Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/08/24 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 24, 2005 Vice Chairman Macias 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 Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive,Rancho Cucamonga,California.Vice Chairman Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel,Cristine McPhail ABSENT: Pam Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Candyce Burnett,Associate Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Shirr,Griffin, Office Specialist II; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Contract Secretary; Mike Smith, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Chairman Stewart was absent because of the death of her parents on August 19, 2005. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1-1 (Stewart absent, McNiel abstain), to approve the minutes of July 27, 2005. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 3-0-1-1 (Stewart absent, Macias abstain), to approve the minutes of August 10, 2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-00439- KEYSTONE NPS, LLC-A request to install two temporary modular classroom buildings for an existing school on 4.39 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 4), located at 8968 Archibald Avenue-APN:0209-171-15. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Brad Buller, City Planner, asked that the item be continued to September 28, 2005, to allow the project to complete the committee review process. Vice Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail to continue Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00439 to September 28, 2005. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00622 - ODELKIS BARRERA - A request for a preschool and child care center of about 5,000 square feet on .75 acre of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)on the south side of Base Line Road (northerly terminus of Hyssop Drive) and east of Rochester Avenue (west of Edison Corridor) - APN: 0227-431-51. Related File: Preliminary Review DRC2004-00074. Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that staff received a telephone call from Jeannine Tillman,a resident to the south,expressing concerns that children may climb the wall between the project and her property, as the wall is not very high in some places. He said Ms. Tillman requested that a new wall be built to prevent trespassing onto her property. Commissioner Fletcher asked the wall height. Mr. Smith responded that the height varies but is about 4 feet high on the project side in some locations. Vice Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Evelio de Rojas, 5604 Gifford Avenue, Maywood,stated he is part of the design team. He explained there is a slope next to the wall and they could raise the wall to 6 feet if necessary. He indicated they plan to plant Cyprus trees next to the wall to block the noise. He also said the children will not be very tall. Commissioner Fletcher asked for confirmation that they could raise the wall to 6 feet in the area. Mr. de Rojas replied that was their plan. Mr. Smith believed the wall was put in when the tract to the south was built and they would probably have to demolish the wall and build a new one rather than adding to the height of the existing wall. Vice Chairman Macias asked if the applicant was indicating they would be willing to demolish the wall and replace it. Mr. de Rojas confirmed that was correct. . Commissioner McNiel wanted to clarify the applicant was agreeing to a new wall. Mr. de Rojas replied they would use the existing wall at some points where it was already 6 feet and they would raise or construct a new wall where necessary to make the wall 6 feet. Vice Chairman Macias asked if they were willing to demolish the entire wall and replace it. Mr. de Rojas replied affirmatively but felt that not all of the wall would need to be demolished because in the front it is high enough. He said in the back they could raise the wall or demolish it and build a new 6-foot wall. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 24, 2005 • Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the remaining testimony be taken and then staff could suggest appropriate wording for the resolution to address the wall issue. . Commissioner McNiel observed that the Daily Schedule listed outdoor play from 11:00— 11:30 am and from 2:45—3:45 pm and independent play from 2:00—2:30 pm. He asked if those would be the only times the children would be outside. Odelkis Barrera, applicant, 1323 West 4th Street, Ontario, responded affirmatively. She indicated she would only have infants and toddlers, no one over the age of 2. She acknowledged that might change in the future, but presently she only plans an infant center. Bob Tillman, 7335 Hyssop Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, said they had concerns about the wall. He noted the property owner appeared willing to raise the wall to 6 feet, but said they would like to see elimination of the stair stepping and the existing wall demolished and replaced with a new 6-foot wall along their property line. He asked if the new wall would be block. Jeannine Tillman, 7335 Hyssop Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, noted the wall was built a long time ago. She thought the codes may have changed and said she would be concerned about adding to the height of the existing wall because of the added weight. She indicated they have a spa and they don't want any accidents because of a short wall and she feared siblings of the infants might climb the wall when the infants are being picked up. She stated the day care center is a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Tillman asked if some other trees could be used in place of the Cyprus trees because he personally does not like them. ' Hearing no further testimony,Vice Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. He observed there were two issues -the wall and the Cyprus trees. Mr. Buller suggested modifying Planning Condition 8 to require a 6-foot high decorative, common block wall along the entire south property line subject to City Planner approval. He said staff would require a minimum 6 feet on both sides of the wall. Commissioner McNiel stated it would need to be aesthetically pleasing so that block matches existing block and grout matches existing grout to any portion of the wall that is to remain. Mr. Buller noted that quite a bit of the wall is visible from Hyssop Drive and it would need to be treated on both sides. He said staff would work with the applicant on materials and design. Commissioner McNiel thought the applicant was considering Cyprus trees because they do not take up a lot of yard space and creates a shield. He said he also does not particularly like Cyprus but understood the applicant's desires and suggested that staff see if there might be something else that would serve the same purpose. Mr. Buller replied that there are regulations about the type of plant material around play areas. He noted that Cyprus trees are the thinnest,tallest type of plant material and there is nothing inherently wrong with them; therefore, staff would not say they could not be used. He noted that the minutes would note the desire for something else, and staff could work with the applicant to see if there would be another species of plant material. He noted that if another type of tree were used, it might blow debris across the property line into the neighbor's spa. Commissioner McPhail believed it is important to have a minimum 6-foot wall to block anyone from entering where the children are, more so than the danger of the children climbing the wall. She thought the project would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 24, 2005 Commissioner Fletcher agreed it is a good project and he though the revised condition was a good solution to the wall question. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2004-00622 with modification to require a minimum 6-foot block wall along the entire south property line. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried NEW BUSINESS C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00145 - GRANITE HOMES, INC. - The review of site plans and elevations for 123 single-family detached residences on 62.4 acres of land, in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - 0226-082-29, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0225-084-04. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057), and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan DRC2003-00750, Development Agreement DRC2003-00751, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. Candyce Burnett, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and noted that a neighborhood meeting had not been held. Vice Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Amy Harrell, Granite Homes, Inc., 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine, stated she was available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail felt the project is nice looking and she appreciated the variety in the front elevations. Commissioners McNiel and Fletcher agreed they are beautiful houses. Motion: Moved by McPhail,seconded by Fletcher,to adopt the resolution approving Development Review DRC2005-00145. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01125 - PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC - A request to construct a commercial and office complex comprised of three buildings with a combined floor area of 42,221 square feet, plus a fourth building of 7,200 square feet to be developed by others,on a vacant parcel of 5.31 acres in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 24, 2005 Boulevard and Milliken Avenue -APN: 0229-011-69 and 0208-961-05. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999, and June 28,2000, respectively, and a Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2002. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declarations. Related Files: Development Review DR99-11, Development Review DRCDR99-11 MOD,and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15630. Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. • Vice Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Mike Latham, Development Manager, Panattoni Development, 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 285, Irvine, showed a rendering of the building to show the articulation. He indicated they had a workshop with the Planning Commission in the beginning of the process and were told their suggested building was not acceptable so they then met with staff in an effort to find a common interest for the corner. He said they understand the importance of the comer. He felt their proposed location of Building D flanking Building A enhances the synergy of the project. John Lundstrom, Lundstrom and Associates Architects,2923 Pullman, Santa Ana,said he was told the City does not like large fields of uninterrupted parking and they felt that putting Building D perpendicular to Milliken Avenue allows them to create smaller pockets of parking while still having good circulation around the building. He believed that Option B creates one continuous parking lot that bleeds into the industrial building next door. He indicated they were told it was important to staff to create a synergy of buildings as they step from the high 21/2-story massing of the existing industrial building down to the 2-story office building and then to the 1-story retail and restaurant ' buildings at the corner. He said they agreed with that concept, but when looking at the massing of the buildings and the location in relation to Milliken Avenue all the buildings sit away from the street with a line of parking in the front with the exception of Building D in Option B. He thought that moving Building D to front onto Milliken Avenue interrupts the flow of the buildings along the back side of the site and cuts the visibility down by blocking the view of the industrial building as you travel south on Milliken Avenue and screening visibility of Buildings A and B as you travel north. He believed Option A ties the buildings together better because they are on the middle or back portion of the site and that adds to the campus-like feel and pedestrian-friendly nature of the site by having the office building closer to the restaurant, retail, and bank buildings. He noted there is a 12-15 foot drop from Foothill Boulevard to the south end of the site and the north end of Building D would be sticking down into the site about 11% feet and the south end of the building would be sticking up another 1'%-2 feet, making it more challenging to deal with ADA ramps and stairs than under Option A,where the entire front of the building and the two ends are at grade. He said they prefer Option A but would'be willing to respect the decision of the Planning Commission as they wish to move forward. Mr. Latham believed having Building D in the south center of the site would provide a better view when looking south from Foothill Boulevard. He stated when they first submitted their application, they were told they needed to compliment the landscaping and hardscape on the other side of Milliken Avenue by the Islands Restaurant; however, they are being held to a higher standard with different landscaping and pavement features that do not match. He said they are being asked to use bricks and to stage the trees differently and they would prefer to match what is on the Islands' side.. He commented they have been working on the plan for 15 months,during which time the City adopted a mitigation plan for traffic fees. He asked if the Commission could help with the traffic fees because they had initiated the project prior to the adoption of the fees. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 24, 2005 Commissioner McNiel noted that the applicant said there was a problem with the grading with respect to Building D if the building were moved to be parallel to Milliken Avenue. He asked how that same problem would not apply to Building A since that building is in the same linear direction. Mr. Lundstrom replied they have to match grades that are already established on Milliken Avenue; therefore, Building D would drop about 4 or 5 feet while the floor would have to stay level. He said they would have more flexibility in the grade at the rear of the site because they do not have to match the grade established for the street and Building A is also slightly shorter. Commissioner McNiel asked about Building C. Mr. Lundstrom stated Building C is a restaurant and they are processing their plans independently. John Mehigan, Retail Development Manager, Panattoni Development, 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 285, Irvine, stated it is a high-end Mexican restaurant with about a 6,000 square foot interior and 1,200 square foot patio. He said the plans should be submitted to the City within a week. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. He noted there were several issues - a decision with respect to Option A or Option B, a question about consistency of landscaping and amenities with the Islands Restaurant corner,and a request for assistance with the traffic mitigation fee. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the traffic mitigation fee was adopted by the City Council in May with an effective date of July 18, 2005. He noted the fee is collected at the building permit stage and there have been other projects that had already been approved but were still in plan check and those developers had to pay the new fee because they could not pull building permits until after July 18. He said the fee was adopted by the City Council and the Planning Commission has no authority to grant any waiver or grandfather any relief of the fee. Brad Buller, City Planner, agreed the restaurant that will be at Pad C is a beautiful building and very unlike Islands Restaurant. He said the elements being requested by staff are enhancements and will not detract from the overall theme of the intersection design. Mr. Smith stated the enhancements were requested to make the project consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan,which was adopted after development of the opposite corner. He said the artwork and special brick paving are called for under the plan. Mr. Buller believed the symmetry would not be adversely affected by the enhancements. He said staff strongly believes Option B is a better site plan and is more consistent with past Planning Commission policy and better for this project site and Milliken Avenue. Commissioner Fletcher complimented the applicant's cooperation during the process and on providing a better product than what was originally submitted. He felt that everything built in the City needs to be an enhancement, rather than a duplication of what is already here. He supported staffs opinion with respect to the enhancements required. He agreed that the elevation for the proposed restaurant is a beautiful building and he felt enhancements to the corner would be appropriate for the proposed restaurant building. With respect to Building D, he originally thought staffs intention was to leave the building orientation toward Foothill Boulevard but move it to be closer to Milliken Avenue and he saw no advantage to that move. However, he said his misconception was corrected at the following Design Review Committee meeting so that he then understood staffs intention was to have the building oriented toward Milliken Avenue and he was reminded of the Planning Commission policy to place office buildings parallel to the closest major street. He said he went out and visited the site and he believed it would be visibly superior to have the building close to Milliken Avenue. He noted the articulation on the building would make it attractive on the Milliken side even Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 24, 2005 though the entrance would be on the other side of the building and he thought the building axis should be parallel to Milliken Avenue. Commissioner McNiel believed Option B provides a better traffic pattern for the buildings but he really had no preference one way or the other with respect to building location. He observed that the corner treatment by Islands Restaurant was actually put in when Lowes was built quite some time ago and Islands Restaurant was cut into the corner section and augmented with some landscaping and a handicapped pathway cut through from Milliken Avenue. He felt it was unacceptable to merely match what is there because it would be a step backwards. Commissioner McPhail believed it is important to follow the new Foothill Boulevard guidelines rather than going backwards. She felt Option B is a much better site plan and there will be visibility to each of the buildings and there will not be a parking farm in front of the building. Vice Chairman Macias supported Option B and said he travels that intersection every day. He preferred having Building B close to Milliken Avenue. He noted the Commission does not have the authority to provide any remedy for the traffic mitigation impact fees. Commissioner Fletcher believed the parking layout of Option B is superior as it allows all of the parking to be directed to the main entrance of Building D rather than having parking all around the building. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail,to adopt the resolution approving Development Review DRC2004-01125 with Option B. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that tonight's meeting would be his last Planning Commission meeting. The Commissioners thanked Mr. Buller for his helpfulness, patience, diplomacy, training, and leadership of the department. They commented on his importance and his impact on much of the City. They thanked him for establishing not only a base line of good planning but also an ethical base line. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 24, 2005 Respectfully submitted, �rtri %! Sea, -� Approved: September 14, 2005 1 Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 24, 2005