Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/01/29 - Minutes - Joint (Planning Commission) January 29, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Joint Meeting of the City Council and Plannin~ Commission A. CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 29, 1992, for an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation in the Serrano Room of the Civic Center. The Executive Session was recessed at 7:20 to the scheduled joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission in the Rains Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:24 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Smut. Present were Councilmembers: William J. Alexander, Diane WiHiams, Pamela J. Wright (arrived at 7:27 p.m.), and Mayor Dennis L. Smut. Absent was Councilmember. Charles J. Buquet II. Present were Planning Commissioners: Suzanne Chitiea, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette, and Chairman Larry McNiei. Absent was Commissioner. Peter Tolstoy. Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager;, Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Lan7 Henderson, Principal Planner;, Joe O'Neil, City Engineer;, Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk. B. JOINT ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Jack Lain, City Manager, stated there was a request to add an item at the end of the agenda to approve a resolution that would allow the City to apply for a grant application. B1. CITY POLICY VIS-A-VIS HOUSING MIX AND HOUSING OUALITY (0203434 HOUSING) ( 1 ) Commissioner Melcher stated he had asked for this item to be on the agenda due to issues that were raised with the recent U.S. Homes project, where the developer requested smaller lot sizes, and how this affected the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He felt that the development occurring in the Etiwanda area seems to be missing the point of the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes January 29, 1992 Page 2 Etiwanda Specific Plan, and does not seem to have the quality envisioned for the Etiwanda area. He stated there is also some concern by members of the Commission about smaller lot subdivisions looking very crowded. He stated the Commission has been discussing the possibility of requiring more modest houses. He stated they then started to discuss what are they trying to do with housing, and the concern was raised that if you do something modest today, it could be the blighted area of the future. Councilmember Wright arrived at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Melcher stated the question was does the City have any set of goals or ambitions for the housing mix and quality other than those set in the General Plan, or should the Commission be encouraging the largest house compatible with the lot size instead of going with a more modest type of house. Councilmember Alexander asked what was their definition of "modest." Commissioner Melcher stated they were looking at having a smaller scale of house on the lot instead of having a large, chunky two-story house filling up every possible inch allowed. He stated modest did not necessarily refer to a less expensive house, that they would still be quality built homes. Councilmember Alexander felt it was a good idea, and agreed that "modest" did not have to be equated to the cost. Chairman McNiel stated what started this discussion is that it is consistent in the development community to use the maximum amount of square footage allowed for the footprint of the house, so you end up with a minimum amount of setbacks and a very large structure consuming the lot, which does not create an ideal view for a neighbor and looks just like row housing. He stated a counterpoint would be to look at communities to the west that were new 15-20 years ago comprised of what could be considered modest housing, and what they look like now. Councilmember Wright stated that from a lay person's point of view, she had always assumed the size of the house was market driven in the City, as is the lot size. She felt that people wanted the large houses built on the small lots because they did not have the time to take care of a larger lot. Commissioner Chitiea stated pan of that may be true, and pan of it would be to realize the most profit from the land by the developer, but that ideas may change. She stated that the developers have continually wanted to build larger and larger homes, so when the Commission approved some of the smaller lots, the idea was to provide a mix of housing with a smaller home being built on the smaller lot. She asked when should the Commission start saying they have a policy that a certain number of houses in a tract should have a smaller footprint, and felt the Commission needed a policy from the Council on the appropriateness in moving in that direction. Commissioner Vallette stated currently what they see are two-story homes on very minimal lots, which just seems as a way of amassing housing product. Mayor Stout'felt the kind of housing they are describing is being built in a number of communities in the area, and felt the reason Rancho Cucamonga was successful with that type of home as opposed to the others is because Rancho Cucamonga provides a more community oriented philosophy in their planning, so instead of concentrating a lot of effort into the lot itself, they have put a lot of effort into the environment around it. They are seeing the results of that philosophy, and he did not feel that was necessarily bad. He agreed with Commissioner Melcher that the Etiwanda Specific Plan did not do what anyone wanted it to do. It was too dense for a country atmosphere, but not dense enough for the developers, and that was why it did not work. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes January 29, 1992 Page 3 Councilmember Alexander asked if the Commission was just concemed with the Etiwanda area. Commissioner Melcher stated no, but that is what gave rise to the question. He stated the Commission had discussed that there were things they could do with their ordinances to create a less dense look, but it would push house sizes down which might create a product that the market does not want. He felt Mayor Stout's comments were helpful. Commissioner Vallette stated she was concemed because she sees a pattern developing where the developers are using the maximum lot coverage with minimum set-bach, and in some tracts that is leaving only enough room between driveways for one car to park. She did not feel that was good for the community, and would not be providing them with a quality environment. Mayor Stout felt they should not misinterpret what he said, that he believed there were opportunities to come up with different types of product or set-backs, etc., to achieve a different type of look. Councilmember Williams thought there were very few small houses available in the community and felt they would sell quickly if built. She stated she would like to encourage the developers to have a mix of housing styles. Commissioner Chitiea stated they could do that but it would be very different from their previous direction, and felt they needed to discuss this before making any big changes. Councilmember Wright stated she would like to see something different, that she did not like the look of row housing, but felt the lot size was really the issue and how the cost of land in the City affected that. She felt those were Planning Commission issues, and that when a developer comes with a plan, they could see that there is variety in the design. Councilmember WiHiams felt if someone was creative, they could have the density but still achieve a different look between units. Mayor Stout stated one problem with having a single story house was that it would need a larger footprint and would not fit on some of the lot sizes. Councilmember Williams felt there were people who were looking for quality homes that were not necessarily large in size. Mayor Stout felt that in past developments, the single-story houses were the last to sell when mixed with two-story houses. He thought maybe it would be better to have a development of just single-story homes instead of trying to mix them. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission has been discussing the feasibility of requiring a small percentage of a development to be single-story. He felt as far as lot size, you could have the same problem with a 7,000 square foot lot as you would with a 3,000-5,000 square foot lot, in terms of side yard, or having one flat straight wall to carry the load since it is the cheapest method of construction. He stated the Commission was in a quandary on whether to start demanding some single-family houses in a tract, or a whole tract of single-story houses, or whether it was even a good idea or noL Commissioner Chitlea stated the concern was if it was better to put single-family detached homes on small lots or to have the same number of units clustered in multi-family developments, because there were very different ph~osophical trends involved with both. She stated there were also some differences of opinion in the Commission on what is appropriate to have adjacent to the freeway and that it will maintain its quality. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes January 29, 1992 Page 4 Brad BuHer, City Planner, stated every year the Commission works on its work program, and for the first time they are seeing a lot of tracts built in this grander style that appear very cramped. Also, there has been a respite in applications for single-family developments, and they felt now was a good time to raise this issue. They wanted to make the Council aware that they will be dealing with this issue more during the next year, and on defining how the product should fit into the streetscape. Councilmember Willisms asked if they were making sure that developers were designing ways to access RV parking in the back yard. Chairman McNiel stated they are looking at requiring 15% as a reasonable amounL Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the new direction would be to get as many homes as possible designed to allow RV parking in the back yard. Chairman McNiel stated the trend will probably be to go to some single-story units and pulling in of the side yard, which will bring down the sale price of the house, so there will probably be developers who come to the Council to complain. The Council and Commission discussod various styles and ways of introducing single-story homes into the community. ( E ) B2. COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITY. CITY PROJECT~ (1002-08 DEV REV) Commissioner Melcher stated in the Design Review process, the Commission concentrates on the community face of a project, what people see when they drive by places they might not normally go into. He stated with a public project that will be used by the citizens of the community, he thought all of the space within that project should also be subject to review. His thought was that the City's projects would benefit by increasing the Planning Commission's involvement in the development of them. He felt design involved a lot more other than the superficial coating of the building. Mayor Stout stated the Council has had concerns about this issue. He stated if a someone wants to build something, they have architects and engineers to help interpret their desires as the owner into a building, but the bottom line is that the owner is the customer, and still owns the building and is involved in the process. He felt that on City projects, the Council, acting as the representatives of the community, would be considered the customer and thus should be more involved in the project. He stated the way the process is set up now, past a certain point the Council has not been as involved as he thought they should be as the customer. Commissioner Melcher felt the Council, or a subcommittee of the Council, should be involved and present each time the Planning Commission is considering a public project, and have equal input into the process. Councilmember Williams felt they could set a policy on this in motion very easily. Councilmember Wright stated in the past they have always stayed out of a project when it goes to the Planning Commission, and at that point is when they have felt out of control of the project. Mayor Stout stated they needed to be careful because the Planning Commission is appointed by the Council, so they cannot be involved in a double dealing situation where they are not getting an honest opinion from the Commission. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes January 29, 1992 Page 5 Councilmember Wright agreed, and felt if they went with a team approach, then input couM be given from both sides early on so everyone could understand why certain conclusions are reached. Councilmember Williams concurred. Commissioner Chitiea felt that from the Planning Commission side, if they were involved earlier on in the design process, they might have an opportunity to suggest appropriate or creative changes before it was too !ate. The Council and Commission discussed how some of the major public buildings have been designed and executed recently. Mayor Stout felt having a subcommittee involved in the process would be good, with reports to the full Council on a regular basis. Chairman McNiel stated the reason this item was on the agenda was because the Planning Commission is rarely involved in interior space design for any of the facilities, and felt if they had a subcommittee also, they might be able to make suggestions on more efficient uses of the space. Councilmember Alexander felt it was all right to raise questions, but they had to keep in mind that neither the Council nor Commission were space efficiency experts. Chainnnn McNiel agreed and stated this would not supersede any consulting group hired for that purpose. Commissioner Melcher stated they just wanted to be able to questions or challenge, to make sure the experts are doing what was needed. B3. ROUTE30 (116001 FREEWAY) (3) Commissioner Vallette stated she had requested this item in order to give a brief update to the Council from the Planning Commission's perception. She stated on January 27, 1991, she and Commissioner Tolstoy artended a meeting with Councilmembers Buquet and Williams, Caitrans representatives and City staff. She stated a lot of concerns were discussed, and felt they had a better perspective now as to what to expect from the freeway. She stated landscaping issues, elevation of the freeway, flood control channels, and sound attenuation walls were some of the topics discussed. She stated the Planning Commission's subcommitte~ for Route 30 operates under direction of the Council and the policy set by Council. She felt it was important to have the Commission's subcommittee continue, because she could see the freeway affecting future projects aft~ the discussions with Callxans, such as the sound attenuation wallt She asked if the Council desired any input by or about the Commission's subcommittee, or if they had any questions. Councilmember Williams stated it was an excellent meeting, and asked staff what was the decision on the sound attenuation walls. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated staff understood that Caltrans was now requiring more acceptance on the walls, so staff was going to pursue the issue with Caltrans to get some type of policy in writing from them. Mayor Stout stated the City needed to come up with some way to pay for the walls up front to ensure they could pay for them when Caltrans works out all of their requirements, in case the state no longer has the funds to pay for them. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes January 29, 1992 Page 6 The Council and Commission discussed the current understanding of the sound attenuation requirements by Cultruns. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission's subcommittee was set up to keep the Commission aware of changes involved in the freeway so they would know how to handle projects that were adjacent to it, not to help design iL Mayor Stout slated one problem they are having now is that the City is being pressured into making decisions about infrastructure that is adjacent to the freeway, in that when they condition a developer to do something in that area, because Cultruns has not set their work for the freeway yet, the City is having to excuse developers from their conditions. He slated they need to be aware of these things and keep communication open. Councilmember Willjams stated the agreement was to have meetings with Caltrans on a regular basis about the freeway. ( 4 ) B4. STATUS OF REGIONAL MALL (0203-05 SHOP CNTR) Brad Bullet, City Planner, slated this was brought up because the Commission has not seen much of the design slams of the mull lately. Commissioner Melcher stated there is some concern that the Agency is moving ulong with plans for site development at a tremendous investment of money, and the developers of the mall appear to be giving the impression of holding off until the last minute for approval of the design, where the City will be pressed to making an approval just to keep things moving. He thought the Commission would like assurances that the developer is being reminded to ullow plenty of time in their schedule for design review. Mayor Stout stated it is common for a developer to come in at the last moment for a mall project, and they could not really control that. He thought the Commission needed to commit to the idea that this project will need a tremendous amount of attention in a very short time span, that they would not be able to go through the normal process, and might have to delay some other projects in order to get this one done in a timely manner when it was submitted. He felt staff has pushed the developer to keep the City appraised of the progress, which has not ulways happened in surrounding cities. Commissioner Chitiea slated they did expect some changes based on the fluidity of the project, but slated they have been waiting for more than a year and a half for another meeting on the conceptuul design. Mayor Smut stated it will be a challenge to the Commission when the developer says they are ready to go, and he felt they would have to work out design issues as quickly as possible, that there will not be the luxury of time for review, and that they will have to do the best they can under a lot of pressure. ( 5 ) B5. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS OF MUTUAL INTERI~ST (0701-01 COMMISSION) Chairman McNiel slated the Commission has been approached for a freeway sign for a shopping center. He slated they have approximately six opportunities for freeway signs, and as the requests come in, each development will feel that their sign needs to be grander than the last one. He asked what was the Council's opinion on freeway signs. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes January 29, 1992 Page 7 Jack Lsn, City Manager, stated when the sign ordinance was developed, the issue of fizeway signs was discussed but there was no development in that area yet, so it was agreed that the City would des1 with fre~way signs when that time arrived. He stated there was no detailed discussion on how large, or how many users should he on one, etc, He stated there was also a provision placed in the ordinance for regional shopping centers that when the site was approve<l, the sign would he by special approval of the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel felt that freeway signs have been misused in other communities and he did not want to see that happen in Rancho Cucamonga. M~yor Stout stated the primary purpose of a sign is to benefit the public by allowing them to f'md what they are looking for, but he felt they also needed to keep the signs tasteful and of a reasonable size. He also felt they needed to he reasonable as far as how many businesses they allow to he listed on the sign. Councilmember WiHiams felt that people could determine what type of smaller stores were in a center based upon the majors, and felt it would he all right for the major stores to have their names on a sign but not every store in the centex. Brad BuHer, City Planner, stated that each shopping center had the right to request a sign program. He stated that in the case of Foothill Marketplace, its orientation to the freeway was such that it would not have good visibility to the traffic on the freeway, so they wanted to he sure to have a sign that served them. The Council and Commission discussed the types of signs they would like to see on the freeway as far as structure and aesthetics. The Council and Commission discussed the selection process used in Rancho Cucamonga to select Planning Commission members, and concurred that it was good the way it was with general selection by the entire Council as opposed to each Councilmember selecting one Commissioner. Mayor Stout stated he would like the Commission and Council to he concerned with envisioning things they would like to see in the community ten or f'tfteen years from now. H~ felt with all the attention they have had to pay to current affairs, ther~ has not always been time for looking ahead. He stated his feelings stem from the realization of how long it takes to accomplish something, so ~f you did not start planning now for future projects, they might not ever happen. Jack Lain, City Manager, stated there was the possibility for a grant application, and in order to submit the application, a resolution would need to he approved to allow the City to apply for the granL Mayor Stout stated in order to add an emergency item to the agenda, it would need the aff'ffmative vote of all Coancilmemhers presenL MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Alexander to add an Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program for Grant Assistance item to the agencla Motion carried unanimottsly, 4-0-1 (Buquet absen0. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes January 29, 1992 Page 8 (6) B6. APPROVAL OF THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAl, ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE: CERTIFY THAT THE APPLICATION WILL MAKE ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT: AND APPOINT THE CITY ENGINEER TO CONDUCT AI.t. NEGOTIATIONS AND SUBMIT AI .1. DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT (0402-05 GRANT) (1405.03 SCHOOLS) RESOLUTION NO. 92-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SECTION 164.56 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE 1989 FOR THE ROCHESTER AVENUE - RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGH SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Willjams to approve Resolution No. 92-018. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Buquet absen0. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. D. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Alexander to adjourn. Motion earned unanimously, 4-0-1 (Buquet absent). The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Clerk Approved by Planning Commission: February 26, 1992 Approved by City Council: March 4, 1992