Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/02/28 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 28, 2001 Chairman McNiel 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 McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count,Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated several items were placed in front of the Commissioners and those items would be referred to when the related projects were considered. He recommended that Items B through E be moved to the end of the agenda and stated that staff had been working with that applicant up until tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 14, 2001. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08-BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER-A request to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a retail establishment in the General Commercial District, located at 9456 Roberds Street-APN 202-092-08. (Continued from February 14,2001) Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated the applicant submitted a phasing plan detailing proposed development, which had been placed before the Commission. She noted that on Tuesday, February 27, the applicant submitted plans for a parking lot for the parcel on Amethyst. Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the dates were on the phasing plan. • Brad Buller, City Planner, said staff asked the applicant to state dates. He explained that if the applicant submits a complete application for the retail store, the matter would be heard at the City Planner level and he would ask for specific dates or would set dates as conditions if he approves the use. He indicated the phasing plan was submitted in response to the Commission's request at the Planning Commission meeting on February 14. Chairman McNiel stated the public hearing was still open. Lora Iftikhar, 9456 Roberds Street, Rancho Cucamonga, apologized for not providing the dates on the phasing plan. She stated she and her husband are not project managers or contractors and they do not know how long it will take to complete some of the steps but she realized that each step is contingent upon completing the previous step. She said they are eager to get the project done as soon as possible. She felt things would go faster now that they have acquired the Amethyst lot. She said they have not completed the striping and slurry seal on the parking lot because of the weather. She reported that escrow on the Amethyst lot had closed and they had asked their draftsman to provide a list of civil engineers so they can get going right away. Commissioner Stewart stated the phasing plan lists acquisition of several homes and she asked if that was feasible. Ms. Iftikhar replied they are in negotiations with a home and property on Amethyst and for the Enright Plumbing property. She said they are working on acquiring financing for them. She indicated the 59 parking spaces on the Amethyst lot is a separate issue and those are strategic acquisitions for future potential use. Commissioner Macias asked for clarification of the issues at hand. Mr. Buller said the currently approved Conditional Use is for wholesale use and certain improvements were supposed to be completed before they began operations. He indicated the Iftikhars opened their business before the physical improvements were completed. He said the second issue was that they opened the business for retail use, which had not been approved. Commissioner Macias asked which of the seven phases in the phasing plan are pertinent to resolving the issues at hand. Mr. Buller replied the land acquisitions shown in the phasing plan are not pertinent to resolving the -- immediate-issues—He said-they were-required to build a parking lot with 14 spaces prior to opening the wholesale use. He thought that parking lot would have been completed by this evening except for the recent rains. He explained the retail component was opened without securing proper permits and requires additional parking. He said the lftikhars have now closed escrow on a lot which will allow them to develop the required parking. He observed the future acquisitions are to allow them to ultimately take the entire block and master plan a business plan to allow them to maximize the use of the large existing building with potential uses suggested of a Farmers Market,event hall,or shopping mini-mall. He stated that Commissioner Tolstoy raised a good point at the last meeting regarding the majority of the parking being to the north, but the retail entrance being to the south. He said the City Planner is suggesting that the orientation of the building be related to where the parking lot is located or a good pedestrian circulation path be developed from the parking to the entrance. He reported the application submitted is still incomplete. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino supported staffs recommendation to give the applicant 60 days to complete the Conditional Use Permit for retail use. He commented that the phasing plan is an ambitious endeavor and he favored success, but he was concemed that the applicant has twice told the Commission that they are unfamiliar with what is necessary. He said they have become a Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 28, 2001 developer of a retail use and he felt that comment rings hollow. He suggested they must familiarize themselves with what is needed if they wish to pursue. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the phasing plan needs dates for other than the land acquisition. He suggested that the phasing timeline be required immediately. Commissioner Stewart agreed. She was particularly interested in seeing the timeline for Phase Two because that is what will bring the retail use into compliance. Commissioner Macias asked if there had been any interaction between the Iftikhars and staff since the last Planning Commission meeting. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Ms. Iftikhar responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias said no one wants to shut them down but we want them to do things right. He observed that other people have limited resources and they do things right and the Iftikhars need to also. He concurred with staffs recommendation to continue the item until April 25. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He agreed with the recommendation for a continuance to April 25. He felt staff had probably already offered assistance to help them through the process. He thought that if they are not in compliance by April 25, the Commission should just go ahead and act on the initial recommendation for revocation. Mr. Buller appreciated the indulgence of the Commission because he believed the Iftikhars are making a good faith effort but said they need some assistance from somebody on their team to do the plans as the City cannot do the plans for them. He said he can condition the phasing plan with what he believes to be appropriate timelines but he was giving them an opportunity to submit a recommended timeline as a business decision. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that was what he thought was going to be submitted tonight. Commissioner Mannerino commented they are in the business and they have chosen the business. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to continue Conditional Use Permit 98-08 to April 25, 2001. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried F. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15278 — PICT PROPERTIES LLC —A request to subdivide 1.10 acres into three parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest comer of Banyan Street and London Avenue—APN: 201-251-049. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification regarding the letter from Metropolitan Water District and asked if the project would infringe on Metropolitan Water District property. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied the City will send them grading plans during the technical plan check for comments. He indicated there would be no impacts or infringements on Metropolitan Water District property. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 28, 2001 Chairman McNiel asked if construction would affect their property. Mr. James responded negatively. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that flag Lot 1 will be providing an ingress/egress easement for the landlocked parcel to the west. He asked if that easement would be on the deed for Parcel 1. Mr. James replied that an ingress/egress easement will be reflected on the final map and that will show up in the title report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bill Kimble, 15838 Aurora Crest Drive, Whittier, agreed with the conditions imposed. He indicated he talked with Metropolitan Water District and foresees no problems with them. He stated he plans to sell the lots off rather than developing them himself. He said he offered an easement for a sewer line to the property owner to the west but he wants that sewer line in before selling the flag lot. John Wong, 8316 Red Oak Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented the owner of the property on the west side of the project. He indicated they currently have no plans to develop their site. He said it would be a burden to put in the sewer and water at this time but said they are willing to share the cost of putting in sewer and water at the same time the flag lot is developed. Chairman McNiel stated those negotiations would be between the two property owners. Mr. Kimble said he wants the property to the west to have the sewer line in place before selling the flag lot. Chairman McNiel did not believe the City could legally impose that condition. Mr. Kimble said a sewer line isn't required by the City, but he offered an easement; however he wants the line to be in before selling to avoid a future problem. Mr. Wong said he did not feel they could apply for water or sewer without having a building permit. He did not feel they should put in the lines at this time because the buyer of the flag lot would have to dig out the trench again to put in their own sewer line. He felt an unnecessary burden would be placed on the property owner to the west if they don't get the easement and didn't feel they should have to put in the lines now. Chairman McNiel asked for guidance from the City Attomey. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, stated the matter needs to be worked out between the property owners. He did not advise the City to require an easement because it is not a public type of easement Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the project proponent is ready to divide and sell the land and an adjacent property owner is saying they would like to put in the sewer line when the property is developed as opposed to putting it in now and letting the lots sit vacant for a number of years. He said there is no guarantee that the lots will be developed. He agreed it is a private matter between the two property owners. He said he had spoken with Mr. Wong at the counter and he indicated it would be difficult to get a sewer anywhere but to the west for his two properties although Mr. Wong said he would contact Cucamonga County Water District for information. He said the project proponent could advise potential buyers that there is an easement for sewer purposes but they need to work it out among themselves. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 28, 2001 Mr. Wong indicated he talked to Cucamonga County Water District and they indicated the sewer lines could go west to Archibald Avenue; however, that would mean the meter would be on the opposite side of the access. He said the Water District preferred that access go to London Avenue on the east. Mr. Kimble said they already have water, gas, electrical, and cable N to the property. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart understood the sewer easement is not the City's purview, but she asked if the property owners to the west will have to buy the easement. Mr. Buller stated the City took the position that the ingress/egress from the properties to the west should be to the east; therefore, the City required an access easement. He said the City did not require utility easements. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that any easements other than access would be between the property owners. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 15278. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-38 — CHIPOTLE GRILL- A request to construct a 2,500 square foot restaurant with 248 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,514 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90. Related File: Development Review 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there have been some problems in the past with the design of parking lots. He asked if staff feels the design as presented would create congestion. Mr. Le Count replied the project went through substantial revisions with respect to parking. He said staff is recommending that the driveway at the very southeast corner be adjusted westerly so it will not be necessary to make a u-turn from the driveway south of the Magic Wok Restaurant. He thought that change would make the parking lot work well. Chairman McNiel said there was a substantial re-design as it went through the Design Review process. He indicated the square footage of the building was substantially reduced in order to provide sufficient parking. He opened the public hearing. David Pickard, Pickard Architects, 7915 South Pointer Avenue, Whittier, stated he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Mannerino asked if he was aware of the request for the change to the parking lot layout. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 28, 2001 Mr. Pickard indicated they understand the logic behind the change and feel it can easily be incorporated into the project. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino felt it is a nice looking building. Commissioner Stewart indicated the project was substantially revised in the Design Review process and the applicant was very cooperative. She said there were three meetings and the design of the parking lot was discussed as well as architecture. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 00-38. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-17 — RANCHO CUCAMONGA RV AND BOAT STORAGE—A request to construct a recreational vehicle and boat storage facility on a 3.7 acre site in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located on the north side of Arrow Route, in the Southern California Edison power line easement, adjacent and west of the Day Creek Channel—APN: 229-021-47. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Jim Keith, Secured Equities Corporation, 22672 Lambert,#164, Lake Forest, stated they had spent countless hours working with staff in an effort to provide a very attractive RV and boat storage facility. He said they had enhanced the side which will face the future Day Creek Boulevard so that side will also be attractive. There-were-no-further-public-comments-regarding-this-item. ---- --- - Commissioner Mannerino felt opening the facility will make Code Enforcement's job easier because there will be storage spaces available. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review 00-17. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-04—AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a Development Agreement for the development project known as the Victoria Arbors on approximately 300.64 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west—APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36;227-161-28,31,33, Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 28, 2001 • 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. (Continued from February 14, 2001.) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 01-04 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a residential Master Plan for a development project known as the Victoria Arbors for approximately 300.64 acres of land,in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west-APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36;227-161-28,31,33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. (Continued from February 14, 2001.) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15641 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. -A request to subdivide approximately 300.64 acres into 35 lots for financing purposes for a mixed use development project known as the Victoria Arbors, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west-APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. (Continued from February 14, 2001.) E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15974 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. -A residential subdivision of 554 single family lots and including a 10-acre parcel for a school and approximately 17.33 acres of park and open space on approximately 190 acres of land,within a development project known as the Victoria Arbors, in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, future Church Street to the south, and Day Creek ' Channel to the west-APN: 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38;227-171-08, 11, 12,20,22,23, and 25; and 227-211-40. (Continued from February 14, 2001.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the City Attomey reviewed and accepted the Development Agreement and a copy with the changes shown was in front of the Commissioners. She said the changes relate to the timing of the validation of the Tentative Tract Map and the Master Plan and the terms that ensure the sale of the 55 acres to the City. She indicated staff added some conditions to the Development Agreement and those changes were detailed on the revised Exhibit "G" before the Commissioners. (Changes relate to providing fiber optic conduit and requiring City Engineer approval of the Master Infrastructure Allocation, Infrastructure Cost Estimate and Cost Sharing Agreement.) Ms. Fong stated a copy of the revised Master Plan was also provided to the Commission that clarified wording in various areas. She suggested changes to the resolution for approval of the Development Review to require the Final Master Plan and Architectural Guidelines be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to City Council approval of the Development Agreement. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that the applicant had agreed to move up the conditions to an earlier time. Ms. Fong suggested modifying Planning Condition 6 to provide that mid-block trail opening designs be approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. She indicated that Planning Condition 10 a and 10 b could be removed, as they have been resolved. She suggested changing Planning Condition 10 g to move the trail between Lots 172 and 173 to the west subject to City Planner review and approval. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification on the trail. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 28, 2001 Mr. Buller indicated that the last plan proposed bringing the trail out at the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, in an activity center, so staff preferred that it be moved to the west and staff and the applicant are still working on the details. Ms. Fong suggested a modification to Planning Condition 17 e to provide for a minimum square footage for private open space of 7 percent of the gross floor area of the house product, rather than 10 percent. Chairman McNiel asked why that change was recommended. Mr. Buller stated staff heard the Commissioners say they want the neighborhood to be unique and the Commissioners agreed that porches, courtyards, balconies, trellis work, etc. would be used to bring a sense of activity to the front yard. He said staff suggested a 10 percent minimum and the applicant presented a case where 5 percent would work. He stated staff and the applicant wanted to work on it through design, rather than mandating a figure; therefore, 7 percent seemed a reasonable compromise. He felt it may be a burden to try to force in 200 square feet on a lot. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification that 7 percent would be the minimum. Ms. Fong confirmed that was correct and stated that more could be required through design review. Mr. Buller observed that the Master Plan calls for a minimum depth of 8 feet, so it will be usable space. Ms. Fong recommended Condition 17 g be changed to provide altemative garages for 65 percent of the houses with a reduction possible to 55 percent if the front-on garages are treated with enhancements. She observed that the Master Plan depicts approximately 65 percent and staff agreed that would be sufficient. Mr. Buller noted that an exhibit was presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop to show altemative garage locations and access and the Planning Commission conceptually agreed that was acceptable. Ms. Fong indicated the requirement for fiber-optic cable installation could be deleted because it is required under the Development Agreement. She also suggested that the final list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to City Council approval of the Development Agreement. She proposed adding two conditions to the resolutions for the Development Agreement and the Tentative Tract to require the developer to provide written notices to prospective buyers of the required 20-foot landscape buffer with a non- buildable deed restriction and the future Regional Center with the notice format to be approved by the City Planner. Mr. Buller stated that the properties surrounding the winery will have a deed restriction regarding the landscape buffer but the City was asking the developer to further disclose it to prospective buyers and indicate that the landscaping is to be maintained. Ms. Fong suggested that a condition be added to the Parcel Map resolution to indicate that approval would not be effective until the ordinance approving the Development Agreement becomes effective. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, observed that the City typically requires a developer to supply 50 copies of approved Master Plans for City staff to work from to implement the Master Plan and he asked that a condition be added to that effect. Commissioner Stewart noted that there had been substantial changes from what was in the original agenda packet, and she asked if the changes are now final. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 28, 2001 Ms. Fong believed so. She said staff met with the applicant and reviewed changes and they agreed the proposed changes are better for the Master Plan document and the project. Mr. Buller stated staff feels comfortable because the developer has made a commitment that any issues will be resolved before the Development Agreement goes to the City Council in March. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Morrisette, American Beauty Development Company, 16830 Ventura Boulevard,#401, stated that staff had worked very hard to get the project before the Planning Commission this evening. He felt the plan is superior and unique to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and will dovetail very well with the proposed mall. He thought they had satisfactorily concluded all of the issues and he anticipated that all the agreed-upon changes would be made prior to City Council approval of the Development Agreement. Bob Lacoss, PDS West, 31271 Paseo Serrano, San Juan Capistrano, gave a brief overview of the project, showing the key elements including the trail system and paseos going into the village green and town square in the Regional Mall. He said that most of the residential lots are within ' mile of the school and park and there are paseos connecting them to those features. He showed a proposed pedestrian oriented island with a 10-foot walkway through the center, which will be conducive to street fairs, etc. He proposed 15-foot by 14-foot paved areas interspersed with lawn areas to be used for setting up booths and larger areas of lawn to accommodate street-fair type activities. He felt that would green the area up and give a significant amount of hardscape for maintenance purposes. He indicated arbors are proposed at either end of Arbor Lane. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the issue of possible abrogation of the wetlands was dead. Mr. Buller stated the applicant believes they have made a good faith effort to address all agencies and gotten the permits for the wetlands to stay. He said the City is looking for ways to address that issue to eliminate it, which would provide another 1+ acre of parkland. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the Development Agreement provides flexibility for that change if the opportunity arises. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the Engineering Division placed a condition on the Tentative Tract to eliminate the wetlands. He said if the developer is unable to eliminate the wetlands, the developer is responsible to obtain all necessary permits and retum the design of the walkways, fencing, bridges, landscaping, etc. to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy noted the Commissioners had a memorandum before them regarding grass areas. Mr. Buller stated there have been various proposals for how to treat the landscaping for the median island which goes to the future mall site and the winery. He said there are a lot of options and the City Engineer has indicated he would like final design approval regarding the ground surface material. He noted staff was not asking the Commission to approve a final design and staff has determined there should be a strong identification of arbor elements and trees in a pattern to accentuate the lane in a north/south direction and provide an opportunity for programming of the median. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the median is to be used for public uses, he hoped.the City Council's directive regarding lawns be closely looked at because it would be a much more functional area with lawn rather than ground cover. He said that pedestrians would kill ground cover and the area could not be used for booths. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 28, 2001 Peter Pitassi,Architect, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was representing the Filippi Winery, the tenants of the winery parcel. He reported they have been in on-going discussions with the Redevelopment Agency to purchase the property and currently have a long-term lease. He indicated they were excited about the winery theme for the plan. He stated they had quickly gone through the proposed Master Plan. He noted the winery is a working winery, which is not totally consistent with residential uses. He was concerned that the document seems to indicate that the Mixed Use Village Center Commercial designation will apply to the winery site. He said that Ms. Fong had indicated the winery would be classified as Community Facility but there were no descriptive uses to say that winery, wine operations, or agricultural operations would be permitted there. He remarked that Ms. Fong indicated a revised copy had been given to the Commissioners, but he had not seen it. He stated they are concerned that the winery and ancillary uses, such as food service, be allowed. He thought the landscape buffer had originally been wider. He did not think a 20-foot landscape buffer will be sufficient to address the physical differences between a producing winery and a single family home. He asked the City to revisit the buffer to avoid future conflicts of use. He wanted to be sure that the architectural guidelines do not apply to the winery property. He said that Ms. Fong stated she had modified the document to indicate it will not apply to the winery. He noted there is a prohibition of bell tower roofs and fiberglass shingles and said that the City had just re-roofed the winery with fiberglass shingles. He felt that when the winery expands, there may be a need to look at a continuation of agrarian materials. He observed the Master Plan includes a description of landscape requirements along Base Line Road calling for liquid amber and Canary Island Palm and the winery was concerned regarding visibility. He asked for flexibility to allow avenues of visibility for the retail aspect. He wanted to be sure the winery property retains access to some public way for sewer and drainage purposes. He noted there is a public street which extends to the southeast comer of the winery property but it appears to have a gap between the edge of the right of way and the actual property line. Gino Filippi, 12467 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they are taking a lot of input from the design charettes in the direction they are going with the future of the winery through phases if they should purchase the property. John Lyons, 11984 Dorset, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the Commission should postpone action and hold a new public hearing. He noted that it was Ash Wednesday and he felt many people could not attend because of the holiday. He said there had been a workshop and he noted there is now a new document. He felt the neighborhood should receive new notices. He remarked he was involved in both the Victoria and Terra Vista Community Plans. He stated that the Victoria area was placed in a flood control area right after being built and they all had to buy flood insurance for about 10 years. He said wood fences all blew down in his tract and residents were faced with higher homeowners insurance costs. He stated that when Terra Vista was built , it did not have the same problems that Victoria had. He stated the developer does not plan on building this planned community. He said that when the Victoria Plan was submitted, the City was told that many things would be provided,but they were not. He said the biggest promise to the residents was that sales tax generated from commercial development would take care of the City forever. He felt the commercial should be built before more residential is built. He thought that the community should be built to be energy sufficient with solar panels or other generating equipment. He thought it should be the best plan possible. Richard Heilman, 7576 Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Gardens, LLC,who purchased the temple property. He said they have refurbished it and feel it is one of the finest wedding reception facilities in Southem California. He was concerned that the property currently owned by American Beauty is being used as a dump and recreational playground with general loitering. He observed that the berms in the area known as the wetlands have been almost totally destroyed by the 20 to 30 off-road motorcyclists that converge there every weekend. He said they come onto his property and trash is dumped all over the area. He was concemed that American Beauty has not done anything to protect the property. He asked that it be fenced or something done to end the influx of people destroying the environment. He reported they are also causing him to lose business because of the noise that he cannot sell outdoor weddings. He said there is no Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 28, 2001 signage from American Beauty to restrict dumping or off-road vehicles; therefore,the Police cannot enforce City ordinances without proper signage. He indicated he would like to know what will be located on the 27 acres south of his property and how it will be buffered. Doug Claflen, Business Services Administrator, Etiwanda School District, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they have worked in conjunction with American Beauty over the months. He said they are encouraged to see the school site moved away from the Base Line area into a more residential community. He felt the school and park sites are a nice combination and it would facilitate joint use of the school site by the City and the park site by the school. He said they always have a letter of opposition until a developer completes a mitigation agreement with the school. He commented they are having ongoing discussions with American Beauty, but an agreement has not yet been reached. He indicated American Beauty used a standard stock plan to save plans and architectural fees for the site. He said it is a duplication of a school they built in Fontana and there could be modifications as to the building layout. He expressed concem that they have the ability to have access from Victoria Park Lane to give them full access across the property and to eliminate stacking of cars on the residential and main streets. He noted there had been some items brought up with regards to the wetlands and the general use of the area right now and he reported that school districts must have proposed sites approved by the Department of Toxic Substance Control. He said that if there are substantial problems relating to agricultural or other waste products dumped in the area, the school would need assistance from the developer to clean up the site prior to its being designated as a school site, as the schools do not have unlimited funds. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Ms. Fong stated the winery was included as part of the Master Plan so that future commercial development adjacent to the winery would take the winery into consideration. She reported she added a winery with retail sales,wine tasting, banquet facilities, etc. as conditionally permitted uses under the Community Facilities District to make sure the uses in the winery will continue to be allowed. Commissioner Stewart if the banquet facility use would also include a restaurant facility. Ms. Fong replied it would. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it should specifically list restaurants. Ms. Fong agreed it could be added in. Commissioner Mannerino recalled that a Conditional Use Permit had been granted to allow them to crush 500 tons of grape. He asked if there would be specific reference to the continuation of that use. Ms. Fong replied affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked if it should include a listing of the results of the charettes, which Mr. Filippi has said they have adopted as their vision. Mr. Buller observed that the charettes covered a whole range of uses. He suggested that not all uses mentioned in the charettes be accepted. Commissioner Macias suggested that the vision of Mr. Filippi be included if possible. Mr. Buller stated the City has not seen anything from the winery. He indicated staff took into account that the 14-acre site owned by the Redevelopment Agency has a tenant with a Conditional Use Permit for a variety of activities. He said in the early part of processing this application, there were Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 28, 2001 discussions regarding buffering and American Beauty showed the buffering to be primarily on the 14-acre site. He indicated staff felt that was unfair and it was decided that it would be fair to split the buffer between the sites, so 20 feet of the original 40-foot buffer will be on the American Beauty side. He suggested that if it is determined a 40-foot buffer is needed, the other 20 feet could be on the 14-acre side. He said the amount of buffering needed depends on what type of use goes in that area. He felt it may not be necessary to have a 40-foot wide buffer. He noted the winery property originally showed a vineyard on the south side of the winery property, and that would provide a natural buffer. He said that on the tract layout before the Commission, they tried to minimize the number of lots and tried to put a street adjacent to the winery site in order to create as great a buffer as possible. He stated that where it was ultimately determined there had to be some use, it was felt that it would be best to put in a 20-foot dedicated restrictive land for landscaping on the private side rather than a common open space. He said they also required an 8-foot wall. He reported that is what was also required by the Griffith project at 4th Street and Archibald where an office/industrial business center was allowed on Archibald Avenue abutting a single family development. He said that development put in a higher wall. Ms. Fong noted that the draft Victoria Arbors Master Plan was modified so that the winery would not have to follow the Architectural Guidelines. Mr. Buller confirmed that the Redevelopment Agency recently installed an asphalt shingle roof on the winery. He observed that the City Council recently approved an Ordinance regarding roofing and it allows an exception to allow asphalt shingle for historic or architectural styles which dictate that asphalt shingles would be the right choice. He said it was not staffs intent to allow asphalt shingles in the single-family neighborhood. Ms. Fong observed that Mr. Pitassi raised a concern regarding landscaping along Base Line Road. She did not believe it would affect the winery because the winery is unique and the building is located too close to the street to put in a lot of landscaping. She indicated there might be some landscaping further east if vineyards are moved from where they are now located. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that it would not be appropriate to plant trees that would shade the vineyards. Regarding the preservation of access to the winery, Ms. Fong said there is a pedestrian trail to the south and American Beauty is to come up with a design. She said the 20-foot buffer strip could logically have an access point preserved. Regarding the dumping and off-road vehicle use, she indicated the matter should be referred back to John Morrisette from American Beauty to address those problems. She said staff would certainly work with them so they can properly post the site to prohibit off-road vehicle use and loitering. She thought they should also think about fencing the property. Mr. Buller stated that if the applicant posts the site, the City would have the ability to go on site and police it. Chairman McNiel did not think fencing would be a realistic option because he felt it would not deter the off-road motorcycle people. Mr. Buller commented the applicant has been working with the school district. He said the Mitigation Monitoring Program included in the Environmental Impact Report covers the negotiation that needs to occur between the developer and the school district. He stated the developer has committed to working diligently to address all issues prior to the City Council meeting. Chairman McNiel questioned when the Development Agreement will be considered by the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 28, 2001 Mr. Buller replied that it is tentatively scheduled for March 21. Chairman McNiel thought mitigation agreements with the school districts are normally in place before the projects are considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Buller responded that the laws have been changing over the last year or so. He said the City has always said that schools are an essential service to our community and staff will do whatever it can to be sure there are adequate schools with each project that comes in. He said the mitigation which was conditioned through the Environmental Impact Report is consistent with past actions of the City. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated the City would be sure it was accomplished prior to approval of the Development Agreement. He said there was a proposition approved by voters in last fall's elections which modified the law in terms of the ability of cities to impose additional mitigation beyond the state fees in a school context. He said they had been alerted to that this afternoon and will look into it and will do everything the City legally can on this issue. Mr. Ennis said that the law used to allow a city to impose additional school impact mitigations beyond the state required state fees but the proposition on the November ballot impacted that arrangement and he had not had a chance to analyze the full extent of that impact. Chairman McNiel asked if the City would be in any jeopardy by approving the Tentative Tract tonight. Mr. Ennis responded negatively because the Tentative Tract Map approval would not be effective until the Development Agreement is in effect and the Development Agreement will not be acted upon until the-issue-is-resolved. He-said-the other approvals-are also contingent upon the Development Agreement being approved. Commissioner Mannerino asked if staff was suggesting a change to the winery access before the matter goes before the City Council. Ms. Fong replied that she was not suggesting a change, but had merely responded to Mr. Pitassi's request for an opportunity to have the access available. Chairman McNiel asked if an easement is required on the American Beauty property. Mr. James stated it would be in the City right of way and will be maintained within a Landscape Maintenance District. He said they could work with American Beauty fora sewer hook up or water. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pitassi asked who would be the owner of the lot. Ms. Fong responded the City would. Mr. Pitassi said that would be fine. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the school district-indicated a desire to have the ability to have ingress/egress on Victoria Loop. He did not think that is a good idea because there are no lots accessing Victoria Loop and he felt it will be a speedway. He thought it could be used as an emergency outlet only. Chairman McNiel noted the plan for the school is only conceptual. He thought the plan could be developed so that access could be created to the rest of the site without utilizing Victoria Loop. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 28, 2001 Commissioner Mannerino noted that the school district did not ask for the access, only mentioned they would like to have the ability to request it. Chairman McNiel observed that a lot of new information was presented to them this evening. He felt the Commission should continue the matter for two weeks to allow time for items to be more thoroughly analyzed and to allow the Commissioners time to absorb what was presented. Commissioner Macias concurred. He felt that would also give the winery people more time to review the document. He said it is one of the biggest projects going through the City. Chairman McNiel felt it would still be possible to forward the matter to the City Council on March 21. He thought continuing the project would also give staff an opportunity to respond to the issues. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. He wanted to make sure the existing winery,the commercial center, and the American Beauty project will dovetail well. He felt the winery could comment further. Chairman McNiel stated it is a huge project and he did not want to miss an opportunity. He felt staff had done an excellent job under a lot of pressure. He thought it will be a fine project. Commissioner Stewart agreed. She felt substantial changes had been proposed and she thought all concerned should have an opportunity to look at it. Mr. Buller stated staff could bring back revised resolutions but he said staff felt the issues have been analyzed. He acknowledged that the Commission was looking at some items for the first time and had not had an opportunity to review. He pointed out that the Council report is due out of his office on March 14, the date of the next Planning Commission meeting and he asked if the Commissioners would consider a special meeting, perhaps in conjunction with the Design Review Committee meeting on March 6. Commissioner Stewart did not oppose a special meeting. Commissioner Mannerino stated he would like the special meeting to be limited to the issues which were newly raised this evening. He said he hoped there are not 400 people in the audience discussing whether the project should be built. Commissioner Mannerino asked if it was realistic for staff to be ready to recommend approval of the _Development Agreement on March 21. Mr. Ennis felt it would be possible within a day or two to have an answer to the legal question. He said that if the answer requires an agreement, that may be difficult depending on how close the developer and the school district are in reaching agreement. Commissioner Mannerino stated he had wondered whether it makes sense to push things through if the Development Agreement will not be ready for action. Mr. Buller stated the developer is the one asking for clarification of this condition on the Development Agreement. He felt staff could recommend approval on all other items. Commissioner Mannerino noted that everyone will have an opportunity to voice their concerns the night of the City Council meeting when everything has to be approved. Mr. Coleman reported that there was one Consent Calendar item plus six projects to be reviewed at the Design Review Committee on March 6. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 28, 2001 Mr. Buller suggested that the meeting could be continued to Wednesday, March 7 and held in the Rains Room or Tri-Communities Room. Chairman McNiel felt it would be prudent to continue the project. He felt it is a good project. He said the Commissioners were inundated with a lot of information that was new this evening. He remarked that he understood the winery's concerns with trying to make sure they are not encumbered with American Beauty's development standards on their project. He reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to continue Development agreement 00-04, Development Review 01-04 Parcel Map 15641, and Tentative Tract 15974 to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 07, 2001, in the Rains Room. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Tolstoy, carded 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 9:25 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on March 7, 2001. Respectfully submitted, i ie; Br! ller V Secretary I Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 28, 2001