ballot. Debbie Nolan, 7638 Fennel, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had lived in her tract for 14 years. She said they have a trailer and take their children camping four to five times per year. She indicated they could not afford to pay a $45 per month storage fee. She stated they take pride in their neighborhood. She requested that the issue be placed on the ballot and that grandfathering be included for older tracts. Don Benson, 13040 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived in his home 26 years. He said that many retired people have RVs. He indicated he could not afford to pay for RV storage, and he felt such storage was not available anyway. He favored a grandfathering clause. He felt RV owners could be issued a permit to park on their property. He said that taxes are charged on RVs the same as on automobiles. He stated the City provides equestrian trails and RVs are merely a different form of entertainment. Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 22, 1991 Doug Carlson, 7335 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said he had lived there 13 years. He requeeted that the m~ratorium on RV parkiD4 enforcement he lifted so enforcement could be reinstituted and the City would look good again. He asked who would do the policing on how long an RV is parked in front of a house. Dave Geyer, 8859 Holly Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived in his home since 1955. He estimated there is an average of four to five RVs per block. He felt one of the biggest problems facing the City is lack of storage, and he thought the closest storage available would be in Chino. Jo Ann Johnson, 9683 Bolsa, stated she has been a resident for 21 years. She reported that one gentleman had his RV damaged while stored at a storage lot and his insurance would not cover the damage because the RV was not stored on his own property. She asked if a record had been kept of injuries or fires caused by RVs. Chairman McNiel responded that the Public Safety Commission had reviewed the RV issue. Ms. Johnson stated she had net heard anything about injuries actually happening. June Bamer, 13041 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said she had lived in her home for 23 years, during which time they generally had an RV. She indicated that the ordinance was enforced only when one neighbor complained about another. She did not feel the ordinance is fair and she requested that it be lifted. She felt there should be certain rules and regulations. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette asked if RV storage could be addressed as a law enforcement issue as opposed to a code enforcement one. Mr. Kroutil replied that the Sheriff generally only handles on-street parking. Chairman McNiel stated that if there had not been a problem in 1988, the ordinance would not have been passed. He said the the ordinance was passed following many complaints about unsightly RV storage. He indicated that part of the problem may be that the City only had enforced the ordinance in response to complaints. He stated that one resident had suggested that RVs are a form of recreation comparable to equestrian uses and he pointed out the City does not allow horses to be kept in front yards either. He felt the vast majority of residents do not own RVs. He thought storage facilities exist even if they may be inconvenient. He felt that if demand exists, the facilities will be available. Commissioner Melcher felt that it was equally true that the vast majority of residents do not own horses, but the City was looking at equestrian trails at a projected cost of $37,000,000. He thought the implementation of a permitting process may allow the City to exert a degree of control and he felt such a suggestion should be implemented for a trial period. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea felt the issuance of permits was an interesting idea which may be worth exploring. She asked what Commiesioner Melcher would suggest as parameters. Commissioner Melcher stated that the applicant would have to abide by whatever regulations were set up. Commissioner Chitiea asked if setbacks from sidewalks should be 5 feet, 10 feet, or some other distance. She questioned if screening should be required. She asked what Commissioner Melcher felt might be appropriate. Commissioner Melcher felt requirements could include a paved surface, certain setbacks from the front property line, and a prohibition of obstructing more than one-half of the garage. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had walked in Terra Vista and he was surprised at what he saw. He reported that RVs were parked on driveways with their wheels on the sidewalk. He felt the view corridor was enclosed. He thought the current ordinance is good and generally RVs should not be parked in front yards. ~e felt the idea of issuing permits could be explored. ~e did not feel visitors should be able to live in RVs for several weeks. ~e reported that the owner of the storage yard on Base Line in the Victoria Am had indicated to him that he was upset with the lack of customers for his available storage. Commissioner Vallette supported keeping the current ordinance. a permit process would lead to probable enforcement problems. She felt that Mr. Kroutil stated that a permit process is a tool to achieve a goal. He said it would first be necessary to know the City's goals in having such a process. He stated there would need to be a definition of requested setbacks, maintenance standards, etc. He noted the possible need for staffing and funding. He said the City Council would have to decide if the potential benefit is worth the cost. He indicated the primary question before the Commission was under what circumstances they feel that parking in front yards is acceptable. Commissioner Vallette felt the existing ordinance should be kept as is for safety and aesthetic reasons. She thought the ordinance only requires proper storage and she felt people make a conscious decision on where to live. She thought that those who wish to park RVs on their lots should purchase lots with proper RV storage available. Commissioner Chitiea felt that aesthetics are extremely important to the City. She said she recognized the needs of those people who own RVs and she thought front yard parking could perhaps be permitted a certain distance from sidewalks with a certain amount of screening. She was not sure she agreed with the comments of the Public Safety Commission separating self-contained vehicles from other forms of RVs. Motion: Moved by Vallette to recommend retention of the existing ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the other Commissioners would be willing to pursue a permitting process. Chairman McNiel felt such a provision would be acceptable, but it should be rather restrictive in terms of where an RV could be stored. Commissioner Melcher thought that keeping of an RV in the front yard should be subject to reasonable rules and he felt the impact on the neighborhood should not be overwhelming. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the idea may have merit and should be investigated. He stated he was in favor of lifting the moratorium and would like to have staff research how a permit process could be implemented. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the matter be forwarded to the City Council with a separate action being taken regarding the suggestion that the City Council consider establishment of a permit process. He said that if City Council determined a permit process should be pursued, the Council could refer the matter back to staff and the Planning Commission. com~issio~er Tolstoy seconded Commissioner Vallette's motion recommending retentio~ of the existing ordinance. Motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Chitlea, McNiei, Melcher - noes). Motion: Moved by Melcher to continue the ite~ to permit staff to explore the option of establishing a permitting process. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission needed to advise the Council regarding the current ordinance. Commissioner Melcher stated that the subject had been under study for more than one year and he thought it could be delayed until the new concept of permit issuance had been further studied. Commissioner Chitlea seconded Commissioner Melcher's motion to continue the item. Motion failed on a 2-3 vote (McNiel, Tolstoy, Vallette - noes). Chairman McNiel felt the item should be forwarded to City Council. He said he agreed with the current ordinance in virtually every element, but he felt a relaxation of the time limits might be appropriate. Commissioner Chitlea asked if the other Commissioners would recommend five or seven days as the maximum. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that five days would be satisfactory. Commissioner Melcher suggested seven days. He said he would only support the recommendation if it was recommended that City Council defer reinstitution of enforcement until the permitting process had been examined. Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea felt that the permitting process should not be a separate issue, but should be included in the motion. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy to recommend retention of the existing ordinance with an extension of the time limit to five days and a suggestion that the City further investigate the possibility of instituting a permitting praceas. Motjan failed on a 2-3 vote (Chitiea, Melcher, Vallette - noe8). Commissioner Vallette stated she felt 24 hours was adequate time to load an RV in preparation for a trip. She thought five days would add to the enforcement problem. Mr. Kroutil suggested two separate motions and indicated that the Public Safety Commission had forwarded two separate motions. Motion: Moved by Vallette to recommend retention of the existing ordinance with a suggestion that the City Council consider an option to relax the time limit to five days and to support the Public Safety Commission recu~endations. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion: Moved k~ Chitiea s~-oajded by Vallette, to (1) recommem~ retentio~ of the existing ordinance with relaxation of the time limit to five days and (2) a suggestion that if the Council felt modifications were desired, additional flexibility be considered under a permittingpr~cess with a[propriate criteria to be developed. Motion carried unanimously by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Vallette asked if the enforcement moratorium should be lifted while the criteria were being established in order to alleviate potential safety problems as shown in the pictures presented earlier. Mr. Kroutil suggested that as the Council had made the determination to suspend enforcement, the Commission may wish to leave such a decision to the Council. He stated that safety violations continue to be enforced. , , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 10:50 to 11:05 p.m. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. , , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -18- May 22, I~- Me ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02B - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMBNTAL ASSESSMEEE AN~ GENERAL PLAN AMEN~ 91-OIA - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Cummeruial ~r 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Commercial and Office as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01. Planning Commission Minutes -19- May 22, 1991 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill BQ~levard~ and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, llQO-Q41-04 talrough 10, llOO-051-G3, and 1IQ0-O61-02 through 04 az~tporti~nsQ~ ilQQ~GTI-G1 aadQ2. 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: Planning Commission Minutes -20- May 22, 1991 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres border.e~ Qn the n~rthweet by the Ontari~ (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Btiwa~da Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Appraximately 87.52 acres b~rdered on the m)rth hy Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road· The City will consider Office Professional as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. e Planning Commission Minutes -21- May 22, 1991 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use deaignati~n for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, and Vince Bettoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff reports. Commissioner Melcher asked if the perception is that all multi-family uses are making the community feel overwhelmed by multi-family or if it is really the higher-density apartment projects which proliferated in certain sections of the community which caused the alarm. He wondered if developing at 11-12 units per acre, which should produce town home projects, is viewed as problematical. Mr. Warren res~de~ that c~ncer~e were originally raised because of the higher density l~r~ect's beir~/dmvelo~ed. F~ said however w~n the builder percent~es were present~ to City ~unciI, the Council wanted m~re single- f~ily units built to ensure the character of the co~unity. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City Council direction was that all attached-type products would be considered multiple family and would be of concern. He said therefore, the density ranges of 8 dwelling units per acre or greater are being considered. Commissioner Melcher stated that in the area under consideration, there are currently no high-density projects. He asked if single-family densities of 4-8 can be achieved in the Etiwanda area which will meet the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Warren replied that the Etiwanda Specific Plan has larger minimum and average lot sizes than required in other areas of the City. He said the optimum standards allow more flexibility, but require significantly more open space around developments. Mr. Bullet stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the amendments before the Commission included a discussion of the Low Medium standards. He indicated the owners requested that the standards be relaxed to permit Low Medium standards similar to the rest of the City. He felt the Etiwanda Specific Plan would probably yield at most a 4-6 dwelling unit per acre product in the 4-8 Low Medium area. Commissioner Melcher stated that the Baseline Economic Analysis prepared prior to the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan determined there was a surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill Boulevard, but the applicants for Items I, J, K, and L had submitted a new economic analysis Planning Commission Minutes -22- May 22, 1991 - He asked if the which indicated there is not a surplus of commercial land. new study had been prepared by a disinterested party. Mr. Warren replied it had been prepared under contract to the City by the same consultant who prepared the Baseline Analysis. Commissioner Melcher felt that although that information was encouraging he was still concerned, given the level of development occurring along Foothill. He asked if the traffic study was performed under City auspices. Mr. Bertoni replied that the traffic study was performed at the request of the Engineering Division and was accepted by Engineering as adequate. Commissioner Melcher asked why staff considered Low Medium residential as an alternative when the applicant was requesting a change to Commercial and Community Commercial. Mr. Warren replied that staff felt a change to Low Medium should also be considered because of the Council's direction to l~c~& at all undeveloped multi-family parcels. Commissioner Melcher asked if it was etaff'[ intention that development should be themed like the potentially historical service station. Mr. Warren responded that it is anticipated that the historic value would be in relation to Route 66. He thought perhaps adaptive reuse of the structure would be a possibility and future development may emulate the architectural design. Commissioner Melcher commented that the application's justification proposed removal of the service station. Mr. Warren stated that if the structure is determined to be historic, accommodations would have to be made by the applicant. Me said if the Specialty Commercial were granted, the City would expect that the historic feature be considered with the development. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, reported that the applicant's proposal was dated prior to staff's completion of the historical analysis of the building. Commissioner Melcher asked how a change from Medium to Low Medium Residential would affect the City's affordable housing program. Mr. Warren responded that there is no policy in the housing element that specifies a certain number of multi-family housing units must be built. He indicated multi-family housing will still be built. He said the money for low-cost housing can be used for single-family as well as multi-family units. Mr. Henderson stated that the number of necessary affordable units in the housing element will change periodically based on regional numbers generated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). He said the Planning Commission Minutes -23- May 22, 1991 City is also given the option of challenging the numbers if they do not fit into land use plans. He stated that currently builders are not providing low- cost housing on their own initiative because land costs have grown so rapidly. He felt the City would probably have to participate directly through the Redevelopment Agency's set-aside fund. Co~,issioner Melcher asked for some background Qn Mr. Banks' letter. He said it appeared there had been a compromise to permit higher density in the area south and east of the freeway because of pressure from the developers. He stated it appeared the developers of the plan were more concerned with keeping low density north of the freeway. Chairman McNiel stated there were two large local groups: a Residents' Association of Etiwanda and a Landowners' Association, which had a number of absentee landowners with rather large parcels, mostly in the north area. He said the primary concern of the residents was to maintain the existence and character of Etiwanda north of Base Line. He said their interests were not as strong south of Base Line and particularly south of the freeway. Commiseioner Melcher commented that the higher-density zones were placed around the freeway in a manner tending to buffer lesser densities and mote sensitive uses from the freeway e~virofu.ant. Chairman McNiel stated that some of the area was designated Medium Residential when there were efforts to make it all con~nercial. Mr. Buller stated that based on the information presented and discussed during the Etiwanda Specific Plan hearings, the best planning decision at the time was reached. However, he said new information has been considered by the City Council and a new direction has now been received from the City Council. Commissioner Melcher asked what would happen to the U. S. Homes project if changes were made to the designations. Mr. Warren stated that if the City Council adopts a Low Medium designation, all development would be subject to those standards. He said there are drainage issues involved which have delayed the U. S. Homes project. Mr. Buller stated that U. S. Homes had indicated to the Planning Commission that they have made a significant investment in their application and did not wish to drop the application. He reported they were represented at the Neighborhood Meeting and had requested that the Low Medium standards be reconsidered to be equivalent to Low Medium within the remainder of the City. He said they have indicated they could not build what they feel is the appropriate Medium development, but instead they want to build single-family homes with a request to modify the Etiwanda Specific Plan to permit standards that would give them that option. He stated if the land is redesignated Low Medium, the developer will have to reconsider their application. He felt it would be prudent for the Commission to discuss whether they would consider changing the Low Medium standards in Etiwanda. Planning Commission Minutes -24- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if the Southern Pacific right-of-way may not become a light rail corridur. Mr. Henderson stated that if the Santa Fe line is not purchased, it will be several years before the Southern Pacific line can be used because it is in such poor condition. He stated that no matter what type of housing density is built, a noise analysis would be required based on the use of the railroad and mitigation measures would be required. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Van Stephens, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the agent for Group 66 Partnership. He appreciated staff's work on the application and indicated he felt the requested amendment to Commercial is warranted. He did not think the area is conducive to residential development because of heavy traffic on Foothill Boulevard. He felt an activity center would be well-served by master planning. He commented that additional commercial uses would bring additional revenue to the City. He showed a graphic of the proposed street alignment and the addition of a collector street. He thought the size of the parcal w~uld he good for c~mmercial uses. Because o~ the dee~ sate, he indicated it would not be developed with strip commercial, but would be consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Stephens felt that Subarea 1 to the south of Foothill Boulevard would also be inappropriate for Low Medium Residential. Mr. Stephens replied that he had not reviewed Subarea 1 in detail. He indicated it may have different aspects, but he generally did not feel that single family residences should be so close to Foothill Boulevard. Charles Cummins, 1645 North Laurel Avenue, Upland, respectfully requested that the northeast corner of Foothill and Etiwanda be changed to Commercial. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Cummins agreed with the recommended designation of Specialty Commercial. Mr. Cummins stated he would prefer the regular Commercial designation because he felt Specialty Commercial would restrict the uses. Commissioner Melcher asked what he planned to do with the service station. Mr. Cummins responded that he was willing to do whatever the City wants; however, he believed the service bay canopy will extend into the right-of-way. Lloyd Zola, Planning Network, 9375 Archibald Avenue, #101, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the outside canopy pilars will stand in the right-of-way. He indicated the original desire was to remove the service station as such a use would not be permitted in the area. He asked that the area not be Specialty Commercial because it has not yet been determined that the building is historically significant. He reported that the latest study indicates a lack Planning Commission Minutes -25- May 22, 1991 of commercial uses in the area and he felt the commercial land use is compatible with surrounding uses. Donald Phillips, 8011 Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns a house immediately north of the vacant service station. He requested that his property be zoned commercial. Gary Womack, 5366 Evening Canyon Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works for Grubb & Ellis and he feels the community needs more commercial property. Father Fred Gaglia, Pastor, Sacred Heart Church, 12704 Foothill B~ulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the church requested that the small portion of their property in Subarea 3 be rezoned Commercial to be the same as the remainder of their property. He did not feel the area is conducive to residential development. Li Li Hwang, Fu Mai, 7168 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they purchased the property with the intention of developing under certain criteria. She felt downzoning would create a financial hardship. She said the traffic generated by Price Club and the future regional mall would not be appropriate in a sinqle-~am.ily area. She requested that the Medium density be maintained. S~e ~elt tha= Mast Avenue will also have a high density tr&ffi~ volume. She said that U. S. Homes apecializee in single-family units, so they were in favor of the change, but her company is just a small company. Robert Larry Arcinage, 7650 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was involved in the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said Jim Banks was a leader of the residents' group. He indicated the Medium Residential was a trade-off to require one-half acre lots north of Base Line and one acre lots further north. He felt that any major commercial site should have a buffer zone of Medium Residential before changing to Low Medium. He felt the utility corridor should be buffered by an apartment house. He thought apartment dwellers have more flexibility to move if they decide they are not happy with a surrounding area. He opposed the change from Medium to Low Medium, but felt that if the City should decide to change the designation, consideration should be given to requiring a buffer zone around major shopping centers and major arteries. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi-Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, #220, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Gramercy Properties, and they opposed the zoning changes to the property. He felt that Miller will be the northern access for the regional mall and will be linked to the properties to the east. He thought Medium Residential will permit better mitigation of the noise from the elevated freeway. He said they had submitted an application for development, but it has been stalled because of a drainage issue. He did not feel it is realistic to presume that all Medium Residential is automatically multi-family. He said that staff has indicated they are not sure single-family detached homes could be developed at a yield of greater than 3.25 per acre because of the minimum 10,000 square foot lots, even though the Low Medium Residential equates to 4-8 dwelling units per acre. He thought the proposed zone changes would only equate to a loss of 2,800 multi-family Planning Commission Minutes -26- May 22, 1991 units as opposed to the 4,000 shown in the staff report and the increase in single-family unite would equal 1,500 instead of the 2,600 indicated in the report. He did not feel the area is an appropriate market area for Low Medium zoning. He also requested that Low Medium standards for the Etiwanda area be studied. Jeff Sceranka, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was on the task force which studied the Etiwanda area. He felt that Medium Residential permits preservation of the rural character better than cookie- cutter single-family homes. He thought that multi-family allows larger setbacks and paseos. He felt Medium Residential is an appropriate designation adjacent to freeways and arterials. He said neighborhood commercial business is going to Fontana because there is none available along Base Line on the eastern part of the City. He indicated the City has an opportunity to permit a neighborhood shopping center adjacent to the freeway which would permit an interesting entrance to the City from the freeway. Richard Dahl, 5444 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was representing I. S. Properties, who own property adjacent to the freeway off/on ramp. He felt there should be a special designation uader the Commercial zone. Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, requested that their property in Subarea 8 be separated from the remainder of the subarea because it has a 20 foot easement along the freeway which cannot be used. She said a 20-foot high wall will be required along the freeway off-ramp. She reported that the parcel is only 10 acres, and will be even smaller when East Avenue is widened. She indicated their parcel is bordered by the freeway, the railroad, and East Avenue. She thought that if the property were downzoned, it would effectively preclude their ability to either build on or sell their property. She said she had been present at the onset of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and she felt it had been a commendable job. John Fowler, 7198 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned the 10-acre parcel to the west of East Avenue in Subarea 8. He thought that if the property were changed to Low Medium he would not be able to develop or sell his property. He felt that the high drainage system cost would not support Low Medium Residential development, and the area would be an ideal neighborhood commercial center. Dr. Ralph Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, stated they have owned the property for 30 years. He did not feel the area should be zoned Residential, but should be Office or Commercial. He said traffic is too noisy for Residential development. He also indicated East Avenue will be a major artery. Mr. Sceranka felt Office/Professional should not be considered as an alternate designation because he thought there is an overabundance of Office/Professional in the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -27- May 22, 1991 Mr. Warren stated that the numbers indicated in the staff report regarding the reduction of multi-family units and the increase of single-family units referred to a cumulative effect of the amendments under consideration along with other anticipated amendments. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02B J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03 Commissioner Chitiea supported Commercial on General Plan Amendment 90-O2B. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-02B and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-03 changing land use designations to Commercial and Community Commercial respectively. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01A L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to change to Specialty Commercial until such time as a determination is made regarding the historical significance of the service station but then automatically revert to Community Commercial if the service station is determined insignificant. Mr. Bullet stated that a Specialty Commercial designation in itself would not cause the building to remain. Commissioner Vallette suggested recommending Community Commercial and requesting that the City Council determine if the building should be saved. Commissioner Melcher asked if Community Commercial would be injurious to the service station. Mr. Buller stated that the value of the service station would be the same whether the area were changed to Community Commercial or Specialty Commercial. Planning Commission Minutes -28- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Melcher commented that the scale of the service station is so small compared to the Thomas Winery, that he thought Community Commercial to be an appropriate designation. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred and pointed out that the canopy would have to be remuved because of its proximity to Foothill Boulevard. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-01A and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 changing land use designations to Commercial and Community Commercial respectively. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN~ ~ PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B (Subareas 1 through 8) N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT aND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 (Subareas 1 and 2) O. ENVIRONMRNT~T. ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 (Subareas 1 through 6) General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard SDecific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1): Commissioner Melcher felt that in light of the testimony about how inappropriate the area on the north side of Foothill would be for Low Medium, it would not make sense to change the area on the south side of Foothill Boulevard to Low Medium. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission could recommend Office/ Professional or Commercial. Commissioner Chitlea suggested the Commission may wish to recommend the designation not be changed from Medium. Commissioner Vallette suggested the Commission propose a set of options. Mr. Warren stated that staff did not perform any in-depth analysis other than for Low Medium Residential. He indicated staff found no evidence to indicate support for either Commercial or Low Residential uses at the location. He suggested that if the Commission felt something other than the current Medium or the proposed Low Medium were appropriate, the matter should be returned to staff for further analysis. Planning Commission Minutes -29- May 22, 199: Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to recommend denial of the .... amendment. Chairman McNiel indicated that the area to the west is developed with single- family homes in a Low Residential designation. Mr. Bertoni stated a ~tility corridor separates the area from the Low Residential to the west. Commissioner Tolstoy felt staff should prepare an analysis. Mr. Buller suggested that the subarea could be returned with the next General Plan cycle. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 1) and Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1) to the next General Plan cycle. General Plan~endmen= 91-O2B. {Subarea 2) and Foothill Boulevard S~ecific Plan Amendment 91-02 ~Subarea Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette thought the area should be Commercial. Commissioner Melcher commented that staff recommended Office in the eastern portion of the subarea. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 2) changing the land use designation to Commercial and Office and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 2) changing land use designation to Community Commercial and Commercial Office. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , General Plan Amendment 91-02B fSubarea 1] and Foothill Boulevard SDecifiC Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1): Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission forward Subarea 1 to the City Council with a recommendation of denial rather than continuing the item to the next General Plan cycle. Planning Commission Minutes -30- May 22, 1991 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, unanimously carried, to reconsider Environmental Assessment andGeneral Plan Amandma~t 91-02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to recommend denial of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard .Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3] and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 ~subarea Commissioner Vallette stated that this subarea includes the triangle ~ la~d which the church requested be changed to Commercial. Mr. Buller suggested that the church be permitted to pursue the matter as a separate application. Commissioner Tolstoy etated it is always hard to transition =rum Commercial to single-family residential. He felt there should be a buffer of higher density between the two uses. Chairman McNiel felt the transition is not an insurmountable problem and had been successfully dealt with in the past. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the buffering effect is needed for good planning. Commissioner Melcher concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy and felt there should also be a buffer from the freeway. Commissioner Vallette asked why the area should be considered inappropriate for single-family residential but the same consideration should not be given to multi-family. She wondered why more people should be subjected to the noise of the freeway. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pitassl stated that multi-family development allows more flexibility to mitigate the surroundings, by increasing setbacks, allowing additional landscaping, and including architectural features which can screen the tenants from adjacent uses. Planning Commission Minutes -31- May 22, 1991 Commissioner Melcher etated that in multi-family development the back of a building facing the freeway would permit buildings ~o he placed closer to the freeway. Mr. Pitassi asked if it is appropriate to have residential uses adjacent to a freeway. Mr. Buller suggested the area may call for a mixed-use development. He indicated it is a difficult site because it sits down 20 - 30 feet below the freeway. Mr. Henderson suggested that since it was almost 2:00 a.m., the Commission may wish to continue the balance of the discussion to their next meeting. Mr. Buller thought the Commission may wish to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, May 29, 1991, as that would be the fifth Wednesday in the month. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to continue the balance of the agenda to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambear. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adjourn. 2:00 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber to finish the balance of the agenda. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet___ Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -32- May 22, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 16, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COFa4ISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: , , , , , PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner PRELIMINARY WORK SHOP ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - THE WATTSON COMPANY - Review of conceptual plans for an 111,000 square foot Price Club facility within a 60-acre retail/commercial center within Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Etiwanda Avenue and Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-03 thru 13, 15, 16, 20. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the project and the changes that had been made to the Price Club elevations. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, discussed the negotiations with The Price Company that had occurred over the past several weeks. The Commission reviewed the revised conceptual plans submitted by The Price Company on May 16, 1991. The Commission felt that, based on the desires of The Price Company, the element at the entry could be simplified and, at the same time, provide a better design. The Commission suggested that the sloped roof be replaced with a flat roof, as was done at the tire center entry. The roof tile would be eliminated. Also, the transition of the roof as it turns the corner of the building would be smoother. It was the consensus of the Commission (4-1, Chitiea noe) to recommend that staff pursue the above solution with The Price Company. If the design was not acceptable, the mmission felt that the original design submitted by The Price Company acceptable. Th ng urned at 10:00 P.M. F-~_spect submi ed, Otto K CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 8, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room 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; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS STUDY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The review and discussion of various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family projects. Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that the Commission review the items that still have an unclear direction as marked in the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if there is a difference in the quality of development between the city-wide area and the two planned communities. He also stated that if we have been applying the same standards from the Development Code to the two planned communities, then the quality of design should be the same. Joe Olsen, Lewis Homes, stated that at the time of the Community Plan development, a deal. was struck with the negotiation of the Central Park in exchange for some flexibility of the street setbacks. Mr. Buller stated that the two planned communities have a whole network of open space. The Commission raised concerns with the building setbacks being too close to the street. On top of that, the buildings have stairwells and patios encroached into the setback areas which made it worse. Mr. Buller suggested that an alternative to increasing the street setback for the two planned communities is to bring the setback in consistency with one another. Representatives from Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. agreed to this alternative. Commissioner Vallette stated that a design guidebook should be made available to the development community to assist them in designing projects. Mr. Buller stated that staff will prepare a draft chapter of the design guidebook for multi-family projects as an interim solution. He also stated that the graphics in the guidebook will be simple and rough. The Commission reviewed the language for the new standard requiring solid walls between garage units. The majority of the Commission agreed with the language. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi/Dalmau Architects, stated that this new standard would require addition ventilation for the garage buildings and increased building size as each separation wall would add 5 inches. Commissioner Tolstoy raised concerns that visitor parking areas are hard to find in multi-family projects as they are not properly signed. The consensus of the Commission was to add new standards requiring directory signs and individual signs to identify visitor parking areas. Mr. Buller clarified for the Commission that the new standards for laundry facilities require interior washer/dryer facilities for each unit or common laundry facilities at a rate of one washer/dryer for each five units. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on May 16, 1991, following Design Review at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the Foothill Market Place- Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 8, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 8, 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: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, announced that Items E, F, G, and H were recommended for a continuance to June 12, 1991. He indicated that tonight's meeting would adjourn to a public workshop immediately following to discuss those items. Mr. Kroutil reported that staff was requesting a continuance of Items I and J in order to allow time to consider additional materials which had been submitted by the applicant. · , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the Minutes of April 10, 1991. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 - PITASSI DALMAU - A request to develop a 45,150 square foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of land within the Recreati~'~nal Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, north of Church Street - APN: 227-151-13. Ce VACATION OF A PORTION OF VINCENT AVENUE INCLUDING THE ADJACENT 10-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK EASEMENT - A request to vacate a portion of Vincent Avenue including the adjacent 10-foot wide sidewalk easement, located north of Jersey Boulevard, east of Red Oak Street - APN: 209-144-27 Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, announced that staff had received a request to pull Item A from the Consent Calendar in order to allow the attorney for the applicant to address the Commission. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt Items B and C of the Consent Calendar. , , , , A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 Mr. Kroutil stated the applicant would like to address issues which they felt the Planning Commission did not allow them to properly address. He indicated the item would need to be advertised for public hearing if the Commission decided to consider the project. Chairman McNiel invited public comment as to whether the Commission should reconsider the application. Alan Kaitz, Attorney, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 820, Irvine, stated the applicant felt he had not been able to properly address the concerns of the Planning Commission. He indicated the applicant thought the desires of the Planning Commission could be accommodated. He asked that the Commission give direction to staff to further work with the applicant. He reported that the applicant had thought the project would be automatically approved, so he was not prepared to address the objections raised by the Planning Commission at the April 24, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. He felt the project could be a benefit to the community at large. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 8, 1991 Chairman McNiel stated the Commission had already gone through a full public hearing. Commission Melcher stated he was in favor of directing staff to advertise a new public hearing to allow the applicant the option of further addressing the Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to direct staff to readvertise a public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-08. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA- A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan by adding swap meet and extensive impact commercial use and their development criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. James Page, 15643 Sherman Way, Van Nuys, concurred with the staff report. He indicated that at the last meeting a reference had been made to the swap meet in Santa Ana and the fact that they have experienced parking problems even though their requirements call for one space per 150 square feet. He reported that the swap meet is located at the corner of Warner Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, both six-lane streets, and that there is an access problem. He felt the parking lot is more than adequate for the 160,000 square foot facility. He commented that the facility is run six days per week (closed on Tuesdays). He said the four driveways all secure access from a 60-foot wide street. He indicated that because the swap meet operates the same hours as the surrounding industrial uses, large trucks park on the 60-foot street making it difficult to exit the parking lot. He thought Valley Indoor Swap Meet in Woodland Hills to be closer to their use. He said that particular swap meet generates 363 trips during peak hours. He reported his traffic study projects 313 trips during peak hour. He indicated that if they project 400 public cars plus 100 vendor cars, that would only account for 500 vehicles, while the site they are interested in has over 700 spaces. He requested that the use be approved at one space per 150 square feet rather than one space per 100 square feet. He also requested that the square footage calculation be based on only actual sales space. He suggested that on a Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 8, 1991 100,000 square foot building, one space per 150 square feet would allow the use of approximately 50,000 square feet for retail use, while one space per 100 square feet would only allow the use of approximately 33 percent. He said they were in the process of securing the completed parking and traffic study. Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, 10370 Commerce Center, Rancho Cucamonga, reported a traffic/parking analysis was being conducted by Austin Faust and he felt that facilities are available in the City to meet the requirements. He requested that the parking ratio be determined at a later point, in the conditional use permit process, rather than being defined in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. He indicated some facilities may operate different hours than the balance of surrounding users. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, felt the parking issue to be at the heart of the matter. He thought parking requirements should be spelled out in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel agreed. He preferred to make the controls rigid and indicated the City could relax controls in the future if they felt that would be in the best interest. Mr. Clouse asked if it would be possible to set the parking minimum at one space per 150 square feet in the ordinance with the possibility of changing to one space per 100 square feet in the conditional use permit process. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated he would prefer to have actual experience that one space per 100 square feet is working before lowering the standard. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Planning Commission was currently considering an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to define swap meets and he did not feel it was appropriate to discuss a specific application. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested the Commission might wish to consider delaying the action on the Specific Plan Amendment until staff had time to review the traffic and parking study being prepared for the applicant. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the amendment would have to be forwarded to the City Council for final action, and the Council would have the right to change the recommendation if the parking study should indicate another number would be applicable. Commissioner Melcher suggested the item be continued. He indicated he would prefer to leave the ratio of parking open with the Commission determining appropriate parking during the conditional use permit process with the submission of a parking study. Commissioner Tolstoy stated a parking study would be for a specific site and the amendment is for the entire City. He did not feel the amendment should be driven by one specific application. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 8, 1991 Commissioner Melcher suggested the parking be specified at one space per 150 square feet with submission of a parking study justifying the ratio and one space per 100 square feet in the absence of such study. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would prefer to be on the conservative side because the City has experienced parking problems in the past. Commissioner Vallette asked if the one space per 150 square feet was conservative compared to other cities. Ms. Hernandez responded that the most conservative requirement was six parking spaces per retail stall. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested one space per 100 square feet with a provision that the Planning Commission could change the requirement to one space per 150 square feet if the applicant submitted appropriate justification studies. Motion: Moved by Melcher to continue Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 to June 12, 1991, to allow staff time to study the parking issue in more detail. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if anyone objected to a continuance. Mr. Clouse stated the applicant for the upcoming conditional use permit would prefer the matter be voted on and passed to City Council. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the Resolution recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 with a parking requirement of one space per 100 square feet, but modified to provide that the Planning Commission could allow parking at one space per 150 square feet subject to presentation of traffic and parking studies. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts· Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 8, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Tetra Vista Planned Community area· Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from April 24, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCMO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991·) Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 to June 12, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , · , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 - RICHARD STENTON - Modification of conditions of approval to allow land uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided for research and development (1 space per 350 square feet) within an existing industrial complex on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Buffalo and 6th Street - APN: 229-261-78. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Je ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - The request to establish a "mini-mall" (swap meet) in a leased space of 103,552 square feet within an existing industrial center on 13.77 acres of land in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-026-28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file Conditional Use Permit 86-06. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 8, 1991 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, 10370 Commerce Center, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they were waiting for additional traffic and parking studies before continuing. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel to continue Environmental Assessment and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-06 and Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-03 to June 12, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Ke CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-12 - VCD ARCHITECTS - The request to permit an architect's office within an existing 6,500 square foot building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10743 Edison Court - APN: 209-142-67. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that if additional roof-mounted equipment were needed to air condition the expanded office area, that the additional equipment be properly screened. Mr. Ross replied that additional equipment had been added. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that a screening condition be added to the Resolution. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chary Dagam, President, VCD Architects, 10743 Edison Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had purchased the building in order to have an office. He indicated that when he was informed he needed a Conditional Use Permit, he applied. He reported he has four employees and most of the work is done by outside consultants. He said he added a two-ton air conditioner, which is screened. He requested approval. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he had visited the applicant's office. Chairman McNiel felt the use is not uncommon for the area. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 8, 1991 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-12 with modification to require appropriate screening of all roof-mounted equipment. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Le PRELIMINARY REVIEW 91-06 - CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - A courtesy review of a proposed 10 classroom addition to the existing school site on 3.44 acres of land in the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place - APN: 1077-091-35. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and a memo from Engineering with suggested changes. Chairman McNiel asked what type of modulars would be installed. Ms. Hernandez responded that they would be the same as other modulate currently on site. Commissioner Melcher stated he had talked with School Principal Pat Hatchet and she indicated a looping sidewalk will tie the school and park together. He requested that the trees which had been removed for construction be replaced. He asked that the Planning Commission direct staff to send a letter to Lewis Homes reminding them of their obligation to save and replace the trees. He also suggested that the developer be urged to employ temporary measures to keep the grass green during construction. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the sending of the letter. location will become a permanent school site. He asked if the Ms. Hernandez stated that the east playground will serve the permanent school. She indicated that when the temporary school facilities are removed and the permanent school is built, the trees will remain. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated the trees are an important design element of the permanent school site. He felt any removed trees should be replaced with like kind and size specimens. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated t'hat some trees were removed for development of the new addition to the temporary Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 8, 1991 school. He indicated they will be replaced at the appropriate time. He reported that some of the work is being delayed until school is out for the summer, at which time there will be additional construction. He said that the area of lawn that has died is in an area which is being redesigned. He commented that a new sprinkler system is being designed and new turf will be planted and should be green before the fall semester. Commissioner Melcher indicated he was satisfied that temporary irrigation measures would then not be necessary. Mr. Oleson felt that recently Lewis had been very sensitive to tree preservation. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel thanked the school district for allowing the courtesy review. It was the consensus of the Commission that the removed trees should be replaced. , , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel to adjourn. 8:10 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following the meeting regarding multi-family housing standards. That workshop was scheduled to adjourn to a May 16, 1991, workshop following Design Review at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding Foothill Market Place. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 8, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 2, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette STAFF PRESENT: Nannette Bhaumik, Assistant Landscape Designer; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Ping Kho, Assistant Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer , , · , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-20 - SYCAMORE VILLAGE - The development of 16.94 acres for a mixed office/commercial master plan, consisting of 11 office/retail buildings totaling 173,450 square feet with Phase 1 development consisting of 6 two-story office/retail buildings totaling 113,450 square feet on 3.21 acres of land in the Specially Commercial District of Subarea i of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Baker Avenue and Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-191-13, 16, 24, 25, and 41. Tree Removal application pending. ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER Larry Wolff and David Dean, Wolff, Lang, Christopher Architects; Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra Associates. O~ER/APPLICAMT Matthew Jordan and Richard Crean, Arroyo De Los Osos Ltd, Partnership; Edward Hopson, representing Arroyo De Los Osos , , , · The purpose of the workshop was to allow the applicants an opportunity to address design issues specified by the Planning Commission in past workshops and/or Design Review Committee meetings. This workshop, as with the two previous meetings on the project, had been specifically requested by the development team to expedite processing by receiving feedback on the major design issues with the understanding that the project has not been formally accepted as complete for processing. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, briefly explained the purpose and intent of the workshop and updated the Commissioners and development team on the status of the sycamore grove perpetuation plan. Larry Wolff, Wolff, Lang, Christopher Architects, highlighted the proposed modifications to the major design issues from the previous Design Review Committee meeting. First, Mr. Wolff summarized the pros and cons of each of the three grading/retaining wall concepts for Red Hill. He explained that the development team still preferred the crib wall concept, with the terraced retaining walls as second choice. Secondly, Mr. Wolff indicated how Building "G" had been redesigned and lowered by excavating the parking structure deeper so that it is completely below natural grade, the plate height lines were reduced and the central entry element was significantly revised. He said these elements now combine for a high point of 39 feet, some 18 feet lower than the original height of Building "G." Mr. Wolff reported that this building had been designed with a reduced number of details in favor of the massing the Committee requested at the previous meeting. Finally, he stated that the contemporary color scheme had been revised with more "rustic" colors, as per previous Committee comments. David Dean, Wolff, Lang, Christopher Architects, added that more rock-faced landscape planter walls with more substantial rock-faced columns were added to the south elevation of Building "G" to address previous Committee concerns for massing. Chairman McNiel preferred grading alternative concept "A" (parallel terraced rock-faced retaining walls), assuming the new concrete swalee on Red Hill would be disguised through the use of rock, landscaping, etc. Mr. Kroutil suggested that Mr. Guerra (Engineer) and Mr. Ryan (Landscape Architect) work together to derive an effective solution to this issue. Commissioner Chitlea suggested that a berming concept be studied to aid in screening concrete swales. Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra & Associates, confirmed that he and Mr. Ryan will work on a sensitive approach to the swale screening issue. The Commission concurred that alternative "A" was the preferred grading approach. Commissioner Tolstoy raised the issue of minimal parking within Phase i and suggested that the applicant provide parking above and beyond the minimum code requirements to allow for future tenants that may be more parking intensive (medical offices, restaurants, beauty salons, etc.). Richard Crean, Arroyo De Los Osos Partnership, concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy and agreed to address this issue for further Commission review. Commissioner Melcher commended the architect for the reduction of the massing of Building "G." However, he felt the projection of the second floor, Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 2, 1991 combined with the recess of the first floor would produce a base element that is not proper in proportion or mass with the building as a whole. His main objection to the new Building "G" design was the central entry area, in that the roof gable does not relate to a majority of the building and the pedestrian entrance appears too contemporary and out of character with the "Bungalow" architectural style. He recommended that the entrance be brought down to a "human scale." Commissioner Chitiea shared the same concerns as Commissioner Melcher. In addition, she explained her continued objection to the design of the metal railings and the contemporary appearance it projects on all of the buildings. chairman McNiel did not object to the use of the metal framework due to its ease of maintenance. Mr. Wolff addressed the comments regarding roof line variation for the central portion of Building "G" and suggested a parallel roofline solution. This solution was not included in the submittal package because the option presented was preferred by the development team. Commissioner Melcher reaffirmed his concern regarding the "fighting of rooflines" on Building "G." Overall, a majority of the Commission had no objections to the lower, sweeping, overhanging roofs shown on the revised Building "G" elevations. Commissioner Melcher directed the architect to provide design alternatives for the central portion of Building "G" at the next meeting. Mr. Wolff suggested ridge vents or lowering the roofline parallel to the primary roof plane to address the Commission concerns for the Building "G" entrance. He also agreed to make the Building "G" elevations simpler to address the Commission concerns for a "rustic" appearance. Commissioner Melcher suggested incorporating elements from the end elevations of other buildings within the project to address this concern. Mr. Wolff touched on the development team's anticipated time table for further review. Mr. Kroutil and Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, briefly highlighted the remaining issues and provided a compressed timeline for further Commission and Committee review. Mr. Wolff asked the Commission if the revised color scheme was acceptable. The Commission concurred that the color scheme was better than the original scheme, but the accent colors should be modified somewhat for lesser contrast (rust and olive). , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 2, 1991 ADJOURNMENT 9:10 p. . - Pla ng Commission adjourned. Res~ mitts Otto Krc~~~il ' Deputy S '~ Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 2, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 25, 1991 Vice Chairman Chitiea called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, John Melcher, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner II. MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS STUDY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The review and discussion of various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family projects. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The Commission had several questions on the current setback standards for multi-family projects when adjacent to single family residences. Nancy Fong clarified how the current standards are applied to those projects. The Conunission then decided that the current standards are adequate. The Commission further discussed the adequacy of the current standard requiring 2-story buildings to be setback 100 feet from the single family residences. Nancy Fong clarified that the setback is measured from the property line and/or the development district line and not from the single family house. Brad Buller, City Planner, arrived at the meeting. He suggested that the Co~nission review those items which appear to have clear direction and agreement from the Commission first. Then, when time permits, the Commission could further discuss those items for which more discussion and direction is needed. Chairmen McNiel arrived at 4:30 p.m. On the topic of minimum lot area, Commissioner Tolstoy asked how many lots in the City would be impacted by the new standard. Brad Buller stated that staff could do some additional work to find out the total number of lots that would be substandard. The Commission clarified that lockable storage space is to be located on the exterior of the unit with direct access from the outside and the design is to be architecturally integrated. Also, lockable storage space should only be within the enclosed garage and not carport. The Commission then moved on to those items that have clear direction but need additional work. With regards to the current standard requiring 2-story buildings to be 100 feet away from the single family residences, Brad Buller suggested that the Commission table this topic. The Commission agreed. The Commission had further discussion regarding requirements of recreation amenities. Pete Pitassi, Pete Pitassi & Associates, suggested that staff look into the park credit Ordinance for additional resources. With regards to amending the two Planned Communities increasing the street setbacks as close to the Development Code as possible, the Commission suggested that Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company submit new standards for staff review. Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company agreed. As for the item concerning building property lines, staff will prepare Commission to review. separations and setback from additional graphics for the Brad Buller recommended that the meeting be adjourned to the May 8, 1991 regular Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT 6:00 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 25, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 24, 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 Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman McNiel made a presentation to Gail Sanchez in honor of National Secretary's Day. Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that the Commission may wish to consider continuing Items H, I, J, and K to May 22, 1991, because the Commission had scheduled another workshop for April 25, 1991. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of March 27, 1991. , , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-19 - FORIA INTERNATIONAL - The development of a 72,000 square foot building consisting of 58,000 square feet of warehouse area and 14,000 square feet of office space on 4.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Mission Park Drive between Buffalo Avenue and Richmond Place - APN: 229-263-54 and 55. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt the consent calendar. , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Je ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Tetra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Ke ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AM~.NDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Tetra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment to May 8, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 24, 1991 AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , Be ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 27, 1991.) Ce VARIANCE 91-04 - LUNA - A request to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet for a two-lot parcel map in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. (Continued from March 27, 1991.) Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report and stated that staff had received a letter from the Northwoods Properties Community Association reiterating their opposition to either of the parcels taking access via Northridge Drive. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Luna, 8990 19th Street, #201, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Luna had any objections to Parcel 2 taking access from Northridge Drive. Mr. Luna responded he did not, but would prefer the configuration shown on the proposed parcel map. Linda Frost, president of Northwoods Properties Community Association, stated they had presented their position in the letter and in testimony at the March 27, 1991, meeting. She felt approval of the project should be based on access being taken from the north end of the lots. She thought that the new homeowners would not be required to honor the CC&Rs of the Homeowners' Association. She said the CC&Rs include strict architectural controls and prohibitions on leaving garage doors open and trash cans out. She reported that the CC&Rs contain monetary penalities to members who do not comply. She thought that allowing any of the lots to take access from Northridge Drive would lead to deterioration of the landscaping. She felt the City has an obligation to the Homeowners' Association to prohibit access to Northridge Drive. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 24, 1991 Charles Doscow, attorney representing Northwoods Homeowners' Association, 222 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, felt that there had been almost complete unanimity expressed at the March 27 meeting regarding prohibition of access from Northridge Drive. He supported the first option suggested in the staff report. He said he did not understand the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. He requested that if access were to be granted via Northridge Drive that at least the exterior of the homes be subject to CC&Rs. He thought the issue should not be important to the rest of the City as there were only two lots in question. He reiterated the objection of the residents to having access via Northridge Drive. Jim Nichols, Board of Directors, Northwoods Homeowners' Association and chairman of the landscape committee, 10257 Coralwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that staff had objected to one of the alternatives because it would require a four-way access. He said there were several such intersections in their community, and they did not pose any problems. He felt that if either of the lots were given access off Northridge Drive, it would set a precedent for the other three lots to be developed in the future. He said the residents were concerned that the lots will be equestrian and vehicles would be parked across the street. He said the CC&Rs prohibit parking on the street. He thought that if access to Parcel 2 were given across Parcel 1, the owner of Parcel 1 would not be able to deny access. He showed pictures of the landscaping to the north of Northridge Drive, the community, and horse trailers parked on a street. Commissioner Chitlea questioned the ownership of the landscaped area north of Northridge Drive. Mr. Nichols responded that it is public right-of-way owned by the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was convinced that the proposal as originally set forth was superior to the other scenarios presented. He commented it would allow development to go forth and would not necessarily lead to unsafe streets. He felt Alternative 2 would require more streets. He stated that Northridge Drive is a public street and he felt the intelligent planning approach would require that at least Parcel 2 take access from Northridge Drive. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Melcher that access should be from Northridge Drive. She felt both parcels should do so. She thought the residents would be better off facing the front of homes, than the rear. She reiterated that Northwoods is not a private community. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had hoped it would be possible for both lots to take access to the north, but after looking at the ownership and existing lot sizes, he did not feel a street system could be well designed to accomplish that. He thought good planning would dictate that the lots facing Northridge Drive have access to Northridge Drive. He suggested that the owners should Join the Homeowners' Association. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 24, 1991 Commissioner Vallette stated the item had been continued to allow time to plan for a better street access. She was concerned that proper fire access be provided. She indicated that although she would like to agree with the community's wishes, she felt at a minimum Parcel 2 should be accessed from Northridge Drive. Chairman McNiel thought that the additional streets were inappropriate in order to accommodate only a few parcels. He did not feel that restricting access to Northridge Drive represented good planning. He concurred with the remainder of the Planning Commission that the properties adjacent to Northridge Drive should be accessed from Northridge Drive. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that all properties adjacent to Northridge Drive should front onto it. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, asked if the Commissioners wished to add a condition to require that owners join the Homeowners' Association. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated a condition could.be added that the property owners cooperate with the Northwoods Properties Community Association, but the Association would have to vote to accept them as members. Barrye Hanson asked if a sidewalk should be required on the north side of Northridge Drive. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be appropriate to not require a sidewalk as a trail will be provided. Barrye Hanson stated some additional changes would have to be made to the resolution, such as the elimination of Standard Condition 4. Ralph Hanson suggested the Commission may wish to direct staff to return with a resolution of approval. Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that if Parcels i and 2 front Northridge Drive, the Commission may wish to relieve the Homeowners' Association from maintaining that portion of the landscaping. He said that typically development of one or two houses is approved at the staff level, but staff has the option of referring it up to the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Luna if he would object to continuing the item. Mr. Luna consented to continuing the matter. Mr. Coleman suggested that if both parcels front onto Northridge Drive, it may change the variance request. Ralph Hanson stated that a change to the variance would require the item be readvertised. Mr. Luna agreed to continue the matter to allow for readvertising. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 24, 1991 Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13693 and Variance 91-04 to May 22, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 - VICTORY CHAPEL - An appeal of staff's determination that the application for Conditional Use Permit 91-01 is incomplete. This application is a request to locate a temporary modular multi-purpose building of 912 square feet on the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-21. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 82-06. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant would be permitted to occupy a temporary modular building if they applied for and were granted a variance. Mr. Hayes responded that the Commission could direct staff to require a variance to relieve the applicant of the requirement for a master plan. He suggested a variance could be processed in connection with the conditional use permit application. Commissioner Melcher felt the trailer would be permanent so long as the use is there. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the Commission policy in the past had been to approve temporary trailers for a limited time, generally two years, subject to Commission approval of time extensions. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bob Wood, assistant pastor, Victory Chapel, 11837 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their main building is located in an old winery building, which has a limited life. He said they rent the building on a month-to-month basis. He indicated the owner plans to demolish the building and build a business park. He felt it would be impossible for the church to provide a master plan because the owner has submitted a master plan. He said the owner of the property was planning to build a 10,000 square foot building for the church and was in the process of submitting the project to the City. He commented that there are many modular buildings in Rancho Cucamonga and said they were willing to accept a time limit. He indicated they were willing to Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 24, 1991 make the modular building attractive requirement for a master plan. He requested a variance to the Commissioner Vallette asked if the church was willing to landscape. Pastor Wood said they were willing to install whatever landscaping is requested. He felt they had already improved the condition of the overall area. He expressed a willingness to paint the entire building plus the modular building. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that in the past churches have been requested to submit master plans when they request temporary buildings so that the City has a plan for the eventual removal of the temporary building. He indicated that the Development Code establishes time limits for approvals unless extensions are granted. He said the code does not set separate time limits for master plans and interpretation is open regarding whether a master plan expires if the project it was prepared for expires. He indicated the original master plan was presented in connection with a conditional use permit request for a mini-storage project. However, the conditional use permit has expired. He said the property owner has indicated they are in the process of preparing a new master plan and no mention of a proposed church was brought up in the site plan which had been preliminarily presented by the property owner. He indicated the Commission could decide that the original master plan still exists, but then they would have to make a determination regarding whether the level of master planning requested by the City had been met by the original master plan. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if the Commission determined that the master plan submitted by the property owner was valid, the appeal could then be upheld. Chairman McNiel said he had understood that the previously submitted master plan was not going to be built as planned. Mr. Bullet said the original master plan included a mini-storage facility, which the property owner has chosen to drop. He said the property owner believes the market is different from what it was when the master plan was originally approved. He said the new master plan which the property owner has discussed with City staff is different from the master plan previously submitted. Commissioner Tolstoy said that one of the concerns of the Commission in granting the use of a temporary building has been how long the temporary building would remain. He felt the master plan should indicate that the church will have a permanent facility to move into. He felt a permanent structure should be shown to take the place of the temporary building. He did not feel the previously submitted master plan fulfilled that requirement. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 24, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant should request a variance from the requirement for a master plan as the property owner's master plan would take precedence over one prepared by the church. He said that would allow the Commission to grant relief from the master plan requirement. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the City would define temporary. Commissioner Melcher suggested it be set up for two years. Commissioner Chitiea asked if permitting the trailer for a two-year period would hinder the further development of the property by the owner. Mr. Coleman felt the resolution could be worded to permit the temporary use for two years unless the property owner wished to develop the property sooner. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission were to approve a conditional use permit and variance to allow the temporary trailer, if it could be made non- renewable so that the church would pursue alternate arrangements if the developer had not moved forward with a permanent building. Mr. Hanson stated that the Commission could only indicate that future renewals~ would be discouraged. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would make the use temporary if the master plan submitted years ago had not been executed. Commissioner Melcher felt that Victory Chapel would occupy the site until the building was demolished for future development. Mr. Buller indicated that the new proposed master plan submitted by the property owner included the existing structure as remaining. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask who had installed the temporary building. Pastor Wood said that the current building is being left in the new master plan, but a new building would be built by the property owner elsewhere on the 27-acre site. He said they would relocate and they need a new building because they have outgrown the current facility. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Bullet said the Planning Commission may grant the applicant the opportunity to return with a variance request to waive the master plan condition in conjunction with the conditional use permit. He said the Commission then could grant the conditional use permit with a set time with the understanding that time extensions may not be granted. Mr. Hanson said that the ultimate decision on whether to grant the conditional use permit for the temporary trailer was not currently before the Commission because staff had determined that the application is incomplete. He said the Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 24, 1991 Commission needed to determine the incompleteness issue only. He said the Commission had basically three options: (1) deny the appeal and determine the applicant needs to submit a master plan, (2) deny the appeal and request that the applicant submit a variance, or (3) grant the appeal by accepting the master plan already on file, knowing that the master plan is probably not current. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to instruct the applicant to return with a variance request if so desired and adopt the resolution denying Appeal of Determination of Incompleteness for Conditional Use Permit 91-01. 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 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. , , , , RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U. S. HOME - Resolutions for the denial without prejudice of a tentative tract map and design review for the development of 235 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential Development Districts (8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre respectively}, located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227-191-15; 227-181-24; and 227-261-11. Barbara Krall, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report and suggested additional language for the design review resolution. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Charles Schultz, attorney, Reid & Hellyet, 3880 Lemon, Riverside, stated U. S. Home had submitted the project over two years ago. He requested that action be taken on the project, but said he preferred that the Commission not deny the application. He felt the issue to be whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to the City. He reported that three separate traffic analyses had been submitted and he felt that all necessary information had been submitted to the City regarding traffic and drainage. He said that each time the applicant met with staff, new information was requested. He requested that the Planning Commission determine that sufficient studies had been submitted because he felt they were at an impasse regarding the traffic analyses. He said that staff contends that the applicant miscalculated, and staff had not been willing to supply the raw data which the City used for their traffic model. He commented that staff had advised the application Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 24, 1991 would not be complete until the project proponent obtained right-of-way from other landowners. He indicated the applicant was willing to return to the Design Review Committee. He reported they had spent over $80,000 on drainage studies and there was a disagreement because staff is requesting a flow- through system with a retention basin and their study indicated that a flow-by system would be sufficient. Patrick Lang, 99 South Chester Avenue, Pasadena, stated the City's computer traffic model for the year 2010 indicated traffic on Miller Avenue will be 21,000 trips per day, while his study shows 7,000 trips per day. He indicated he had requested the raw data and the City then reran the model and indicated a reduction to 15,000 trips per day. He said the street currently has only 75 trips per day. He said the City had not provided the raw data to him. He requested the raw data be supplied so he could put the raw data into his computer. He said he understood the City accepted the traffic study's general principles but there was a disagreement over cumulative impacts. Bill Mann, Bill Mann & Associates, 1802 Commerce Center West, Suite A, San Bernardino, stated he had been consulted regarding the drainage. He said the site has certain constraints, but he felt they had adequately addressed the issues. He said over $85,000 had been spent on the drainage study. He showed a map of the surrounding area and indicated the major problem is the requirement for providing a drainage plan for the area to the north of their development. He reported they originally looked at a by-pass system consistent with the City's master plan, but the City was not comfortable with the system. He said they then submitted a new plan with the northern basin as a by-pass basin and the lower basin as a flow-through one. He indicated they met with staff in March and June of 1990. He thought they had submitted sufficient data to show the system would work. Chairman McNiel asked if the project were being built now, how much of the system would be built. Mr. Mann replied that U. S. Home would only have to excavate one-third of a basin to provide sufficient capacity for the U. S. Home site and current development to the north. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if both proposed basins were on U. S. Home's property. Mr. Mann responded that the basin shown across the street was not on their property. Mr. Schultz stated that the first developer is required to design the system. He said that most cities do not require the level of sophistication required by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman McNiel said that the City has experienced severe flooding problems in the past. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 24, 1991 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, said he had not been aware that all of the requested data had not been given to the applicant's traffic engineer. He said he did not bring up the traffic issue as an incompleteness item because he felt they were merely at odds. He said Mr. Mann had indicated to staff that he was working on a new plan for drainage which had not yet been submitted to the City. He said the City disagrees with the applicant regarding their proposed alternate, which he felt would require that the master plan be revised. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Engineer, stated the matter had come to his attention and it appeared there was an impasse. He indicated that simply having an application stuck in the process is not acceptable. He commented that the action before the Commission was not on the merits of the application, but merely that staff did not feel they had sufficient information to provide appropriate conditions for the project. He said the Commission was being asked to determine if the applicant had submitted sufficient information to deem the application complete. He said the suggestion for a denial was only recognition that the City must act. He suggested a continuance with some direction as to which way the City would want to go. He thought Engineering staff might indicate what additional information they would like to see in order to process the application. He requested that if the Commission were to decide to continue the application, that U. S. Home agree to a waiver of the time limits. Mr. Schultz stated he was prepared to stipulate to a continuance of 60 days. He said the last time they met with staff, staff stated that Foothill Boulevard must be improved adjacent to the property in order to deem the application complete. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He suggested that the Commission direct staff and the applicant to resolve the problems under the City Attorney's guidance. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what additional information staff would need. Barrye Hanson stated staff still needs a determination of costs and an allocation of the costs to the surrounding property owners. He said staff's largest concern with the proposed realignment is how the surrounding property owners will be affected. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the problems appeared to be drainage basin design and size, drainage basin location, and traffic. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic issue revolves around the size that Miller Avenue should be (two or four lanes). He indicated that the City completed its traffic model after the project was submitted. He felt the original traffic study submitted by the applicant did not consider outside influences on street volumes. He said he had been satisfied after minor clarifications that minor issues of intersections could be worked out. Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 24, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if the City had supplied all the raw data to the developer. Mr. Rougeau responded that he had given data many months ago; and because he had not been approached for additional data, he thought it had been sufficient. He said the raw material in the study would be made available to the applicant. Ralph Hanson asked if staff thought 60 days would be sufficient time to review the new data supplied and condition the project. Barrye Hanson did not feel that would be sufficient time. He said that as a courtesy, staff had preliminarily submitted the incomplete project to the Design Review Committee and Technical Review Committee. He said staff had not seen maps in their final form and the project would need to be rescheduled through Technical Review and Design Review because of changes. He felt staff would need 90-120 days from the time information is submitted. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask when the applicant could submit the additional information. Mr. Mann indicated the information could be submitted within 30 days. Ralph Hanson requested a waiver of time conditions pending resubmittal. He said the applicant could demand their rights at any time. Mr. Schultz stated they did not have a problem with a 150 day delay. He said they were anxious to get the project moving. Chairman McNiel suggested the applicant seriously consider the City's severe traffic and drainage problems. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated the item would need to go through the normal Design Review process. Mr. Schultz agreed to waive the time limits to allow continuance for 150 days. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to work with the applicant to submit additional information. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · , , , Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 24, 1991 Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He suggested that if the Commission wished to approve the project, that they defer action until May 8 to allow the applicant time to meet fire code requirements. Commissioner Vallette asked if the retail use would cease until the building and fire code issues were resolved. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the applicant did not have permission to operate because there was no approved conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette asked if there is a way the City could enforce closing of the operation. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Sandra Salcedo, 8711 Monroe Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was the daughter of the applicant. She said they had been working with Mr. Ross and had already corrected some of the items on the list. She reported they had contracted to modify the fire sprinklers and paint the building. She indicated they currently lease the building but hope to close escrow shortly. She reported they had received a business license from the City and received approval from Planning Division for the use. She stated nothing had been indicated on the business license that a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Mr. Ross stated that when the business license was approved, it was believed the use was permitted without a conditional use permit. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about the position of the parking lot because customers would have to cross a loading dock to get to the main entrance. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that staff originally recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions, but when the building department and fire department noted exiting problems, staff then recommended a continuance to allow time to determine if the applicant will be able to meet building and fire code issues. Robert Jimenez, 10317 Holly Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the real estate broker on the property. He said they had hoped to be able to approve all of the paperwork ahead of time to be sure they could meet all requirements. He said the applicant had been working with staff and had spent a lot of money trying to meet the requirements. Mr. Jimenez stated the Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 24, 1991 building is located on a cul-de-sac street, so he did not feel there would be problems with traffic. Commissioner Melcher thought the intent of the Industrial Area Specific Plan was to permit only incidental retail sales in connection with the industrial use. He did not feel 4,000 square feet of retail space in a 17,000 square foot building should be classified as incidental. He felt the use should not be permitted in the industrial area when there is so much unleased commercial space in the City. He felt granting of the conditional use permit would be unfair to storekeepers who lease the higher priced commercial space. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that he had the same concerns. He also felt the building was not designed for retail use because the parking layout was not oriented properly and customers would have to enter through a loading dock area. He opposed the conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette concurred. Chairman McNiel agreed, but said there were other warehouse operations in the City with some retail. He did not object to the use as defined. Commissioner Chitlea felt that a small amount of retail use in conjunction with a warehouse is appropriate. She felt that if the main function is to be sales, then appropriate amenities and parking would need to be provided. She felt the site in question would require extensive mitigation measures. Commissioner Melcher did not object to the particular use on its own merits. However, he thought that if the use were approved, there would be no basis for excluding other users. He felt that a large amount of retail use in the industrial area would negatively impact the commercial area. Commissioner Chitlea agreed that a large amount would change the entire Industrial Specific Plan area. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that Archibald Avenue was not designed as a retail center, but it has turned into one. Mr. Kroutil stated that the Industrial Area Specific Plan currently allows retail in conjunction with warehousing or distribution. He said that up to 20 percent retail is permitted in conjunction with office space in the in the district across the street from this site. He suggested that if the Commission felt the use could work out, they could continue the item to allow the project to be conditioned with certain improvement requirements. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission has not set through previous action or discussion a policy interpretation of what is a reasonable ratio for retail use. He suggested the applicant may be willing to reduce the square footage to comply with the Commission's desires if size is the issue. Commissioner Melcher felt the suggested type of use damages the integrity of development in a town designed for retailing. He felt retailing in the industrial area should be limited to incidental. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 24, 1991 they had considered the Gemco center, but the center did not have sufficient parking. As there was no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He said that the Commission was currently considering standards, so that if the use were approved, it would be a cut above. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that incubator retail opportunities sound like an exciting program. He did not feel outdoor swap meets should be permitted at all except for special fund-raising events. He did not believe indoor swap meets would be appropriate in the Heavy Industrial area. He was concerned that any swap meet use could create trash generation problems, graffiti, and management problems. He felt the biggest problems would be in the area of traffic and parking. He thought parking should be at a ratio of one space per 100 square feet. Commissioner Chitlea did not feel swap meets are appropriate within the City. She suggested that if any swap meet use is to be considered, it should only be indoor. She believed the use should only be in the commercial area, because it is a retail use, but felt that traffic flow and patterns need to be considered. She did not feel the use to be at all appropriate in the industrial area. She said she had never seen any swap meets that have been maintained properly. Commissioner Vallette agreed with staff recommendations. She thought the swap meet organizer should be required to provide a monthly listing of all vendors including mailing addresses. She felt maintenance requirements should be stringent and parking requirements should be at least one space per 100 square feet. Commissioner Melcher stated he was inclined to agree with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding prohibiting outdoor swap meets. He asked how the City would police the requirement that only new goods be sold. He hoped the use would not be factory stores. He was concerned that monitoring by code enforcement would be very time consuming and expensive. Chairman McNiel felt that outdoor swap meets should only be permitted on an occasional basis under the temporary use permit process. He concurred with a parking ratio of one space per 100 square feet. He felt the use could be permitted in the industrial area if hours were limited to weekend use. Commissioner Chitlea stated she was concerned about staff's time in policing the use. She said she was very uncomfortable with the concept as she did not wish to undercut the retail area. She supported swap meets as a fund raiser for charity purposes with a temporary use permit. commissioner Melcher asked staff's reasoning for selecting a parking ratio of one space per 150 square feet. Ms. Hernandez stated that staff had conducted an exhaustive study and Santa Aria was the only city requiring one space per 100 square feet, but their use is not in an industrial area. Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 24, 1991 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that staff would be comfortable with a ratio of any where from one space per 100 square feet to one space per 150 square feet. Commissioner Chitlea felt introduction of the use may hurt the proposed regional mall. She felt that if the use were to be approved it should be in the commercial area. Chairman McNiel felt the use to be appropriate. Mr. Buller recommended that the item be continued for two weeks to allow staff to prepare a resolution addressing the Commission's concerns. He suggested outdoor swap meets could perhaps be eliminated and the parking could be changed to one space per 100 square feet. He said swap meets that are held on occasion are permitted under the temporary use permit regulations. He suggested staff could investigate the idea of instituting a fee to cover enforcement. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 to May 8, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed from 11:30 p.m. to 11:45 p.m. , · , , , Le ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from "OP" (Office Professional) to "FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) for an = 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to include the ~ 8.3 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and establish standards for development - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 24, 1991 Commissioner Vallette felt incidental retailing in the industrial area could be successful, but it needs to be site specific. She was opposed to requiring customers to cross through a loading area. Commissioner Tolstoy thought retail should be conducted in a building designed for retail use. He did not want to turn the industrial area into a retail area. Mr. Bullet stated the provision conditionally permitting retail has always been in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and there have not been many applications. He did not feel it would be a common use. He suggested the applicant be permitted to investigate with staff to see if a better layout could be provided. Commissioner Chitlea stated that 20 percent of office/professional buildings are permitted to be retail in the Haven Avenue Overlay District, but she felt the permitted percentage of retail should be much less in a warehouse building. She felt that the application should only be approved if it included less floor area, a total reorganization of the parking lot, and additional landscaping. She felt retail use should only be incidental. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-08 for adoption on the Consent Calendar at the May 8, 1991, meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA- A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan by adding swap meet and extensive impact commercial use and their development criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff reco~nends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if any cities prohibit swap meets. Ms. Hernandez replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga expects development to be a cut above other cities. He felt swap meets - either indoor or outdoor - would be an incompatible use for Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 24, 1991 the City. permitted. He requested that neither indoor or outdoor swap meets be Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, stated the request for an amendment for indoor swap meet use had been brought before the Planning Commission in January 1991. He said the purpose of the amendment is to establish high standards for development. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Clouse had looked at any outdoor swap meets. Mr. Clouse responded negatively. He said his client's concern was that there is no clear definition of indoor swap meets. Commissioner Melcher asked if any industrial facilities in the City would be able to provide the proposed required parking. Mr. Clouse believed there to be several facilities which would meet the requirements. James Page, Carnival Malls, 6221 Warner Drive, Los Angeles, stated he had applied in Rancho Cucamonga because he realized his proposed type of an indoor facility is an upgrade over traditional swap meets. He felt the use is more comparable to a mall with concerns about parking, traffic, and security. He indicated regional malls do not accommodate small entrepreneurs by having booths of only 100 to 200 square feet. He commented that generally traffic problems are created because swap meets are located near residential areas. He also felt his proposed use was not compatible with retail because of the increased traffic the swap meet use would generate. Commissioner Melcher asked how the proposed use differs from typical outdoor swap meets. Mr. Page responded that he proposed incubator outlet space for small manufacturers. He said he would provide amenities for children (such as kiddie rides) and passive entertainment for other family members. He reported that they would be operating on a $20,000 per month advertising budget. He said they would only be open on weekends and only 52 percent of the total floor space would be retail use with the remainder of the space used for open space and amenities. Commissioner Chitlea asked if Mr. Page planned to charge an admission fee. Mr. Page replied they had not decided as yet. Mr. Mager reported his firm had been approached by several swap meet operators wishing to locate in the Gemco center. He said they had refused to consider the use because they did not feel indoor swap meets will be successful. He did not think enough retailers could be attracted to fill the space. Deran Yalian, 9071 Wildflower Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was part owner of Carnival Mall. He showed a sketch of a proposed mall. He indicated Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 24, 1991 Ne ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Tetra Vista Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Bullet, City Planner, reported that staff would like additional time to further study some information which had recently been received from affected developers. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked about plans west of Haven Avenue. Mr. Murphy replied that three corners are already improved He said when the remaining corner is developed, the setbacks will be consistent with the Industrial Specific Plan and the public right-of-way area will be developed as the activity center. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated meetings had been held with staff regarding the amendments and it was felt improvements could be made. Mark Gutglueck, P. O. Box 3164, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned if the electromagnetic fields from the power lines near the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue would be considered when the corner is developed. He asked if the power lines would be moved. Chairman McNiel stated the action before the Commission was merely to ensure that future development along Foothill Boulevard would be consistent with City design standards. Mr. Murphy stated a separate Conditional Use Permit application would be processed for the proposed hotel at the site Mr. Gutglueck was asking about. He said he was not aware of any plans to move the power lines. Mr. Bullet suggested Mr. Gutglueck stop by the City to review the plans that have been received and then contact the developer regarding his concerns. Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 24, 1991 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment, Environmental Assessment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91-01, and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , 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. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Bill Neumann, Administrator of Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, 7777 Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their primary concern is the need for easy identification. He said the building houses 13 separate, independent physicians and an independent pharmacy. He showed pictures depicting the lack of a sign on the north side of the building. He indicated they had two driveway signs, but those can not easily be seen from the intersection. Commissioner Chitiea asked where additional signage would be placed. She commented that the entrance for emergency services is through the main entrance of the building. Mr. Nedmann indicated the proposed positions. Commissioner Chitiea wondered if a sign should be placed on a building when the entrance is located through another building. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the monument signs need to be larger. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the issue was not the size of the signs but the number of signs permitted. Paul Eaton, Ontario Neon Sign Company, 7777 Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that the directional signs within the center are adequate, but he felt additional signage is needed that can easily be identified from the intersection. He showed pictures indicating where the additional signs would be placed. He felt the urgent care sign is the most pressing need. Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 24, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the physicians were just leasing space in the building. Mr. Neumann responded that the physicians are entering a limited partnership agreement to be owner/tenants of the building and they manage their own practices. Chairman McNiel felt that visitors would be confused if a wall sign listed urgent care, but the actual entrance is located in another building. Commissioner Chitlea agreed that an urgent care sign should clearly indicate where the entrance is located. Commissioner Melcher felt that the existing sign program is inadequate. He suggested the applicant re-evaluate the sign program for the entire center. Commissioner Vallette felt that more signs are needed. She wondered if the Commission could approve the use as a multi-tenant building to permit additional signs. Mr. Bullet stated that even if the use were determined to be multi-tenant,. additional monument signs would not be permitted. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be a wall sign that could be viewed from Milliken and Church identifying Rancho San Antonio Medical Center. He thought the south end of the building has sufficient signage. He suggested a well lit monument sign to designate the urgent care entrances. He also felt the directional signs in the parking lot should be enlarged. He thought the entire sign program should be reconsidered. Chairman McNiel did not want each physician requesting their own sign. He opposed placing an urgent care sign any where that would not direct visitors to the entrance door for emergency care. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that appropriate action would be to deny the appeal and direct staff to work with the applicant on a redesign of the sign program. Mr. Neumann stated he would like to work with staff to improve the signage. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to deny the appeal and direct staff to work with the applicant to improve the sign program. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , · , Planning Commission Minutes -21- April 24, 1991 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS R. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW CHILD CARE/SCHOOL FACILITIES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher commented that if child care/school facilities were permitted within Neighborhood Commercial Districts, it would not necessarily mean they would be located within Neighborhood Commercial shopping centers. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. He said the applicant proposed to locate a facility on a 4-5 acre site. Commissioner Melcher stated he understood that the Commission was being asked to direct staff to initiate a text amendment if the project proponent submitted an application and paid all fees. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively and indicated that if the Commission directed staff to proceed with an amendment request, it did not necessarily mean the Commission concurred with the applicant's request. Chairman McNiel commented that such facilities are situated in other commercial areas in the City. Commissioner Tolstoy felt day care centers are needed and may be appropriate for commercial areas. However, he commented that if such facilities are located in a commercial center, circulation and other concerns are important. Commissioner Chitiea felt the use should require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette agreed to review such an application, but indicated she typically feels the uses are not compatible. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 1250 West 8th Street, Apt. D, Corona, asked for direction from the Commission regarding the City's land use intent for a 14 acre site at the southeast corner of 24th Street and East Avenue. Chairman McNiel thought the purpose of the Etiwanda Specific Plan was to make sure the area retained a country atmosphere. Mr. Bullet stated the project proponent wished to propose an amendment, but in the past the Commission's policy had been to consider such an amendment only after a .project was submitted and environmental and planning documentation is submitted. Ms. McZeal stated her company felt the area deserves special Planning Commission feedback. Planning Commission Minutes -22- April 24, 1991 Commissioner Melcher felt special treatment was not warranted. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. She felt it was appropriate for the developer to go through the normal process and indicated staff time is at a premium. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to pursue an amendment if an application is filed. , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City would have to recruit to fill the position of the member-at-large for the Trails Committee because the three former applicants were no longer available. He indicated staff would begin the recruitment process. , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12:45 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to an April 25, 1991, workshop at 3:30 p.m. in the Rains Room of the Civic Center regarding multi-family housing standards. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -23- April 24, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 18, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT.-. Diane Williams STAFF PRESENT: Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Tarry Smith, Park Planning/Development Superintendent; Joe Schultz, Community Services Director , , , , , II. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The development of a 128,438 square foot library building on 9.58 acres in the southeast corner of the proposed 100 acre Central Park project, located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 076-591-01 thru 11. APPLICANT: Dale Lang, Wolff, Lang, Christopher; Kevin Sullivan, RJM Design Group; Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group; Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra Associates The Commission had previously approved the architectural concept. The purpose of this workshop was to present to the Commission revisions made to the plans and to review specific design details. A brief introduction was provided by Brad Bullet, City Planner. An overview and background on the project was provided by Bob Mueting of RJM Design Group. He indicated that the library grant had been the driving force behind the library submittal package and that the library project was now being processed ahead of, and separately from, the overall Central Park project. Mr. Mueting indicated that the following items were addressed from the previous Planning Commission workshop: The elevation of the building facing the plaza was stepped back at the third level, to reduce the mass of the structure. 2. Vertically rectangular, rather than square, windows have been provided. 3. Arches have been increased in size. 4. Roof forms and building massing have been provided with more variation. A central equipment plant will be located at the east end of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the height of the slope above Base Line Road. The engineer indicated that the site is visually flat with an existing 3 percent gradient. He reported the plaza area was originally elevated at 50 feet and the main floor of the library at 60 feet with the lower floor at 42 feet. (An 18 foot floor-to-floor height is required). He said the site has been dropped approximately 7 feet since the time of master plan approval. Brad Buller felt that approval in concept had been given at the last workshop with some details yet to be worked out. He thought the point of tonight's meeting was to settle as many of the design details as possible. The Commissioners indicated that additional information was necessary before a decision could be made, particularly on the balustrades, cornices, windows, and other similar elements, but that the concept plan and materials proposed were acceptable. Commissioner Chitiea felt the proportions and stepping and the footprint of the building are successful; however, more consideration should be given to the close-up view. She thought all of the exterior details which affect the appearance of the building and establish its form and character need to be developed and revised. There was consensus from the Planning Commission on this issue. Mr. Mueting indicated that the roof would be constructed of a flat clay tile if the budget allowed. He said a variety of paving types will be provided on the ground plane. Mr. Mueting indicated the synthetic stucco proposed for the main building material has a potential for damage but that a wainscot would be utilized for protection. Chairman McNiel preferred a finish similar to a smooth plaster finish. Mr. Mueting indicated that the doors would be trimmed with stained wood. He said cast stone elements will be utilized on the bottom floor and any proposed copper elements will be "prepainted." Commissioner Melcher thought that the open pyramid roof elements with wood members were inappropriate to the overall concept. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 18, 1991 Commissioner Tolstoy liked the concept but wondered whether or not the structure was too high (20 feet) to be combined successfully with plant material. Commissioner Chitiea noted that she didn't see how a vine could grow up a trellis of that height and be maintained successfully. She preferred using a solid roof and ensuring that the ceiling was decorative. The Planning Commission reached consensus that this would be appropriate. Discussion then focused on the insulated sky light. Mr. Mueting indicated that the material used would not have a lot of heat gain and that a wood trellis was placed on top of the skylight to keep it in context with the rest of the building. He said "angel wings" would be provided along the side of the skylight for screening purposes. The Commissioners indicated that the skylight and trellis maintenance might present a problem. They felt that because the skylight would be screened by the angel wings, it would be unnecessary to cover it with a trellis since that would potentially present maintenance problems. Commissioner Melcher questioned areas on the renderings where windows were represented but where they didn't seem to actually occur as indicated on the floor plans. Dale Lang, Wolff, Lang, Christopher, noted that in some areas (such as rest rooms) there may be niches rather than windows and that all the details have not been yet been specifically worked out. Commissioner Vallette thought some stained glass should be utilized along the Base Line Road frontage. The issue of the slope height along Base Line Road was then discussed as well as what type of tree species should be used in the grove along the front of the library. Olive trees were suggested by Commissioner Tolstoy. Mr. Mueting indicated that this issue was still under study by the landscape consultant. The issue of the satellite parking area was discussed next. All the Commissioners concurred that it would not be desirable to see parked cars from Base Line Road. They indicated that if State parking requirements mandate the parking area, then the round shape would be acceptable; but the area visible from Base Line Road should be heavily screened with shrub maseing. They concurred that if the parking area is not required by the State, it should be deleted. The Commissioners then discussed the excavation area for the lake and indicated they felt it should be hydroseeded and irrigated since it would be there for a number of years. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 18, 1991 The Commissioners questioned the width of the service indicated they would like to see it de-emphasized if consultants indicated that this issue is still under study. drive aisle and possible. The Commissioner Melcher expressed dissatisfaction with the runnel water feature throughout the courtyard area. He felt the courtyard area was the most likely place where large groups of people would congregate and that bisecting the area would make it unusable and present a potential liability to the City. The consultant indicated that this was intended to be reminiscent of the irrigation canals that used to be in the area. It was pointed out that the plaza area is one acre and that the runnels are proposed to be four feet in width. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that some type of water element was very appropriate in the courtyard area. He indicated that a water element was worth the risk of liability in this area; however, he thought the runnel concept might not necessarily be the appropriate solution. It was agreed the consultant would consider options. The Commissioners concurred that they approved of the overall architectural and site design concept, but indicated they want to review the project at another workshop prior to scheduling for the Planning Commission. The consultant indicated they should be ready to resubmit details in two weeks for a workshop to be conducted in approximately one month. , , , , , REVIEW AND FIRST CUT SELECTION OF 1991 DESIGN EXCELLENCE AWARD CANDIDATES - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A. Slide show of potential candidates B. Commission to select candidates for future consideration C. Field tour scheduled Lori Moore, Assistant Planner, presented a slide show of the 31 potential award candidates. The Commission selected 18 candidates for further consideration. A field tour was scheduled for April 22, 1991, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to review the 18 selections. Commissioner Melcher suggested that Claire Henry Day from the American Institute of Architects (A.I.A.) meet with the Commissioners following the tour to provide comments for the Commission from an architect's perspective. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 18, 1991 It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Day join the Commissioners at City Hall following the tour. , , , , The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Reepectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 18, 1991