HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/05/15 - Agenda Packet THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
`4
War DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
11-0+ AGENDA
RAN
CU ONGA MAY 15, 2012 - 7:00 P.M.
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Rains Room
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Regular Members: Lou Munoz_ Ray Wimberly
Donald Granger_
Alternates: Frances Howdyshell_ Richard Fletcher
Francisco Oaxaca
II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each
presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes.
Following each presentation, the Committee will address major issues and make
recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee
acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not
legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for
public input.
A. SIGN PERMIT DRC2012-00403 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -
The review of 2 wall signs and 1 monument sign (with electronic reader
board)for the Victoria RV and Boat Storage Facility in the Low Residential
District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the 1-210 and 1-15 Freeway
interchange - APN: 0228-011-31. Related file: Conditional Use Permit
DRC2003-00048.
1 of 2
tavi DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
Ltoo MAY 15, 2012
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
M. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law
prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the
Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent
meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
IV. ADJOURNMENT •
The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with
the consent of the Committee.
I, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist Il for the City of Rancho Cucamonga,hereby certify that a
true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 2, 2012, at least
72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic
Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
2 of 2
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Donald Granger May 15, 2012
SIGN PERMIT DRC2012-00403-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The review of 2 wall signs
and 1 monument sign (with electronic reader board)for the Victoria RV and Boat Storage Facility in
the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the 1-210 and 1-15 Freeway
interchange -APN: 0228-011-31. Related File: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00048.
Background: On April 14, 2004, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit(CUP)
DRC2003-00048, a master plan for a recreational and boat storage facility on 9.87 acres of land at
the intersection of the eastbound 210 and 1-15 Freeway interchange, north of Victoria Street. At the
time the Planning Commission approved CUP DRC2003-00048, the entitlement was specifically
limited to approval of Phase I, with only Phase 11 being indicated as a conceptual layout for future
development of the site. On September 24, 2008, the Planning Commission approved Conditional
Use Permit DRC2008-00204. Phase 1 of the master plan consists of 165 covered storage spaces,
278 open spaces, a 1,200 square foot office and caretaker residence, and an 1,800 square foot
detail area for recreational vehicles and boats. Phase II consists of 393 self-storage units that will
vary in square footage.
When the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00048 on
September 24, 2008, Resolution of Approval 08-50 included a condition of approval requiring that a
detailed sign program be submitted and approved by the Design Review Committee. The condition
of approval additionally stated that the wall signs shall comply with the standards of the Sign
Ordinance. Over the past year the applicant has been constructing Phase I. On April 10, 2012,the
applicant submitted their sign program for review.
Design Parameters and Analysis: The applicant is proposing one monument sign (with electronic
reader board)on Victoria Street, and two wall illuminated wall signs, one on the south elevation and
one on the east elevation.
Monument Sign: The monument is proposed to be 6 feet in height, with 12 square feet in sign area
of fixed copy with illumination (VICTORIA RV& BOAT STORAGE), and 12 square feet in area of
LED digital reader board. The overall height and area of the monument sign is compliant with the
Sign Ordinance (24 square feet area maximum). Letter height will be 6 inches for"VICTORIA,"and
18 inches for"RV & BOAT STORAGE." The Sign Ordinance requires a minimum of 8-inch letter
height (Section 14.20.100).
Since the Sign Ordinance was crafted years ago prior to the development electronic reader boards,
this type of signage is not specifically cited; however, under prohibited signs (Section 14.16.020),
the Sign Ordinance states that "all signs not expressly permitted are prohibited," and "Flashing
signs, except time and temperature signs," are prohibited. Under Section 14.24.070 (Illumination
and Motion) the Code states the following: "Monument signs shall be non-moving stationary
structures On all components), and illumination, if any, shall be maintained by artificial light which is
stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times (nonflashing)." Additionally, under the
forthcoming Development Code update that is scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council
review in May and June, respectively, Electronic Display Signs,with the exception fuel stations and
time and temperature, will be prohibited (Article III, Section 17.78.120). Based upon the existing
Sign Ordinance and the good planning practice of avoiding signs that will soon be nonconforming,
staff concludes that proposed LED reader board should be eliminated.
Wall Signs: The applicant is proposing two illuminated, channel letter wall signs. Letter heights are
4 feet for "VICTORIA" and "STORAGE," and 6 feet for "RV." The sign area for each wall sign is
approximately 130 square feet, which is compliant with the maximum area of 150 square feet. The
Sign Ordinance does not set a maximum height for letters, but under Section 14.24.050 (Sign
Dimensions), the Code states the following: "The dimensions of the sign cabinet, if any, other
configuration of the dimension of the sign area of such sign shall be proportional to and visually
balanced with the size of the building." Given the size and scale of the wall plane (over 1,000 feet),
staff concludes the letter height and sign area is reasonable and proportional.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. The monument sign should be modified as follows to be compliant with the Sign Ordinance:
• Increase letter height for "VICTORIA" to 8 inches
• Relocate the monument sign to a minimum of 5 feet from the right-of-way
• Eliminate the LED digital reader board
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. There are no Secondary Issues.
Staff Recommendation: With the above identified Major Issues resolved and following review and
input by the Design Review Committee, staff recommends approval of the proposed signage.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
•
Staff Planner: Donald Granger, Senior Planner
Exhibit A — Monument Sign
Exhibit B — Site Plan
Exhibit C — Site Plan Detail for Monument Sign
Exhibit D — Building Elevations/Wall Signs
Exhibit E — Colored Rendering
Exhibit F — Planning Commission Minutes dated September 24, 2008
V1I9IHXI
di bc D 2> 0 -13
o > r
?
0 0 O r z o 0 mr r r C ,
X7 > �Z
rh � OZ _ �O D� nrC It
D m OCn O� r*i > ZD oO
n- a r = r D O
2 co
Q 9116 ."Lrn7 r— Z Z Z co ---1
PO W 0 OM
XM X-
of V >
�i m In m' r mD cr, r m O
0
D u)
In
ciA a m o m m
P U)
s.
o r
=12 '11 >
s :_ +• ; ; at Oa
P ' n e .. , w
ill 0
• • :. .T .
s6 : 0 0 a a 110
wPI COX 71 0
: W ri m
• , A
r
e
0 ; I r77
VII i
ii '
r
- 1 C ..-..
1 SitlIFE! 1
g Fillitti 1 144' I l 'i- r c
I.r • :a hr
r r ft N
lifilili # fel
, i -1)
U)
C)
rn
z
a i_I 9hI-1X3
!ill will. . 1
ii, ..,,, ,
,;” /0 1 , i
. ,
— • t
ii 11111
if 11 If • as / .
II 11 t 'fir:.
,.,
814 li I k .0
1 i -:li ! t!! /
1 ::. 11 7
•
>, ,
5 r7. p q ,;//, . , /_ibin i' { -..2 { 10 t
69 6 0 , ///, ;. ' I
YY
CA
FP, 2 ;� '/ / / � IJI�t I'�i'
, pi, , . / 1----ii:e 1,) 4 illi
-' li i ) li i A
1 , i //Er__ ,.v----\ , s1 1 1 s,
1 ilil 1
*---*------ : I dill 1
sip '; Pi
y i� `�\fir-r� `a`` ` I( i
It i : "t!/ \.ti z '4'
�/.' ,-\'. L
\ 1, / �.. � .. I II i i ri� a' ,... ..1 L
\ „ ,,k,` l! '
11 t i
0 0 ,, Nth - „.,, 11
\ 1 !Ill Oil y., i q Ill 11
il '-\ ' ■ TVA 1 �..
I ,,,,,
. .„) - ,,- .1
t p: •I . . f _yam, I ! yea NI I i
F Ii kil _ `�\\143%I:"` i t
I ii li _ II a i s 1 a ii a
i ia, !I !e h R . d. . s ? s e I It I
RL]41L,.1lIY�kY.,e NYS•MI MS•JEPSON ARCFIT T MG
1 1 i I I rwoo ar.�.�or►u cwn�r..w a b 1- .>.�� ..�. R
I OR C2003-0001.448,-off ARCMITGCTYRG • Itw MIN•
1-) )1(7.• •-• ((':_:---:- _
\ . . , IM CRIM 1
0,1, I I, 8 I HX3
isk
Z ,,Ilifi
. i
) !.
• . . ,
it i ....I 8 t •
i i
,, -
, ,..
\
IMIS
\,\ \\ I O I
\\ )\\ 0 ; iol 1 I
■::::: . \ \ . f • 1:-. 1 F i
sa,-;,_ \\.‘,,,,,, Oil ** i
4 i I
(: It
1 i
. . . ,
\\
,.. .
\‘‘ •\
\ \ \\\\
. ‘.
( , ••••••.
...... ... ...
-..--.:-..
PP.......... ..
....... ..... . .
••• •••••••••
• •••1............... r , ,.. Ts, \ QC•\\:\\. \
\\N
1 74..:• . ;,\ \ \ \
1 1 . :i.i. :.i*i..i.i.:::• '‘N,,\
..... . ........
4. ........•...P.,...,•
I 1 i ' 4 I.■•:::;:!:,•::1111I"* .N k..,,,-- . , \ \ \. *\\
ill ! g i :::::::i.: y p;„ , Kfi, ■ , '41' r- I \ ' \
\ \\
•, 1 i 4 -:: : m ii, - .__., „,.
\ \ --i . , . , E
\ ,-----,\
\ rc .ii \t ) \ \
";':
, .
•
. .
. .
\ .
\\ \ .
\
r.- 0
/. .
'
......... ,,
/ \ " --------- \
\
■
- -"\\ • N
‹ ..,-:::,, \ \
N‹ \‘ • \\\ N
..,‘ / ..,
/(( \\'
\>
\ -, i ,....• • •
N • \\`c&y'
\ \\ O
\,, s \ \ \• \N
. .
i
\
\ •
\
,
\ 1 \
, • 57e\ \ \ '\
1 /
\
MONUMENT SIGN SITE PLAN — .
imacr, COWERCIAL DEsitacemEntr gliiii ' 711 :
DEsIGN $ T
9 ' CROSSROADS RV STORAGE 1 /1111111.1
lEfill-2-t: ,- I. : ! UDIO
— ag
IlTlill: IP! .a — ARCHITECTURE.DESIGN.PLANNIMG
. 1177•......i•••■•■Atli re••■•••••r•a
V P1601111176.,A.1.00111•.1<741"84••1,4.
6■10.1%■•••.....••••■••••st
a 119 I H X3
I ---
) I
'••;.,* Tilili - '', I 11 1 I
i ..,41-1,,,,,,,glii;i • ' 1 '
411111 - § '1•I'itaill11 1 .
> 114:::::., • - 1R/Itr11111
§ :i•iigi:i - lohillilil
q lilt'ial • • i Alop
6 il•li•i 1 P 1 1 Ili -
g 11111• P1311.1111
1 1 1 g h: !..10111
i 1111-4:(11 1 le-0.14 ili
i -14...tly,
Mill • • • ...; it,,,:ra 1
IIIIIIII , ghtlidib!
1 1 1 1
, silit!ili • '
iht31111 ill'I'1'1111 il 11111 .
•,:r1111 li iii,1[1111 1 ' 1
eillii
1611•11,111 . riop,eintill . .
11151111 , ,.!--....1
Vii0:411
.111/111 nq111111
11111111 131111111
1111111 Pt.rry
P.:110 1 1 1
1101h1 .\ 6.,11101 0111111 Ad. F,11
11111111 401591
11•111•1 1 ' 1■1 :i21111
:121111.1 •11.1.1m1. ,
" i
i 1 1 1 • 111,', 1 I 1111 0
, i IVIII • '
1 911111:11 ii ri:I ii i - .II
1 ;11111111 •
111
111111111 ri•
itlilq1p1 i i•iiiiii Il&'
:ilit:.10 ' 1111111
111111111 1 1 1 1 11
IIIIIII0 1 IIIIIIII -
IIIIIIIII lillyi —
-11'1V-I 11111111 C )
111111111 '
1.1111111 --, 111111111
1 I I I I
1111111111 555 55 SSS 111111111 m.
111111111 11111111
111111111 11111111
1.1.1.1E1 .., - I I 1 I
111.111.1 11111111
1 1 1 1 ........ A
ii11111111 ,I ,t,11,1141,1
ii . . . . c-, .
Y11111 ' 'olaiik
11 1 1 1 —1,11y11 a - iFAIIIII
r,laililli tz, g 1111111 .1 'IF CI)
i,g III A
plitti:illl ' ..a.. I'l viihill __.
gYillY
IYIIIIII !
IIIIIIIIII =1 to ..,..20.,
ii....-.1' 1:1
110111111 q '.8, 1111411
.1.1.y.1 .1.1.1.
A.A.,. ..1 1•1•1,1 G., : 1
1.1.1.1.I.1 --- .,.,. .
...,..,.,., . Cr) I I I I Fri
Irro...3,1 1
11.11.11.1 " I gill . in
Pzti-FiY —1
. 1I4
I p.01111011 .o...- oVivi: -
deri-'0:1 1 i ; !I rartl-- - Li
..,z,,...i.. G--.
l )%11111111
--Ittra 1
Z %1!.-712111 . Fr. iiiiii
IIIIIIIIIIII 1111111
lolly
iiiiIIIIIII . ' III
11111111111 , 0.1.11
IIIIIII
hitlii II
• • • I
n T
WALL SIGNAGE—.—
'PROEM: COMMEICIAL DEVELOPMENT
' I,> i CROSSROADS RV STORAGE
i
qiixi f i .0k,1 _
)
OiliPMI Will ! 0 e e I a
s 11.1,141 Mil ; ARCHITECTUREN.D/IIVII■■,.° IN,%:,
..... ........
2
I. -
y
8
.I
•
1 „.
•
ZZ1 1_
EXHIBIT E
Vice Chairman Munoz responded that with that in mind he would then support separating out the
project approvals because he cannot support the suggestion of more than the one hour change
request (as stated in his own motion).
Commissioner Stewart replied that she does not wish the project to go down but that they - ould
give the store the chance. She said she would be willing to withdraw her motion and tha - e is not
suggesting they be open 24 hours. She said she does not want to see it killed beca e of hours.
She said they are giving them some leniency to see what will work and it would pro. -•ly come back
anyway at a later time. She said they should give them a chance, residential is n• there yet, and let
them try to comply and if it does not work, the Commission can bring it back... •ne time event. She
said she believes this situation can tolerate this change.
Chairman Fletcher said it is a new project, these are standard conditi. s that are set for the City and
if they change them for every project they will not have standard c• ditions anymore. He said they
are asking the Commission for a change but these standard c• ditions are in place for a reason.
He said if there was no second to Commissioner Munoz' m• ion, then he would second it.
Commissioner Stewart withdrew her motion but she • d she believes they (standard conditions)
should be looked at on a case by case basis.
•
Mr. Troyer said Commissioner Munoz' motion -mains in place with the request for a second.
Commissioner Wimberly seconded Vice • airman Munoz' motion.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, sec• ded by Wimberly, to adopt the resolutions recommending
approval of General Plan am: dment DRC2008-00160 and Terra Vista Community Plan
amendment DRC2008-00161 • be forwarded to the City Council for final action with a request to
adopt a Mitigated Negative declaration. Additionally, the Commission approved Tentative Parcel
Map SUBTPM18797 a ; Conditional Use Permit and Design Review DRC2008-00163 with the
change in hours (con.' ion 7 a & b, and 8 of the standard conditions, Section D-Shopping Centers)
to reflect the hours % operation (including deliveries and store hours)from 7:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m. as
amended. The •ommission approved Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00451 by minute action.
Motion carrie• •y the following vote:
AYES: LETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABS, T: NONE - carried
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2008-00204 -
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct Phase II of a master-planned
recreational vehicle and self storage facility on 3.60 acres of land in the Open Space District in
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of the eastbound 1-210 and
southbound 1-15 interchange - APN: 0228-011-38. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit
DRC2003-00048 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2007-00935. Staff has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
DRC2007-00935-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to amend Section 5.24.300
(Open Space Districts) of Chapter 5 of Part II of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to add recreational
vehicle and self storage facilities as a Conditionally Permitted Use in the Open Space District.
Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00048 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-
00204. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 24, 2008
EXHIBIT F
Donald Granger, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Stewart commented that Mr. Granger prepared a great staff report, that she
appreciates the clarity he provides and his presentation. She thanked him and congratulated him on
a nice job.
•
Vice Chairman Munoz referred to page G & H-195 of the agenda packet, condition#3. He said that
he did not see a date that the sign program would be due. He said he would like to see some sort of
milestone set, such as its submission prior to issuance of the grading permits.
Chairman Fletcher asked what the concern is about.
Commissioner Munoz said it is about timing.
James Troyer, Planning Director, said that it would be reviewed by the DRC and the motion would
have to be seconded and adopted as part of the project. He said vice Chairman Munoz is
suggesting that it be prior to grading permits being issued.
Charles Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, said the entire property is under one ownership. He
noted the access from Victoria Street and that the architecture will mirror the upper portion of the
development. He reported that no signage is proposed for Phase 2. He said it is important to
respect the sign ordinance and it is important to work with businesses in these times.
Mr. Troyer commented that no signs have been approved for Phase 1 and he said there are no
signs for Phase 2 either. He asked if the proposal will be submitted for both phases at one time.
Mr. Buquet said the original project is Phase 1 that was approved and the signage will have to be
approved by the City. He said there is no signage proposed for Phase 2. He said it would be a
permit, not a sign program.
Commissioner Stewart asked if Phase 1 has an approved program.
Mr. Buquet said no sign program is being presented and no signage for Phase 2 is contemplated
and he questioned "reaching back" to a prior project.
Vice Chairman Munoz said he wants to see a Sign Program for this project,the project was already
approved and that the Commission wants the sign program to be presented before a certain
milestone; and they would like to see something.
Chairman Fletcher asked if there are any conditions in the approval for Phase 1 pertaining to this.
Mr. Buquet said no and that the protocol is that it is typically part of the building permit process and
that it is understood it is subject to approval by the City.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted he is concerned they have not seen a sign program for Phase 1 or 2
and the concern is because he does not know what will go there.
Mr. Buquet said any signage proposed would be part of Phase 1.
Vice Chairman Munoz replied that is what they are referring to.
Mr. Buquet reiterated that he knows it needs to go through the approval process. He said he is
concerned that he heard mention of a condition for a sign program be submitted prior to grading, but
there is no signage contemplated for Phase 2. •
Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 24, 2008
Chairman Fletcher replied that it is a non-issue.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked staff how we can accomplish that without violating codification.
Chairman Fletcher said this application is for Phase 2 and he questioned how the Commission could
go back to the prior approvals for a prior phase. He said that since no signage was submitted then,
he has no objection to signage.
Vice Chairman Munoz said he is commenting on conditions that exist today in the agreement.
Mr. Buquet responded that signage can be proposed for any project anytime or additional signage
after the approvals.
Chairman Fletcher asked that if he has no signage, then does he have a problem with the proposed
amended language.
Mr. Troyer said the conditions call for a detailed Sign Program to be reviewed by the DRC. He said
that if there are no signs then there is an unnecessary condition on the project.
Mr. Buquet asked that the condition not be modified, and not tie it to a grading permit if it does not
• apply to this phase.
Vice Chairman Munoz said it is then a "catch 22" in that the other phase is already approved. He
asked then if there would be no sign program to be approved for this project (as a whole).
Commissioner Stewart asked if they are bringing back a sign program for Phase 1.
Mr. Buquet said yes.
•
Commissioner Stewart asked if there is a timeline.
Mr. Buquet said no. He said the market is frustrating right now.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if he has a problem giving the Commission a timeline for the sign
program.
Mr. Buquet said they are talking about Phase 1 which is already approved and not under
consideration this evening. He said Phase 2 has nothing to do with Phase 1. He said if Phase 1
wants signage they will have to come in and he does not have a timeline for that.
Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director, read from Exhibit J - the DRC action comments
dated August 19, 2008,which noted that all signs shall meet the City's Sign Ordinance requirements
and that the project was recommended for approval by the DRC "with the understanding that the
applicant will return to the Design Review Committee at a future date to present a detailed sign
package for review and approval. The applicant agreed to present a sign package to the
Committee."
Mr. Buquet said that is correct, for Phase 1 and at the time that comes in, but he has no timeline.
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing and seeing none, closed the public hearing:
Commissioner Wimberly noted that the project is a good use for that land parcel and that it has been
vacant with "no other takers" for some time. He said it offers the possibility of living close to
commercial uses and services and that he looks forward to seeing the development.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 24, 2008
Commissioner Howdyshell said it is what you can d o with that space. She said this development fills
a need for the community, residential development there would not be good there and this
development is a good idea.
Commissioner Stewart commented that the development is compatible but she noted the issue with
the sign program. She remarked that she was unsure what they could do for Phase 2 that would
make it happen for Phase 1. She said condition #3 is ok without the amendment. She said the
developer will have to come back, that no signs have been approved at this point and something
has to come back. She said they need direction on that.
Mr. Granger remarked that the concerns have been heard, that it is a high profile location. He said
that the normal procedure would be for the applicant to submit a sign permit application for staff
level review because it is not a uniform sign program, but that with all new applications being
submitted now, would be submitted for review to the DRC along with the rest of the project. He
suggested that for the minutes/official record,when a sign permit package is submitted it should not
stay at staff level but be forwarded to the DRC for review and approval. He said this way it will not
just be an administrative action and that it can be isolated from the approvals tonight.
Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney, noted the concerns of limiting the approvals this.evening to
Phase 2. He said the project(Phase 1 and 2) is essentially all one project and that it was approved
as a master plan and therefore a single project (the whole of the project in CEQA terms). He said
the Commission could take staffs recommendation and bring the signage for the entire site back to
DRC for both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Chairman Fletcher asked if there would be a timeline attached.
Mr. Troyer suggested the package be reviewed by the DRC within 30 days of its submission.
Vice Chairman Munoz said that would be ok.
Chairman Fletcher reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Buquet said irrespective of the master plan, this project was approved under the old sign criteria
which was to file an application for a sign permit. He said that is how Phase 1 was approved and
now we are on Phase 2. He asked for clarification of when the review would occur if he meant 30
days from submission it would be reviewed or if the City wants to review it 30 days from now.
Mr. Troyer said we would want to review it within 30 days of its submission to allow for a timely
review.
Mr. Flower noted that is for the applicant's benefit.
Commissioner Stewart said that it seems reasonable.
Mr. Buquet said we are majoring in minors." He said his client's priority is getting
design/construction plans through Phase 1 and Phase 2 is not on the radar right now and at the
appropriate time they will bring that in and they should not have to go through some extraordinary
process.
Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Munoz concurred that the project is an appropriate use of the land and probably the
best suited project for the site. He said that the developer put much work into the design, including
photometric studies. He said it is a good project, signage notwithstanding.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 24, 2008
Chairman Fletcher agreed that it is a good location for the use and that self storage is needed in te%
part of the City, convenient, close, and a great location. He said he is confused about the s;: age
and that it is a non-issue at this time, that when the sign package is ready, they will to get it
approved. He said he favors the project as it stands.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked legal counsel for clarification on the timing, s•., • ifically noting page G
& H - 195, condition #3.
Mr. Flower said he did not hear a motion to change the condi $ .
Chairman Fletcher reiterated that it is a non-issue, the&is no signage on Phase 2 and when they
are ready to come in with signage on Phase 1, it -11 have to be approved.
Mr. Flower said it is a non-issue.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, se "ded by Howdyshell, to make no changes to the conditions of
approval, adopt the Mitigate. •4egative Declaration of environmental impacts and recommend
approval of the Etiwanda =•ecific Plan Amendment DRC2007-00935 to be forwarded to the City
Council for final acti•, and approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2008-00204 by adoption of the
resolutions. Mot- carried by the following vote:
•
AYES: F ' CHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: ONE
ABS- ' : NONE - carried
• * x +
I. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SEIR) DRC2008-00381 FOR VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS
(AMENDING THE VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AND VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER
PLAN) DRC2008-00383, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC 2008-00384, AND
AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA01-02) DRC2008-00385 — FOREST
CITY COMMERCIAL-An opportunity to give public testimony pertaining to the environmental
issues to be addressed in an SEIR for a potential build out proposal for the Victoria Gardens
Regional Mixed Use Lifestyle Center, located in the eastern portion of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga bordered by Foothill Boulevard to the south, Base Line Road to the north, Day
Creek Boulevard to the west, and Interstate I-15 to the east.
Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director, presented the staff report:
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. No one from the public made any comment.
Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing. Chairman Fletcher asked if the Commission wanted
to comment.
Vice Chairman Munoz said it is his understanding that they are here to hear the comments and not
to make them.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commissioners are free to comment on the
initial study and if they think there are other environmental impacts that they think should be studied
as part of the Supplemental EIR.
Chairman Fletcher said they have looked at various alternatives and whether the development be
mid or high rise, he thought the skyline view from the freeway would look appealing. He said the
development at the Gardens has been a work in progress. He said he would like to see how the
Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 24, 2008