HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/07/14 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
' Regular Meeting
July 14, 2004
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 Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman
Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart
ABSENT: Cristine McPhail
STAFF PRESENT: William Alexander, Mayor; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner;
Donald Granger,Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer;Cathy
Morris, Planning Specialist; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary;
Mike Smith, Assistant Planner; Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the meeting format and public hearing process.
He indicated Consent Calendar Item B should be pulled to be heard with Public Hearing Item C.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-1-1 (McPhail absent, Macias abstain),
to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of June 9, 2004.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (McPhail absent), to approve the
minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Meeting of June 15, 2004.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 (McPhail absent), to approve the
minutes of June 23, 2004.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (McPhail absent), to approve the
minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of June 23, 2004.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND TRAIL EASEMENT OF PARCEL MAP NO. 15349 (V-196)—
KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES—A request to vacate drainage and trail easement north
of Church Street on the east side of Milliken Avenue—APN: 0227-151-73. Related file: Tract
16512.
B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01186-YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, L.P.-The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map
consisting of 15 single-family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda
Planned Development, located at the southwest corner of Banyan Street and Day Creek
Boulevard -APN: 0225-161-45. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14493, Variance
DRC2003-01187, and Minor Exception DRC2004-00322. Staff has found the project to be
within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the
County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in June of 1991, and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Initial Study/Addendum certified by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga on October 26, 1999, and August 1, 2001, respectively, and the project does not
raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact
Report, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Initial Study/Addendum.
Chairman Macias pulled Item B to be heard with Item C.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, to adopt Item A on the Consent Calendar. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01186- YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, L.P.
C. VARIANCE DRC2003-01187-YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, L.P. -A request to allow up to an
8.5 foot combination freestanding/retaining wall height for grade differential purposes,where a
maximum 6-foot wall height is permitted, along the southerly property line of Lot 10 of previously
approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14493 in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units
per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development,
located at the southwest corner of Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard-APN: 0225-161-
45. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14493, Development Review DRC2003-01186,
and Minor Exception DRC2004-00322. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the
project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the County of San
Bernardino Board of Supervisors in June of 1991, and Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report and Initial Study/Addendum certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on October 26,
1999, and August 1, 2001, respectively, and the project does not raise or create new
environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report,
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Initial Study/Addendum.
Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the five lots to the south will drain to the street or if they will require lot
drainage.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied they will have cross-lot drainage and there is a condition
requiring that the final map include deeds for the affected lots that specify homeowner responsibility
for maintenance of the private drainage facility.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that the developer is required to provide written notice regarding the
Fourth Street Rock Crushing facility. He asked if the notice would be buried in with the bundle of
papers new buyers are typically asked to sign.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 14, 2004
Mr. Granger replied that the City typically requires the disclosure be given to buyers prior to
accepting a deposit.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City could require whatever the Commission believes is most
appropriate. He said the City has historically asked that it be a separate sheet signed by the buyer.
Commissioner Fletcher responded he was satisfied with a single sheet disclosure signed by the
buyer. He noted that the May 18, 2004, Design Review Committee agenda indicated that the rear
elevations of the houses backing onto Day Creek Boulevard should receive enhanced treatment. He
did not feel the elevations show such enhancements.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that Planning Condition 8 requires that decks be standard
features, rather than options, on those homes and that the decks shall have variation with review
and approval by the City Planner during the plan check process.
Commissioner Fletcher stated he was not satisfied with the rear elevations as presented.
Mr. Granger stated that the Design Review Committee determined that the decks should be required
features and they would need to be varied.
Commissioner Fletcher said he saw no other enhancements to the houses other than the decks.
Chairman Macias said he believed the Design Review Committee was satisfied with rear elevations
so long as the decks were mandatory rather than optional and the decks have variation.
Mr. Buller observed that staff brought up the matter at the Design Review Committee level as a
secondary issue and the Committee's response was to require the decks and have varied treatments
for the decks. He noted staff had suggested enhanced treatments but it was not a Design Review
Committee condition.
Commissioner Stewart explained that the Design Review Committee has not been happy with some
of the deck elements that have been built around town,which are pretty much standard wood decks;
therefore, the Committee's direction was that the decks must have varied sizes, different materials,
and special enhancements and they cannot be just token decks. She said the elevations have wrap-
around stone treatment and wood siding. She acknowledged the primary enhancement to the rear is
the decks and those decks are specific to Day Creek and they are mandatory, rather than options.
Commissioner Fletcher stated he did not see any elevations with stone on the rear and all he saw for
enhancements to the rear was the addition of a shutter to the upstairs window. He did not feel the
houses have 360-degree architecture. He said he was mostly concemed with rear elevations facing
a major street.
Commissioner Stewart stated some of the changes are that the porch wraps on some elevations,
and there are variations with some shutters, craftsman style windows, and window surrounds. She
noted all that are facing a major street must have decks.
Mr. Granger commented this is the third site that has the same product. He said there have been
modest enhancements made as each project went through the Design Review process.
Chairman Macias said he was comfortable with what was presented and he was confident that the
Design Review Committee did a good job on the project.
Commissioner Fletcher stated he was not content with the rear elevations. He said as projects go
up, the public has commented regarding houses backing onto major streets. He noted the
Commission's policy is to require 360-degree architecture and he felt there was very little detail on
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 14, 2004
the back of these homes. He said he was hearing comments that it is important to increase detailing
on houses backing onto major streets.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and he closed the hearing.
He commented that for future reference, he did not wish to have the Planning Commission meetings
turn into detailed design review discussions, but there was certainly nothing to preclude
Commissioners from identifying their concerns. He stated he was comfortable with the project. He
expressed confidence that the Design Review process works. He did not feel this project would be
very different from previously approved projects in this development.
Commissioner McNiel stated he understood Commissioner Fletcher's point of view. He noted that
oftentimes the drawings don't do justice to the product. He believed the project could be better but
he supported it.
Commissioner Stewart stated she was open to ideas but she observed that the rear windows are
close together and said she was not sure what else could be done. She said she would not want
wainscoting, as there are block walls behind the houses. She noted that the window is popped out
on at least one of the plans. She was not sure what elements could be replicated from the front.
She stated the project could be sent back to the Design Review Committee to review the rear
elevations.
Chairman Macias stated there appeared to be two options; one to approve the project and the other
to send the project back to the Design Review Committee for further review.
Commissioner McNiel made a motion to approve the project as presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Fletcher felt the Commission should provide guidance to staff for future projects. He
believed staff was correct in its comment regarding enhancements being needed. He thought it
would be difficult to sell the houses if their rear elevations faced the street. He said that if the decks
are removed, there is very little variation. He indicated he was willing to move the project forward and
leave it to the discretion of staff to see if they could work to see if there could be further
enhancements.
Commissioner Stewart felt the decision should come from the Commission, as it is difficult to
approve a project and then ask staff to work for further enhancements. She did not feel that was fair
to staff.
Chairman Macias agreed that the decisions on design review need to be black and white.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolutions approving Development
Review DRC2003-01186 and Variance DRC2003-01187. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: FLETCHER
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-01160 - FANCHER DEVELOPMENT - A request to
develop a 6,502 square foot P.F. Chang's restaurant with bar with two patio areas totaling 1,121
square feet in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center, located on the
east side of Day Creek Boulevard, north of Foothill Boulevard-APN: 0227-201-35. This action
is within the scope of the project reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for Development Agreement 01-02, Victoria
Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716 that was certified
by the City Council on February 20, 2002, and no additional environmental review for the
Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 14, 2004
discretionary actions mentioned in this notice is required pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21166.
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Jason Smith, Fancher Development, 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3, Tustin, agreed with the conditions
and said he was glad to be a part of Rancho Cucamonga.
Commissioner McNiel asked the color of the standing seam metal roof.
Mr. Smith replied it is a darker bronze.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart felt it is going to be a beautiful, unique building and a welcome addition to the
mall site.
Commissioner McNiel felt it is a beautiful design.
Commissioner Fletcher stated it is an attractive building. He said he was glad they are coming into
the community.
Chairman Macias felt it is a great project. He welcomed the applicant to the City.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use
Permit DRC2003-01160. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
E. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16237-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to
subdivide 9.23 net acres of land into 8 parcels for the purpose of developing a shopping center
in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, located at the southeast corner of
Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard-APN: 0227-161-39. Through the preparation of an
Initial Study, this action has been determined to be within the scope of the supplement to the
Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) that
was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional environmental notice for the
discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed project is required pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21166. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00504 and Variance
DRC2004-00522.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00504-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request
to develop a village commercial center consisting of 6 specialty retail and restaurant buildings, 1
bank, and 1 specialty market building totaling 79,661 square feet on approximately 9.23 acres of
land within the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, located at the southeast
corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-39. Through the
preparation of an Initial Study, this action has been determined to be within the scope of the
supplement to the Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report(EIR)(State Clearinghouse No.
98041137) that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional
environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed project is required
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 14, 2004
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM16237 and Variance DRC2004-00522.
G. VARIANCE DRC2004-00522 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to reduce the
building and landscape setback from the required 45 feet to 20 feet for Buildings A and H along
Base Line Road within a proposed village commercial center totaling 79,661 on approximately
9.23 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, located at the
southeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard-APN: 0227-161-39. Through
the preparation of an Initial Study, this action has been determined to be within the scope of the
supplement to the Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report(EIR)(State Clearinghouse No.
98041137) that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional
environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed project is required
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM16237 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00504.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She distributed a revised listing of proposed
uses submitted by the applicant.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the current plans call for a drive-thru on the bank building on
the south side. He observed that the developer worked to compliment the features being used by
the adjacent winery to the east. He complimented the applicant for diligence in working through the
process and taking the historical significance of the winery into account.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Michael Rue, President, Marketplace Properties, 18231 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 201, Tustin, stated
they received extensive input from the Design Review Committee,the Task Force, and the Planning
Commission and they got the message that the project needs to have a strong winery connection.
He said they felt that meant it needs a strong physical connection with interrelation between the
projects, both vehicular and pedestrian; an architectural connection; and an amenity connection and
it needs to be unique from other centers in town. He indicated the design of the buildings came from
melding elements of buildings seen in other wineries throughout Califomia. He believed an important
part of the project is the amenity connection, which he said starts at the street. He thanked Pete
Pitassi and said they borrowed his design of the Filippi Winery wall that will be built. He also
acknowledged the contribution of Gino Filippi in suggesting some landscaping materials. Mr. Rue
stated the buildings would be named for various wines. He noted that the sign program was not
included in the package and said that all of the smaller tenants and pad tenants will have unique
externally illuminated signs. He commented they would work with staff on a sign program to allow
the tenants to be creative with signs that differentiate themselves similar to a streetscape in
downtown Santa Barbara or La Jolla. He indicated they agree with most of the proposed conditions.
He asked that they be permitted to work with staff on the issue of a westbound left-tum lane from
Base Line Road. He said they feel it is an important access and they would like to discuss it further.
He requested that the that the condition regarding the traffic signal at Day Creek Boulevard and
Madrigal Drive by modified to clarify that the applicant would enter into a Cost Sharing Agreement
with the City providing for future reimbursement of a portion of the cost if the property on the
northwest and southwest corners is developed. He asked for additional language to clarify the
easement for the reciprocal driveway access to the winery property so that it would be consistent
with what was shown on earlier plans submitted to the Task Force and Design Review Committee
that showed a main driveway entrance to both projects when the winery is further developed. He
said he had discussed that language with Gino Filippi and Pete Pitassi and they agreed to it. With
respect to the preferred and prohibited uses for the project, Mr. Rue asked that the listing be finalized
this evening rather than indicating the listing is subject to revisions. He observed that they would be
closing on the property once they receive approval and their lender needs to know the permitted and
prohibited uses for the property. He submitted a listing of additional proposed prohibited uses that
he said he had discussed in a conference call with Gino Filippi and Pete Pitassi. He noted that the
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 14, 2004
current zoning and Development Agreement for the property allow the uses they are willing to delete.
He acknowledged that there were still some open issues where agreement had not been reached.
He believed it was the winery's opinion that liquor sales should be permitted only by the anchor
tenant and he offered a compromise that only one operator in the center would be permitted to sell
wine and liquor at any time, thereby allowing sales from another space if the anchor tenant did not
offer it. He believed that was a reasonable compromise. He proposed that a drug store and
prescription pharmacy, pet store, or sporting goods stores exceeding 10,000 square feet be
permitted subject to a conditional use permit. He noted that the only space of that size would be in
the Henry's location. He indicated it was his understanding that the winery wanted any change in
use for that building to be subject to a conditional use permit. He said he cannot get an anchor
tenant to sign a lease without having a number of other permitted uses for the space so that the
major tenant can sublease the space if it goes out of business or decides to move from that location.
He contended the purpose of a zoning ordinance is to address such issues by listing permitted and
conditionally permitted uses. He asked that Planning Condition 18 be revised to indicate they will
attempt to lease to the type of tenants listed as"Favored Types of Uses"in the"Proposed Methods
to assure High Standards of Operation and Quality Tenants,"rather than limiting them to those uses.
He said they agreed at the Task Force meetings to use good faith efforts to get those types of
tenants in Buildings A and B but they did not mean for the listing to be exclusive and they want to be
able to lease to other uses which are permitted or conditionally permitted uses.
Gino Filippi, Joseph Filippi Winery, 12467 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated they have
worked closely with Mr. Rue and his group on the list of prohibited uses. He stated that during a
telephone call, Mr. Rue indicated Henry's Market might be replaced someday and said he was
surprised to hear that as they were looking forward to Henry's playing a major part in his center. He
thought the design is phenomenal but indicated they remained in disagreement about some of the
uses. He felt any replacement uses for the Henry's space should be subject to a conditional use
permit. He felt the condition allowing for future changes to the list of uses should be permitted and
suggested the listing could be finalized prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. He
commented that Mike Rue and his son had been very diligent and eamest in trying to work with
them.
John Morrisette, American Beauty Development Company, 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401,
Encino, stated they have a vested interest in seeing the project approved, as they are the
landowners. He commented he was not the applicant and had an opportunity to watch the process
from the sidelines. He observed they provided a prime 10-acre site with the understanding that there
was a Master Plan and a Development Agreement in place and the Master Plan indicated this was a
special site. He acknowledged the initial design was a standard drug store design and it was clear
that would not fly. He remarked he has never seen a developer be more cooperative in his
willingness to make not only architectural changes but also permit use limitations. He said they did
not expect uses to be an issue because there was an approved Master Plan and Development
Agreement. He noted that any other 10-acre site has the ability to put in all of the uses in the
Development Code. He conceded there are certain uses that do not fit the vision. He said there
were a number that were agreed to at the end of the Task Force meetings and there are now
another 12 uses Mr. Rue has agreed to delete. He commended Mr. Rue for his willingness to limit
the future ability to have those uses because they are viable market uses that could be economically
feasible. He stated that the developer cannot finance the project without a certainty as to the
allowable uses. He observed the Development Agreement is a contract but Mr. Rue is willing to
eliminate another 35 uses. He did not think it would be fair or appropriate to keep the issue open
and asked that the Commission approve the project including the prohibited uses listing. He felt the
project surpasses the vision of many years ago.
Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated they prepared the application and have been working with Marketplace
Properties over the last 15 months. He believed his client had been very patient and he believed the
outcome is a good result of a collective effort. He noted the project will be costly because of the
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 14, 2004
extraordinary design and he stated the applicant needs to be sure it is an economically viable project
as well as the comfort of the major anchor, Henry's. He acknowledged that everyone wants Henry's
to stay forever but he stated it is important to face reality and noted that other long-term users have
left such as Gemco and K-Mart. He observed that when Costco moved out of their previous
location, the City needed to be sure there could be a similar use from the standpoint of activity draw,
anchor, etc. He stated the City has a comprehensive Development Code and comprehensive
process with uses listed under The Development Code and the Victoria Arbors Master Plan to
provide for specific uses that are permitted in centers like this as well as uses which are subject to a
conditional use permit. Because any use that will sell alcoholic beverages would be required to
obtain a conditional use permit, he thought any issues of compatibility with the neighboring winery
property could be addressed at that time. He asked that the revisions that were suggested be
approved. He believed that Henry's will be very successful and will stay, but he said the City has the
remedies and the controls. He noted a conditional use permit is the master for the whole center and
the uses that would fall under the conditional use permit category will have to also go through that
process. He remarked that some might be a City Planner approval while others require Planning
Commission approval. He observed that if problems arise,the conditional use permit can be brought
back for a hearing and possible revocation if necessary. He believed it is a great project with input
from the winery, neighbors, Task Force, Design Review Committee, and staff. He believed the
understanding at the last Task Force meeting was that staff would initiate a clean up amendment to
the Victoria Arbors Master Plan to make the uses consistent with the uses approved with this project.
He did not feel it would be legal to change the uses after approving the project. Mr. Buquet said he
• worked with City Engineering staff regarding the traffic signal reimbursement agreement and
Engineering said that was acceptable.
Carol Plowman, Lee and Associates, 3535 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ontario, supported the project.
She said she has known the developer for approximately 15 years and she believed they have put
forth the effort to provide the quality this City will be proud of. She said she recently attended an
opening of a condominium project and dozens of community and professional people cheered when
they were told that Henry's Market would be coming to the City. She believed it will be a wonderful
addition to the City and very complimentary to the winery.
Vicente B. Cziron, 11048 Bel Air Avenue, Ontario, stated he will be a future homeowner in the
community southeast of the project. He said he looks forward to this type of development. He liked
the architectural elements and felt the Development Code satisfactorily addresses the zoning issue.
He requested approval as proposed.
Cathleen Rose, 21345 Cottonwood, Diamond Bar, stated she is a real estate broker with CB Richard
Ellis. She indicated she was at the opening with Ms. Plowman and she agreed there was
enthusiasm regarding the prospect of a Henry's Supermarket. She said she also represented Bank
of America in their negotiations with Marketplace Properties regarding their locating in this center and
they are very pleased with the development.
Commissioner Stewart asked that Gino Filippi and Mike Rue step to the microphone. She said it was
her understanding that Mr. Rue was requesting approval tonight with proposed changes as shown on
the three sheets presented to the Commission.
Mr. Rue confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Stewart asked if Mr. Filippi had seen all of the changes and said she understood he
wanted to allow the uses to be subject to further changes beyond what was presented this evening.
Mr. Filippi said that was correct.
Commissioner Stewart asked for Mr. Filippi's comments with respect to Mr. Rue's proposed change
to limit the sale of liquor to one operation, anchor or otherwise.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 14, 2004
Mr. Filippi responded the winery feels wine or liquor sales should be limited to one operation
operated as a department of the anchor space. He stated that as other tenants are added onto the
center site and someday the winery site, there might be a number of on-premise and off-premise
Alcoholic Beverage uses. He said that if Henry's leaves and a drug store comes in, he felt that one
retailer for liquor and wine would be sufficient.
Commissioner Stewart did not want to be so limiting in this respect. She felt it would be great if a
boutique cheese store or other specialty use were to go into the center that would perhaps broker
some of the winery's products through that store.
Mr. Filippi said that if there were an opportunity such as that, it could be positive.
Commissioner Stewart said it was then her understanding that this would not be a good condition for
the winery business.
Mr. Filippi said perhaps there could be some defined language that a high-end wine/cheese shop
versus "keg-or-barrel" liquor. He felt there is a difference and it is important to define the uses
permitted for the vision of this joint project of a historic winery and specialty/convenience uses. He
thought there is a big difference between a high-end market use and a liquor store.
Commissioner Stewart stated she wanted to resolve the uses tonight. She said the developer has
worked long and hard and she respected that all the parties involved have put in a tremendous
amount of effort including the developer, the winery representatives, Design Review Committee,
Task Force members, Etiwanda Historical Society and staff. She indicated she supports the project
and she wanted to clear up any remaining issues. She did not want to preclude an opportunity for
the winery to broker some wine in a boutique store, but noted the proposed conditions prohibit that
possibility. She believed that the provision to require a conditional use permit for large drug stores
and prescription pharmacies, pet stores, and sporting goods stores would be sufficient to protect the
interests of the winery.
Mr. Filippi was concerned about a 20,000 square foot Henry's being replaced by a possible drug
store.
Commissioner Stewart noted that would be subject to a conditional use permit.
Mr. Filippi believed that Mr. Pitassi believed that any prospective tenant corning into the Henry's
space should be subject to a conditional use permit process.
Commissioner Stewart said the proposed condition should address that concern.
Mr. Filippi replied it would address it with respect to those three uses.
Commissioner Stewart asked if Marketplace Properties was agreeable to that condition.
Mr. Rue observed that all of the major drug store chains require over 10,000 square feet for a
location. He said they are not precluding all of the other uses that would require a conditional use
permit under the Development Code, but these would be layered on top of those uses.
Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart believed the open issues were cleaned up. She was still concerned about
the limitation of one store for sale of liquor because she felt there could be a good business
opportunity for the winery to broker wines through a boutique type store. She said it has been a
long-standing concern since the project was first proposed, that it should work well with the winery
and she believed this project addresses that. She stated that the worst thing that could happen for
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 14, 2004
this center would be for it to become a ghost town, a center that cannot survive because it is so
strictly conditioned. She felt that the prohibition of second-hand stores (not including high end type
stores or antique stores) might become problematic because there could be debates about what
constitutes high end. She stated that when the project was first proposed, the City shied away from
drug stores because of design issues, but she said this has now become an extremely high-end
architectural center.
Commissioner McNiel felt there would be no benefit to having a conditional use permit within a
conditional use permit. He did not know if that had been done historically.
Mr. Buller confirmed that it has not been done in the past. He remarked that staff would like to
comment on the proposed conditions. He indicated that staff did not support the change regarding
- the left turn lane. He said there is a General Plan provision that addresses where and how left-tum
lanes can be located and staff did not feel it would be appropriate to defer the matter to Engineering
staff, but it should rather be decided by the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted that
staff supported the changes with respect to future reimbursement for a portion of the traffic signal
cost and the clarification language regarding the reciprocal driveway access. If the land use issue
were resolved this evening, he said staff would support deletion of the sentence allowing future
revisions to the listing. He agreed it would be better to reach conclusion on the uses this evening so
that staff could prepare the amendment to confirm what the Commission approved. He clarified the
condition was written by staff and thought it was probably the impetus for why the consultant for the
winery spent two hours on the telephone during his vacation to try to negotiate a resolution to the
issues. He said that everyone has worked very hard to resolve the issues. He felt that Planning
Condition 18 could be deleted, as it is redundant.
Commissioner Stewart believed the Commission could make a decision with respect to the uses,
particularly with the provision to require a conditional use permit on the specified uses for 10,000
square feet and above.
Commissioner McNiel agreed with staff with respect to the left-tum lane. He believed the City has
not provided for median breaks for left-tum lanes anywhere.
Mr. Buller commented that one slipped through on Day Creek Boulevard and the applicant used that
as one of the reasons why this should be considered.
Commissioner McNiel felt it is way too close to the intersection and would create a problem. He
thought it is a beautiful center and he thought staff, the Design Review Committee, the applicant,
and the winery should be commended.
Commissioner Fletcher commended Mr. Rue and the rest of his staff for the diligence and the time
they took. He believed they worked very hard with everyone involved, including the City and
residents. He said that he considered everything that was asked and he came back with solutions;
he revised the architecture, enhanced the rear elevations, etc. Commissioner Fletcher was glad to
see that the design and architecture are satisfactory to the winery. He noted the City has an
investment in the historic winery property so there is a concern about the proper uses to protect the
winery property, but he felt it will be a special development and the City should not tie the hands of
the developer to the point that he cannot get tenants. He believed it is important that it be financially
successful in the future in order to enhance the winery property. He thought that so far every intent
has been to attract high quality tenants. He was not sure if the Henry's comment was a future
comment or if Henry's was on the plan and it will be a drug store going in its place. He asked that
staff confirm the steps regarding uses.
Mr. Buller stated the applicant presented an exhibit regarding land use restrictions that was included
as part of the proposed resolution of approval. He observed that when the staff report was written,
discussions regarding uses were still ongoing. He noted the applicant presented a revised listing this
Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 14, 2004
evening and Planning Commission 16 could be revised to delete the final sentence,which indicated
there may be further revisions to the uses listing if the Commission believes the revised listing
satisfies the Commission and the parties that have a stake in the issue. He indicated that staff will
still have to process an amendment to the Victoria Arbors Master Plan to confirm the listing of
permitted and conditionally permitted uses because there will be various people who will be looking
at the various uses over the lifetime of the center, and it would be best to have those uses included
in the Master Plan rather than merely with the center's conditional use permit.
Chairman Macias stated the project had been around a long time and he complemented everyone
involved including the applicant, City staff, and winery family. He felt it is a win/win proposition and
he was satisfied in the solution. He was comfortable with the process. He believed Henry's will be
there and will be successful. He concurred with Commissioner Stewart that the incorporated design
standards will lead to a high quality of any future tenants. He agreed with the majority of changes
proposed by the applicant but felt it would be inappropriate to change the condition regarding a
left-turn lane.
Commissioner Stewart asked if the condition as written would not permit a traffic study regarding a
left-turn lane.
Mr. Buller stated any condition could be readdressed at any time.
Commissioner Stewart stated she understood why a left-turn lane is not being approved but she
thought one would be beneficial to both the center and the future winery development.
Mr. Buller responded that the General Plan has guidelines for left-turn lanes. He stated the applicant
wanted the condition to be rewritten to defer an approval to staff. He stated the City Attorney has
indicated a left-turn pocket would require a General Plan Amendment and therefore staff feels this
proposed change is inappropriate.
Ms. Fong stated the main entry for the winery has a median opening with signals to be installed.
Commissioner Stewart indicated she would like to ask the applicant to clarify their request.
Chairman Macias reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Rue stated they would like the Commission to approve a left-turn lane and they believed the
winery would like such an opening as well. He said he understood there would be another opening
500-600 feet away, but that would be on the other side of the winery. He reported they have done a
traffic study but it had not been reviewed for tonight's meeting. He asked that the Commission defer
a decision on the left-turn lane by saying that it is not approved at this time, thereby allowing them an
option to return with a traffic study to prove it is not harmful to the community and it makes sense.
Mr. Filippi thought it would be good to allow a left-turn lane.
Commissioner Stewart asked if Mr. Filippi would like modification to the applicant's proposal to
restrict wine sales to one outlet in the center.
Mr. Filippi felt they have been flexible and he asked that if a second one is permitted, that it be
defined as being specialty use.
Mr. Buller suggested adding a comment that additional on-site liquor sales may be conditionally
permitted if it is limited to specialty liquor sales complimentary to the winery village.
Commissioner Stewart said she would like that but would defer the question to the applicant.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 14, 2004
Mr. Rue said they are asking that there only be one operator for off-site sales at any one time; they
are not asking for two at any one time.
Commissioner Stewart felt it would be a great opportunity but she would defer it to the winery if they
did not want it. She did not want to limit the opportunity to allow the winery's products to be brokered
through another outlet.
Mr. Filippi stated they would ideally like Henry's to offer a small selection of local wines,which would
be theirs. He said he would not look past Henry's at this time.
Chairman Macias again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart wanted the applicant to have the opportunity to provide a traffic study
regarding a left-turn lane. She thought the opportunity should be studied because of the uniqueness
of Base Line Road, the future winery access, and the good of this center.
Commissioner McNiel disagreed. He felt the distance between the winery median break and the
intersection is too close. He noted there are three lanes going in each direction on Base Line Road
and Base Line Road is heavily traveled, particularly if there is any type of mishap on the 210
Freeway. He also thought it would set up the precedent for putting in median breaks everywhere.
He acknowledged the resolution as proposed by staff shuts off that option, but he said it could be
reconsidered in the future. He also noted that having traffic signals every 400 feet or so drastically
slows down traffic on major boulevards. With respect to whether or not Henry's locates in the center,
he noted that a number of years ago, Irvine Ranch Market came into the Thomas Brothers Winery
center and people were thrilled but it did not succeed. He thought the location had been vacant for
perhaps a year before being leased again. He said there is no guarantee that Henry's will remain a
Henry's forever.
Commissioner Fletcher stated he understood it is not guaranteed but his concern was how the City
controls the quality of tenant. He felt confident that Marketplace Properties will look for upscale
tenants but noted that they may sell the center. He said he was concerned that the City should have
some type of control over the use in the future.
Chairman Macias felt there was a consensus with respect to everything except for the left-turn lane.
He agreed with Commissioner McNiel and felt the original condition as written by staff was
acceptable.
Commissioner Fletcher agreed staffs condition was acceptable and said it could be reviewed in the
future.
Commissioner Stewart observed that the condition reads that a left-turn lane will not be permitted
and she did not feel it would allow it to come back.
Mr. Buller stated that any condition could be reviewed in the future. He said the City Attorney has
determined that a General Plan Amendment would be needed to permit a left-turn lane. He
observed the applicant's proposed change deferred the matter to the Engineering staff and the
Engineering Division cannot approve a General Plan Amendment. He noted the applicant could
come back and request a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit.
Commissioner Stewart felt their proposed change merely gave them an opportunity to study the
matter at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 14, 2004
Mr. Buller reiterated the applicant was asking that Engineering make the final determination on a
left-turn lane. He suggested that the project could be approved without a median break and without
that condition, and that would allow the applicant to come back and apply for a median break.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer stated the site plan shows a median break in Base Line Road, so
it must be addressed in the resolution.
Chairman Macias reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Rue suggested changing the condition to state that the left-turn lane is not approved at this time
and that the applicant may submit a traffic study for consideration.
Commissioner McNiel stated there is nothing in the current condition that precludes them from
submitting a traffic study for consideration.
Mr. Rue said that they were merely looking for an opportunity to present a traffic study in the future.
Chairman Macias stated that by approving the resolution without the applicant's suggested change,
the Commission was not denying them an opportunity to pursue the matter further.
Mr. Buller suggested the wording be changed to state that the median break is not approved at this
time. He noted then the conditional use permit would not have to be modified if a median break were
approved under another process. He noted the minutes would reflect tonight's discussion that the
Commission was not trying to permanently close the door on the idea.
Chairman Macias felt that was a good suggestion.
Commissioner Stewart agreed.
Chairman Macias again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher suggested that staff recap the proposed changes.
Mr. Buller summarized the proposed modifications to conditions as follows: 1)the left-tum lane is
not approved at this time; 2) an agreement for reimbursement of a portion of the cost of the Day
Creek Boulevard and Madrigal Drive traffic signal with future development; 3)additional language to
clarify the easement for the reciprocal driveway access to the winery property;4)deletion of Planning
Condition 18 with respect to the uses to occupy Buildings A and B; and 5) proposed changes
submitted this evening with respect to prohibited and permitted uses.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolutions approving Tentative
Parcel Map SUBTPM16237, Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00504, and Variance
DRC2004-00522 as amended in the preceding paragraph. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
H. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16482-CREATIVE BUILDING CONCEPTS-A request to
subdivide.65 acre of land into 2 lots in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre),
located on the west side of Hellman Avenue at the terminus of Eiger Way-APN: 0208-162-30.
This action is categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section
15315 Minor Land Divisions.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 14, 2004
Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Joe Say, Creative Building Concepts, 5105 Equine Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the
application was for a simple 2-lot subdivision that satisfies the Engineering Department.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias dosed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart felt the project was straightforward.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel,to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel
Map SUBTPM 16482. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
I. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM1648I -CREATIVE BUILDING CONCEPTS ..A request to
subdivide .957 acre of land into 3 lots, 2 lots to front on Hamilton Street and 1 lot to front on
19th Street in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located near the
southwest comer of 19th Street and Cartilla Avenue - APN: 1076-151-04. This action is
categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15315 Minor
Land Divisions.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Joe Say, Creative Building Concepts, 5105 Equine Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that all street
improvements have been done.
Michael Kort, 6778 Cartilla, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the parcel adjacent to the project.
He said he has been fighting gophers and moles coming from this vacant parcel for the last 6 or 7
years so he is happy to see it developed. He asked if the houses to be developed will be consistent
with the four custom homes to the west or if they will stand out and not blend in. He noted he was
happy to see it will be developed but he was concerned about compatibility and his proposed loss of
privacy if they place a two-story house further back on the property.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the applicant was present and he thought he might wish to indicate
his intentions. He noted that the design will go through the City process but thought the applicant
may wish to get the neighbor's name and telephone number.
Mr. Say stated they propose a single story home facing north. He stated they are proposing to build
the same home as they just built in an 18-lot subdivision on Malvern Court,just south of Base Line
Road behind the Albertson's store. He suggested Mr. Kort could go see the homes.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias dosed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative
Parcel Map SUBTPM16481. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 14, 2004
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371 —
' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to change the General Plan land use designation
from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units
per acre)for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of
Victoria Street and East Avenue-APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38,
39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the Etiwanda
Specific Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very
Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the
northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue-APN: 0227-061-38, 70,
71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. Related file: General Plan
Amendment DRC2004-00371. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
Cathy Morris, Planning Specialist, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. There was no testimony and he closed the hearing.
Commissioner Stewart believed it is a positive move responding to people in the community.
111 Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371
and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
L. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated it was time for the Commission to elect Chairman and Vice
Chairman.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, to nominate Rich Macias as Chairman. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carded
Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 14, 2004
Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart, to nominate Larry McNiel as Vice Chairman.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
M. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. He said the City has been fortunate that all five
Commissioners have done an excellent job on the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Stewart stated she would like to continue on the Committee, but was willing to step
down if one of the other Commissioners wished to serve.
Commissioner McNiel asked if Commissioner McPhail wanted to continue on the Design Review
Committee.
Mr. Buller responded that she did to the best of his knowledge.
Commissioner Stewart felt she is enthusiastic about her work on the Committee.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to reappoint Commissioners McPhail and Stewart
to the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
ABSENT: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
It was determined that alternates should be in the following order Fletcher, McNiel, Macias.
Chairman Macias complimented the Design Review Committee members for the job they do.
Commissioner Fletcher agreed and said it would be a much harder job if there wasn't such a good
staff.
N. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to reappoint Commissioner McPhail to the Trails
Committee. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
Brad Buller, City Planner, distributed a revised map had been placed in front of the Commissioners
for the Planning Commission field trip to the new mall. He said Commissioners could bring a guest if
they advised him so that he could secure sufficient hard hats.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 14, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (McPhail absent), to adjourn. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 9:38 p.m. to a workshop regarding Pre-Application Review
DRC2004-00635. The workshop adjourned at 10:30 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. The
Planning Commission workshop then adjourned to 1:00 p.m. on July 17, 2004, for a field trip to the
new mall.
Respectfully submitted,
B d� er
- ary
I
Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 14, 2004