Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/08/09 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 9, 2006 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Lou Munoz, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Associate Planner; Emily Cameron, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney ; Donald Granger, Associate Planner; Angela Landaverde, Planning Aide; Louis LeBlanc, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Joe Stofa,Associate Engineer; James Troyer, Planning Director; Barbara Tuncay, Planning Department Secretary; k k k k k ' ANNOUNCEMENTS k k k k k APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias abstain), to approve the minutes of July 25, 2006. k k k k k CONSENT CALENDAR A. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-00764— ENTREPRENEURAL RESTAURANTS CORPORATION -A request to modify the operating hours of a previously approved Las Campanas restaurant and bar, located within the Industrial Park (IP) District, Subarea 7, at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. Currently, the approved hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Sunday through Thursday) and 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Friday and Saturday). The proposed hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight (Sunday through Thursday) and 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. (Friday and Saturday) - APN: 0229-011-69. Related files: Development Review DRC2004-01125 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17426. On August 25, 2005, a Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Development Review DRC2004-01125. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail,to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17919-ELBA INC. -A request to subdivide 9.85 acres of land into 50 lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Miller and East Avenues-APN: 1100-081-03, 04 and 06. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Emily Cameron, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Joseph Bashoura, 2243 Calle Margarita, San Dimas, expressed his thanks to Ms. Cameron and the Planning Staff for their help in processing the project. He stated that he is available for questions. Seeing and hearing no comment, Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail remarked that it is a straightforward project. She noted that the Commission desires single-story units. She commented that the lots are small and that when the design for the housing product comes in, the Commission expects to see some single-story product. Mr. Bashoura assured Commissioner McPhail that what is being submitted for this site has an allowance of single-story product. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17919 as presented with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17651 - TAVA DEVLOPMENT COMPANY-A request to subdivide 41 acres of land into 56 single-family lots within the Very Low Residential District(1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Banyan Street, approximately 1,220 feet east of East Avenue-APN: 0225-191-012. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00174. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Lou LeBlanc, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and noted that one comment was received prior to the Design Review Committee meeting from a neighbor residing to the east of the project site. He noted that the comment pertained to access to the site and subsequently the project was re-designed to give access to Banyan Street from the east boundary of the property. He said that the change resulted in a loss of one lot to allow for the new point of access. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 9, 2006 Chairman Stewart confirmed that these changes were discussed at Design Review. She then opened the public hearing. Stewart McPherson, 14222 Wisteria Lane, Tustin, stated he is representing the applicants, Tava Development. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. She noted that a change had been made to the resolution which deletes Section D on page 3 and asked if Mr. McPherson had reviewed and accepts the change. Mr. McPherson was handed a copy of the change, and upon reviewing it, stated his acceptance. Commissioner McPhail noted that the applicants worked hard on this project. Chairman Stewart added that it became a better project in the process. Motion: Moved by Fletcher seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17651 as presented by staff with the amended Section D of the resolution as noted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17594 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to subdivide 8.21 acres of land into six parcels for commercial purposes in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 4)within the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -APN: 0227-152-18 and 31. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2004-00874, Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00365, General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01000, Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002, Development Code Amendment DRC2005-01003, General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01006 and Variance DRC2005-01124. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-00365 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a master plan for an office and commercial center consisting of a 112 room hotel,two restaurant pad buildings totaling 10,893 square feet, a two-story office and retail building totaling 46,000 square feet, a bank and office building totaling 6,583 square feet and gas station with convenience store and food court totaling 8,189 square feet on 8.21 acres of land in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 4) within the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0227-152-18 and 31. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2004-00874, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17594, General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01000, Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002, Development Code Amendment DRC2005-01003, General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01006 and Variance DRC2005-01124. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 2005-01124 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to allow a maximum building height of 54 feet where a maximum building height of 45 feet is allowed for the development of a master plan for an office and commercial center consisting of a 112 room hotel, two restaurant pad buildings totaling 10,893 square feet, a two-story office and retail building totaling 46,000 square feet, a bank and office Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 9, 2006 building totaling 6,583 square feet and gas station with convenience store and food court totaling 8,189 square feet on 8.21 acres of land in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 4) within the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0227-152-18 and 31. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2004-00874, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17594, Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00365, General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01000, Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002, Development Code Amendment DRC2005-01003,and General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01006. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Donald Granger, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that two calls were received regarding the project. He reported that one resident requested a sign be placed along the north boundary wall of the project to read, "Trucks Shall Not Be Left Idling." He commented that staff believes that because the north portion of the project that is of concern is slated for office uses and that it is unlikely diesel rigs would be delivering goods there and therefore would not be left idling there either. He said that after the project is built, staff will check to see if this is occurring and if so, will address the concern at that time. He remarked that the second comment received was generally favorable and that the resident supports the development and expressed favor regarding the layout of the master plan. Mr. Granger added that the approval of the project is contingent upon the approval of the related legislative items (General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01000, Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002 and Development Code Amendment DRC2005- 01003), which are proceeding to Council for final approval. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, added that the items presented tonight, specifically the parcel map subdivision,the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance are final unless appealed. He noted that these items will not go to Council for final approval. Chairman Stewart noted that Engineering had submitted changes to their conditions. Commissioner Fletcher asked if Senate Bill 18 requires the Indian tribes to be notified on any changes to the General Plan. Mr. Granger replied that any General Plan Amendments filed after March 3, 2005 are required to notify the Indian tribes of the proposed amendment. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, commented that SB-18 is a big change in the law and in procedure. He explained that the new law is very complex, but basically the tribes register with the State disclosing their interest in various properties. He said the new procedure adds a greater time frame needed to process items that require this notification procedure. Mr. Coleman added that a memo explaining the background of the new law will be provided to the Commission for their review. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represents the applicants. He said he is proud and excited that Rancho Cucamonga is finally getting the Sheraton 4 Points Hotel. He commented that the design is unique and attractive and that the office uses face to the north intentionally because those uses are likely to be operational during the day and closed at night, affording the residents to the north less of an impact from the use. He added that staff was a great help because he(Charles Joseph Associates) was brought into the project mid-stream. He said he has reviewed the revised conditions and fully supports and approves of them. He commented unfavorably towards the requirements stipulated by SB-18. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 9, 2006 Commissioner Fletcher commented that the land use is good and he felt the overall design is good as well. He commented that this project uses"pooled parking"and he asked if this is a contradiction considering that on another project he(Mr. Buquet)supported the concept of pooled parking but later felt the need to ask for a two-story parking structure to properly accommodate the tenants. Mr. Buquet explained that this project is different in that the calculation only reflects 44 shared parking spaces. He noted that this project is a less intense use and it has larger square footages for the uses. He added that additionally there is no off street parking allowed. Commissioner Fletcher asked if Route 66 icons are to be incorporated into the street improvements. Mr. Buquet stated they are conditioned to do their fair-share of street improvements including a mid- block crosswalk along with elements in concert with the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. He noted that he is involved with the project on the south side of Foothill Boulevard as well and they too will be conditioned to do their fair share of the improvements. He said he is working with Engineering and the applicants to determine the best way to handle the payments and the timing of those improvements. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are trees other than Cypress trees around the building. Mr. Coleman directed his attention to Page 42 of the agenda packet on which trees are located running north to south in planters. Mr. Buquet commented that the number of trees was reduced because of building clearances related to fire restrictions and to not restrict view possibilities of the pool area. He said that the plant palette had been revised to be more of a "Napa" theme. Commissioner McPhail commented that a clear vista out of and into that area would be desirable and therefore large trees would not be as suitable there because they would block the view. Commissioner Fletcher commented that there appears to be a big blank wall on the North elevation. Mr. Buquet said he finds it hard to believe that they missed a wall needing articulation. He said he would be happy to take a look at it for possible revision. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail remarked that the project evolved nicely and that it makes a nice focal point from the corner. He said it has a lovely landscape and it has come a long way from what they started with. She expressed a desire to delete the use of Italian Cypress trees and asked that they be replaced with Palm trees or shade trees with a full canopy. She said she does not believe they would be happy with the Cypress in time because they require shaping, maintenance,they produce dust and they are not a shade tree. She said she does not consider the Italian Cypress to be a specimen tree. Chairman Stewart thought they had at Design Review Committee but that she would be accepting of the change if the group concurred. Commissioner Munoz stated his agreement with Commissioner McPhail's comments regarding the trees and added that he believes the project looks good. Commissioner Macias added his support. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 9, 2006 Commissioner Fletcher said that if the finished product looks as good as the elevation it will be a really nice project. He said that it is a good mix of uses and a good location for those uses. Commissioner McPhail asked that the following condition be added to Resolution No. 06-77: 12) All Italian Cypress trees noted on the landscape plans for this project shall be deleted and replaced with either Palm trees 10-12 feet in height at the time of planting or with suitable shade trees having a minimum 20 foot canopy within 5-7 years of their planting. All tree selections shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17594, Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00365 as amended with the new condition and Variance DRC2005-01124. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried G. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00576-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- An amendment to Section 17.02.110 - Public Hearings and Notification requirements. This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of the Public Hearing before the City Council will be separately noticed. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report noting that the City Council declared their intent to amend the public hearing and notification requirements to increase the number of property owners receiving public hearing notices and to increase the length of time between the mailing of the public hearing notice and when the hearing is conducted. He noted that there are three major areas of concern: 1) Mailing radius of notices, 2) Publication of notices, and 3) The placement frequency of large 4X8 foot posting signs. He said since many of our projects are infill, we typically expand our radius well beyond the current 300 foot requirement. He reported that currently, the City goes beyond the State law requirements for notification but in the case of items currently only requiring a 10 day notice, the new minimum would be 15 days. He added that the additional placement of the 4X8 foot signs every 300 feet has been proposed. He also mentioned the voluntary participation in neighborhood meetings to encourage more neighborhood participation. He noted that on Page 7 of the draft ordinance in paragraph 4, the distance noted should be 660 feet instead of 300 feet. Chairman Stewart noted that no one remained in the gallery to comment. She therefore opened and subsequently closed the public hearing and opened the floor for Commission discussion. Commissioner McPhail thanked staff for providing a previous staff report for informational purposes and asked if the applicant pays for the notification and if the City suffers any fiscal impact with the proposed changes. Mr. Coleman stated that there will be increased costs for mailing because of the increase of items being mailed but that a request is also being sent to City Council to raise our fees to the applicants to cover those additional costs. He confirmed notification costs are borne by the applicants as well as for signage and posting. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 9, 2006 Vice Chairman Fletcher asked how the 660 foot radius was determined and if a project frontage totaled 559 feet would we still provide one sign. • Mr. Coleman said there was no particular reason for the 660 foot radius. He said we would most likely post two signs in that event. Chairman Stewart asked if in reference to Item #1 - mailings, if the Council would determine the mailing radius on all of our public hearing items. Mr. Coleman said the Council wanted to make the determination. He said the Council did not want to place pressure on staff to make that decision regarding the radius. Chairman Stewart replied that this could be problematic if we had to go to Council each time before sending out a mailing notice on an infill project. James Troyer, Planning Director, said that because the radius is being expanded to 660 feet, it is not anticipated that there would be many items that would require a radius beyond that very often. He mentioned that staff had expressed concern as well but it will probably only happen on the larger projects. Chairman Stewart asked if the change in the proposed noticing timeframe(from 10 days to 15 days) would have a big impact. Mr. Coleman stated that most items are noticed for a much longer period than that already(25-30 days), particularly with items that require environmental review. Chairman Stewart reported that as a member of the Design Review Committee, she has experienced more problems with neighborhood meetings. She commented that they are sometimes not represented well and what they are told took place there is often not what is represented later at the public hearing. She asked if these meetings could be required rather than just recommended as part of the Design Review process. Mr. Coleman said that it could be required as an ordinance but it is voluntary now. He said it is rare for a developer to refuse to hold a neighborhood meeting. Commissioner McPhail asked if this could be a policy to require a neighborhood meeting and that the information gained at that meeting be provided to the Commissioners at Design Review. Mr. Coleman noted that this does not always take care of the problems we have experienced with conflicting reports from neighbors to proposed projects. He reported that Cameo homes is a case in point in that the developer held three neighborhood meetings before Design Review and again as the project progressed and evolved and there was still opposition that surfaced once the project was presented to the Commission and again at the Council level. Chairman Stewart remarked that to require two meetings would not necessarily be a bad thing. She said she would entertain a policy regarding a requirement for neighborhood meetings at staffs discretion. She said she believes this is where a bigger part of the problems lie. Commissioner Fletcher said he too would be in favor of a policy. He remarked that most major developers recognize that holding these meetings is in their best interest so that they can work out any problems and to have neighborhood involvement in their project. He then commented that if there is an area of notification that a portion thereof is part of a Home Owner's (or Business Condo) Association, there is a risk that only a portion of the members of that HOA would be notified even though all members of that association share an interest in anything that includes any of their Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 9, 2006 properties included in that association. He said since they all meet at board meetings and only a few receive a notice, it appears to some that things may be transpiring behind their backs. He suggested that if we are aware of any associations being affected by a project, then all the property owners should be notified. Mr. Coleman agreed that this is a good point and that the notification area could be expanded to include any possible associations. He affirmed that our notification area is determined by the tax roles provided by the County Assessor and those records would not reflect specifically members of an HOA(and office condos) unless they are the owners of record, however, staff is aware of most of the associations in the City. Commissioner McPhail said that she thought the 660 foot radius is problematic in that it might include too many people. She said she would prefer a 500 foot radius and she would also like staff to have discretion on the number of the posting signs. She pointed out that these large signs attract graffiti and the more signs you have, the more graffiti. She said she would like to see one sign on each street and then more signs at staffs discretion. Chairman Stewart agreed that too many signs do not look good and that they are often weather beaten and not in good condition. James Troyer, Planning Director, commented that the City takes in a $500 deposit on these signs that is to be applied to the maintenance of these signs. Commissioner McPhail remarked that one of these large signs on a major street should be enough. Commissioner Fletcher said that since the City Council wants this, then he does not oppose it. Commissioner McPhail remarked that if the City Council wants that then the Commission should comply, it is at their pleasure. Commissioner Munoz asked what the course of action is for the Commission at this time. He agreed that we do need to support the City Council. Mr. Coleman stated that the Commission is to take action tonight and forward the minutes from tonight to the City Council. • Commissioner Fletcher asked if this proposal presents any problems for staff. Mr. Coleman said that it does not. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, said that the Commission is directed to approve the proposed amendment but also could direct their comments and concerns to the Council. He noted that they could also recommend approval with modifications. Commissioner McPhail said that she would approve of the 660 foot radius and a large sign on each major street and that staff could add more signs at their discretion. Chairman Stewart said if all agreed, the Commission could let this go forward as is because it is at the pleasure of the Council. She said the Commission can communicate their comments and concerns to the Council by way of the official record of this meeting/ meeting minutes. Commissioner Munoz asked if notification of neighborhood meetings would be included in the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 9, 2006 Chairman Stewart said that the minutes will reflect their desire for neighborhood meetings as a policy, but will not be part of the ordinance. Mr. Ennis suggested they could recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted by staff and then communicate their concerns regarding the number of signs and the alternative to allow staff discretion through the minutes. He said they can direct staff as a policy the requirement for developers to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to Design Review. He said this way the text of the ordinance can remain the same. Commissioner McPhail amended her motion to recommend approval of the draft ordinance as drafted and to include their comments regarding the 660 foot limit VS 500 feet for the notification radius; staff discretion for the placement of more than one large 4X8 sign; and a policy regarding the requirement for neighborhood meeting(s) to be held prior to DRC. Commissioner Fletcher noted the concern of the Council regarding the number of signs. He asked if there are many properties that have an extended lineal frontage that would require a series of signs. Mr. Coleman said there are but there is only about 10% vacant land remaining for development. Commissioner Fletcher asked what would be the maximum length of property frontage. Mr. Coleman said there are not many with more than 1200 feet. Mr. Troyer commented that part of the concern arose because the posting signs currently required by the Development Code were often only the 11X17-inch size placed every 300 feet and that they could not be seen from the roadway. He said this was the basis for the rationale to place 4X8 foot signs every 300 feet. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that he would like to add condominium associations to the notifications so that all the owners get noticed. Chairman Stewart asked Commissioner McPhail if she would like to modify her motion. Mr. Troyer said that the posting sign issue still needed to be cleaned up. Commissioner Fletcher suggested as a recommendation one sign per street frontage and one other sign on the corner at staffs discretion. The Commissioners concurred. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz,to adopt the Draft Ordinance recommending the proposed Development.Code Amendment DRC2006-00576 with meeting minutes provided for the Council review. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 9, 2006 COMMISSION BUSINESS The Commission had a general informational discussion regarding SB-18, which requires Indian tribes to be notified of projects in areas of the tribes' interests. It was explained that this bill was passed to protect their resources. Mr. Coleman offered to forward a memo to the Commissioners detailing the parameters of the legislation. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ri James R. Troyer, AI C Secretary Approved: August 23, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 9, 2006