Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/07/14 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July14, 1999 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 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; William Curly, Deputy City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Sal Salazar, Associate Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Division Secretary; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewad, seconded by Mannerino, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of May 26,1999. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewad, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of June 23, 1999. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A public hearing for a proposed project to be known as the Victoria Arbors Village on 291.8 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community, generally bounded by Base Line Road, future Victoria Park Lane, future Church Street, future Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and the Day Creek Channel - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 36; 222-201-33; 227-161-33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-11, 12, and 14. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 98-01. (A) Land Use changes for the following areas: Subarea 1.: Subarea la - from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Community Facilities to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 7.67 acres of land, generally located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of the winery; and consideration of alternative land use designations of Community Facilities. Subarea lb - from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Park, and School for approximately 57.40 acres of land, generally located east of future Day Creek Boulevard and 600 feet south of Base Line Road; and the consideration of alternative land use designations of Community Facilities for the northeast side of the subarea, immediately east of the winery. Subarea lc - from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 21.13 acres of land for the area generally located south of Base Line Road and east of future Victoria Park Lane; and consideration of retaining the Low-Medium Residential designation. Subarea ld - from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), Regional Related Office/Commercial, and Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 39.45 acres of land, generally located on the north side of future Church Street and east of future Day Creek Boulevard; and consideration of alternative land use designations of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium- High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre). Subarea le - from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Regional Related Office/Commercial to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 13.76 acres of land, generally located north of future Church Street, west of future Victoria Loop Street; and consideration of alternative land use designations of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre). Subarea 2 - from Regional Related Office/Commercial to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 53 acres of land, generally located on the west side of future Oay Creek Boulevard, north and south of future Church Street; and consideration of retaining the Regional Related Office/Commercial designation. Subarea 3 - Re-align the boundaries of the Victoria Community Plan to include approximately 26 acres of land from the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located on P~anning Commission Minutes -2- July 14, 1999 the north side of Church Street and the west side of Etiwanda Avenue; and a request to change the land use designation from Office to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and consideration of alternative land use designations of a mix of Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and consideration by the City of retaining the area in the Etiwanda Specific Plan with an Office designation or a mix of Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). (B) Amend the Circulation and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General Plan. (C) Amend various graphics and text for the Victoria Community Plan. (D) Consideration by the City of alternative sites for Park and School within the project area of the Victoria Community Plan. (E) Modify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and various development and design standards for Regional Related Office/Commercial, Regional Center, and Community Facilities of the Victoria Community Plan. The Environmental Impact Report for this project was considered on May 26, 1999. (Continued from June 9, 1999) B. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98°02, AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CC). - A request to re-align the boundaries of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by re-designating approximately 26 acres of land, generally located on the north side of Church Street and the west side of Etiwanda Avenue to the Victoria Community Plan; and consideration by the City of retaining the area in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and retaining the land use designation of Office; and consideration of alternative land use designations of a mix of Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 227-171-11, 12, and 14. Related file: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-01. The Environmental Impact Report for this project was considered on May 26, 1999. (Continued from June 9, 1999) Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant, American Beauty Development, had requested a continuance to the meeting of September 22,1999. Chairman McNiel indicated the public hearing was open. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to continue Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment 98-02, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-01 and Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment 98-02, and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 98-01 to the September 22, 1999 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRA']-r AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 14, 1999 recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, nodh of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, announced to the Planning Commission that the applicant requested a two-week continuance for the purpose of resolving the biological issues and concerns with the project. Mr. Le Count also noted several letters from residents near the site had submitted letters to be entered into the record: Ms. Cindy Shannon wrote a letter indicating her concern about the change of the date of the public hearing from July 14 to August 11. She suggested in her letter the hearing be postponed until September when more residents would be available to attend. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Development Review 98-10 to the July 28 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-41 MODIFICATION - DELRAHIM - A request to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to add a 2-bay, 896 square foot auto detail building and a 55 square foot carwash control kiosk to a service station with carwash and lube facilities on 1.8 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09, 22, and 31. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments or questions, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel asked if all requirements asked of the applicant had been met for the project. Mr. Le Count said that they had. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to approve Conditional Use Permit 97-41 Modification by adoption of the resolution. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNiEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 14, 1999 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.16026 - AMETHYST ESTATES UP. - A residential subdivision of 18 single family lots on 11.3 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Street - APN: 1061.401-03. Related files: Variance 99- 01, Pre-Application Review 99-01, Variance 87-14 and Tentative Tract 13674. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. VARIANCE 99-01 AMETHYST ESTATES L.P. - A request to reduce the minimum required lot depth from 150 feet to 146.5 feet for 11 lots in conjunction with the development of 18 single family lots on 11.3 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Street - APN: 1061-401-03, Related files Pre-Application Review 99-01, Variance 87-14, and Tentative Tracts 16026 and 13674. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and announced that a clarification needed to be made in regard to the Variance. He stated that the minimum required depth of the lots is 150 feet, but that in the case of 11 lots, the depth of the lots will range from 143 feet to 146.72 feet. He also indicated that a letter from the Alta Loma Riding Club was received as well as other letters from residents with concerns about the access to trails, increased traffic, and traffic safety issues and drainage. Chairman McNiel responded by asking for confirmation that the greatest variance from the set standard would be 7 feet. Mr. Zeledon confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Stewart asked if it would be possible for the developer to dedicate access to the existing community trail. Mr. Zeledon reported that during the neighborhood meeting, the developer indicated he would consider that as an option, but that there were concerns in regard to his liability, and that since it is a private trail, the City would not be able to force him to make this dedication. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of utility was on the 10 foot easement at the rear of the lots. Mr. Zeledon stated that the easement area has trees, a corral, and grassy areas, but that the actual utility is all underground. Chairman McNiel asked whether the easement was being used for vehicular access. Mr. Zeledon indicated that for the most part, vehicles do not use it except for one resident who brings in feed for her horses by driving on the easement. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Wang, 8316 Red Oak Street, Rancho Cucamonga, the developer, indicated he was available to answer questions. Heather Donesky, 10288 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced herself as the past president of the Alta Loma Riding Club. She stated that the trail corridor was being used heavily and that it is private property. She stated that riding on Valley View Street and going north on Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 14, 1999 Amethyst Street would not be safe because it is a paved street nor would the horse droppings be acceptable to many of the homeowners. She asserted their desire to have the regional trail (Demens)completed which begins at the top of Hellman Avenue and follows along the west side of the tract. She noted that since this section is not complete, the riders currently travel east on Valley View Street to a vacant lot, then they continue north through the lot and pick up the existing trail that cuts through the western portion of the proposed tract heading north. She requested that public access to the trails be maintained and step throughs be adhered to as noted on page E&F 36 of the staff report, item 9.a. of the Standard Conditions. She continued by suggesting that if the developer did not want to pay for putting in the trail, that perhaps monies set aside for parks and beautification could be used for this purpose. Cindy Parlier, 9494 Valley View Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her home is located at the northwest corner of Valley View Street and Amethyst Street. She indicated that when they were notified of the proposed develdpment 11 years ago, they were never told it had been approved and that it was pending flood control issues. She cited their main concern as flood control. She indicated the proposed bridle trail along Amethyst Streetwould take away the parkway indicated on tl~e original plans from 1967, and furthermore would be an encroachment of about 2 feet into her property line if the trail was to be 12 feet wide. She explained that they had planted shrubs along the parkway to divert flood waters which come down the hill and have a direct line to her home and patio. She noted that at one time the residents understood the easement to the rear of her home was publicly owned and that when they discovered it was not, the residents suggested Mr. Wang give up a portion of property from the southern property line of his development and the residents would do the same along the rear of their properties, so that the public trail could go through on the easement. She then discussed the width of Amethyst Street explaining that it is far too narrow to support the parking of cars and the egress of emergency vehicles and that the money to develop the east side of Amethyst Street was paid to the county when the homes on the east side were built. Michael Vaughn, 9394 Valley View Street, and the current president of the Alta Loma Riding Club, recapped the current path of the trail. He indicated that there is no horse traffic on Valley View Street at this time and by closing offthe current access, the only access to the park would be down Amethyst Street on the proposed trail that the developer would build, to Valley View Street and then up Hellman to the Demens Trail. He also explained that he felt Amethyst Street was too narrow for safety. He estimated 30-40 more horses and 30-40 more cars on Amethyst Street would be exceptionally dangerous. He supported the opening of the regional bridle trail to keep the horses off of the streets. Claudia McClintock, 9478 Valley View Street, thanked the developer for taking the time to discuss their issues with them. She noted that she had purchased her home because it was "horse property" and that if the development goes in as planned, she has been advised that she will no longer be the owner of "horse-property" with no horse trail access which could lower her property value by as much as $30 thousand dollars. She stated the park was the drawing point for her as a horse owner and that she had access to it through the back lot for the past 30 years. She also noted that she had heard there was a possibility of access to the trail via the developer and an association, but that she had not heard anything firm about those plans. She remarked that riders are respectful of the trails and roads and that because of the speed of the traffic coming south on Amethyst Street, that it would not be safe for the riders there. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Ms. McClintock if there was any possibility of getting her horse from the back of her property to the street. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 14, 1999 Ms. McClintock stated that it was physically impossible because the easement on the lots on the north side are too steep and elevated for a horse to scale. She also noted that she had thought the 10-foot easement on the back of their property was for a trail, but that it is in fact a utility easement. Chairman McNiel asked if the fence-line is on the easement. Ms. McClintock said that it does. Adell Brown, 9416 Valley View Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was aware the project had been approved but that the trail would be public and that it would go through the empty lot and that no home would be built there. She pointed out her concern that with the trail being private, her neighbors would not have access to the trail and that she hoped they could resolve the issue with Mr. Wang. She indicated her concern for her neighbors (the Parliers) and that it would not be wise to have public trails on the west side of Amethyst Streetbecause of the close proximity of the proposed trail to their home. She voiced her concern over having the developer put in the trail on the west side of Amethyst Street and said that it would be better on the east side of Amethyst Street at this point. Chairman McNiel asked if Ms. Brown lives to the south of the proposed development and if she has livestock. Ms. Brown indicated that there are 7 residents that live south of the development and that she has lived there since 1967 and she had animals at that time. She thought that three of the seven currently living there have horses that need the access and she hoped they could resolve the issue with Mr. Wang. Jim Foran, 5353 Amethyst Street, Rancho Cucamonga said that he lives directly across from the proposed development and that his main concern is flooding. He stated he is a new resident and has not had the personal experience yet of the flooding reported by his neighbors. He indicated that there are no curbs on his side of Amethyst Street and that the water from the new project would add to what is already a problem. He explained that he had met with Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, and that Mr. James had told him the City has not reviewed the flood conditions since the original approval of the project. He asked that another survey be done to determine if the project would create flooding dangers to the existing homes. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel then asked Dan James to respond to the issue of flooding. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer stated the engineering calculations would substantiate the adequacy of Amethyst Street to handle the drainage. He observed that with the removal of the shrubs along the property on the northwest corner of Valley View Street and Amethyst Street (Parlier property), there may be a concern of water ramping up the drive approach onto private property but that the conditions of approval require the design of the equestrian trail to have water barriers. He indicated that they may have to consider constructing a deflector curb along the west side of Amethyst Streetas well as along the northern property line of 9494 Amethyst. He also pointed out that that the current back of the sidewalk is ten feet six inches from the curbface and although the trail standard calls for twelve feet, staff could require the trail to be built by removing the existing sidewalk and parkway and the width of the trail to be "necked down" so no additional right-of-way would be needed. He disclosed that staff had researched the issue of funds previously being deposited with the county and that $5,400 was located for the northerly two properties along Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 14, 1999 the east side of Amethyst, however no funds for the four- lot subdivision for Mr. Miller was found. He noted staff added a condition for "No Parking" signs along the east side of Amethyst Street from the north side of the subdivision to Hillside Road in hopes of addressing the homeowners ' concerns. He said staff does not recommend the addition of any stop signs along Amethyst Street at this time and that it is a speed enforcement issue that the homeowners can address by contacting the Traffic Engineer. He indicated that an unwarranted sign that is placed can actually cause more accidents, thereby creating liability for the City. Chairman McNiel asked if we have "necked down" trails in other areas. Mr. James answered that we have and that the Maloof property is a good example with a 9-foot wide trail which is being designed at this time. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, noted that the recommendation of the Trails Committee was to use existing right-of-way and not to use any additional land. Mr. James indicated that the request to place the trail on the east side rather than the west side would be in conflict with what is already on the books and would probably require a General Plan Amendment as well as create conflicts with other residents. Chairman McNiel asked if there were any traffic counts. Mr. James reported that no traffic counts have been done, but that many residents report the majority of the speeding issues result from people leaving the equestrian facility at the park on the weekends. Chairman McNiel asked if all the main issues had been addressed. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that the suggestion of using park and beautification fees for the required trail is not within the scope of the Commission's purviews but staff could look into that suggestion. Chairman McNiel asked if the completion of the regional trail was scheduled for the near future. Mr. Buller stated that it is a goal, but there are no budgeted dollars for its completion, and that we are lacking a few elements before we can gain approval from the flood control district for use of that area. He said it is high on the priority list, but no dollars are budgeted this year. He also commented on the standard conditions noting the likelihood that the local trail will be gated, meaning that only those that are part of the tract will have access to that trail unless the homeowners on the south side could enter into an agreement with the developer for their access. He noted he had-asked staff that they consider equestrian access to the front of the lots along Valley View Street from the rear of the homes, but because of the great differences in the grades of each backyard, it would be impossible to say without a considerable amount of research as to whether that would be possible. He stated the only other place we have had a trail feeding from the back of the lot to the street would be similar to what we have in Deer Creek, but that in any event, horses are not encouraged in the streets, and that is why we have moved to get community trails and regional trails in the public rights-of-way and that we maintain those trails as a City. He asserted the City does care about the safety of the horses and riders and that the Trails Committee has looked long and hard at this issue. He stated he appreciated the riding club's involvement but that it is true that they have been using private property even though it has been posted as private property. He concluded by stating he hoped for a reasonable solution, but that staff does not feel Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 14, 1999 it is fair to condition the property owner to resolve the trail issue for the property owners to the south unless there is a cooperative effort between those home owners and the property owner. Chairman McNiel asked what the outlook is for an agreement between the owner of the property and the seven home owners that need access to the trail. Mr. Buller indicated several available options but that he would hesitate to make it a condition of approval for any of these to occur. He noted them as: 1) the adoption of CC&Rs that these seven homeowners become part of their association and that they could be responsible for part of the fees used to maintain the trail, or 2) the seven property owners consider finding out what it would take to obtain the 10-foot utility easement and convert it to a trail easement for the trail access along their north property line. He pointed out that this might be a difficult option due to the investment of improvements the property owners have made to the rear portions or their yards. Chairman McNiel asked what utility company holds the easement. Mr. Coleman stated that it was a general utitlity easement and is not specified to one utility or another. Mr. Zeledon indicated that some properties would not have access because of the grade from the rear of their lot up to the easement. Mr. Buller then commented on the regional trail noting that this did not address the specific issue in regard to the seven property owners in question but that the Riding Club had asked if money had been budgeted for trails and what priority these projects would have. He stated the City was working with them to establish which trails we as a community would like to pursue but that at this point there are no dollars available. He thought perhaps there may be other avenues for money to be allocated for trails prior to the next budget cycle. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Dan Coleman could comment on the trail along the Demens Channel and the drainage basin. Mr. Coleman stated that the trail from Heritage Park comes along the south side along the levy where it is already graded and smooth, then north to Amethyst Street up to the intersection of Amethyst Street and Almond, but that the agreement with flood control stops at the basin and that there is a gap and is where the City always intended to continue the trail. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if there is an agreement with Flood Control. Mr. Coleman replied that the agreement stops at the basin and that it required three years to get all the clearances through their system to get that. He continued by saying that they expect their facility to be completely fenced with chain link and that we have to present them with drawings for the improvements and that the expense would include the design drawings, the agreements, and then construction of the improvements. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be chain link and if there is fencing there now. Mr, Coleman stated it would be chain link and that he did not think there is currently any fencing at the levy location. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 14, 1999 Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the status in regard to the singular empty lot now being used as an equestrian passage noting that a resident had stated they were told no one would build on that lot. Dan Coleman indicated that was not the case and that he thought the property was owned by Mr. Wang, the owner of the proposed development. Mr. Wang stated from the audience that he did not currently own the property. Commissioner Macias asked Mr. Coleman what alternatives the equestrians would have if the owner of the singular lot places chain link fencing around his property. Mr. Coleman explained that would be a tough situation with few options. He said they would have to continue along Valley View Street on the street until they reach Amethyst Street and then head north on Amethyst Street on the dirt shoulder. Commissioner Macias wondered what would happen if the fence was placed thereby creating the situation they will face. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that he believed there was a fence there at one time. Commissioner Mannerino noted that our city is 80 percent developed and therefore we have fewer and fewer projects which were first approved by the county which paid less attention to detail. He also indicated that another difficulty of this situation is that he personally knows two of the residents who testified earlier and that there is little that can be done to help them in that 1) because it was an old county project, we do not hold the jurisdiction of the easement, 2) the majority of the homeowners built upon what could have been used as a trail access, 3) we cannot force Mr. Wang to deal with the homeowners that do not have access to the trail, nor can we force him to include them in an association and hold him harmless to the maintenance and liability of the trail, although we would strongly encourage the homeowners to meet with Mr. Wang individually and to work towards an association agreement to make that trail public, 4) staff indicates the drainage issues are well in hand and that they will be reviewed at the time construction takes place as well as the traffic issues, 5) we do not have the authority to make a deal with the Flood Control District and that the only authority we have at this point is to approve the project according to the resolution as recommended by staff. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated his agreement with Commissioner Mannerino and expressed his hope that an association could be formed with the developer on their own accord which could not be imposed by the City. He also wondered what would happen when that vacant lot is eventually built upon, it is a bad situation but he felt that all that can be done now is to generate the paperwork and drawings to be submitted to the Flood Control District as quickly as possible. He hoped it would not take as long as the first approval. In the mean time, he suggested the Trails Committee begin pushing for the trails to be completed. He remarked that he felt the Demens Trail and the Almond Trail are the most important trails to work on at this point. Commissioner Macias agreed that it is an unfortunate situation but that it would be wrong to require the developer to provide access. He hoped between the homeowners and the City something could be done to cause that segment of the trail to be constructed. He supported the staff recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 14, 1999 Commissioner Stewart expressed that she did not feel comfortable approving the project at this time because of the flooding issues, the impact to the Parlier's property and the trails issue. Because of so much controversy, she suggested the issues be worked on with staff and the developer so that some of the issues could be resolved. She also noted that she was not comfortable in leaving it to the homeowners to work out an association type of an agreement and that something could be done within the framework of our resolutions not only on this project but on others that would make us more comfortable with the assurance that these types of issues are addressed. She pointed out that she is aware that it makes the situation more difficult because of the prior approval of the project, the easement situation, etc. but she was not comfortable approving the resolutions as written. She felt the applicant should get together with staff to work these issues out or they should be referred back to the Trails Committee for further consideration. Chairman McNiel reiterated that the situation is difficult, citing the facts that the equestrians have been using private property for a "cross-over" trail, and some the easement has been consumed with other improvements and is no longer readily available. He indicated he would be upset if it was his property that was being crossed over and felt the property owner may be upset. He concluded by saying that he would hope that the developer and the homeowners get together and work something out for joint access but he felt the Commission had done all it could do. He supported the project as recommended by staff. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias to issue a Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Tract 16026 and Variance 99-01by adoption of the resolutions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: STEWART ABSENT: NONE -carried Mr. Buller asserted that staffwould be available for questions regarding drainage, traffic, and trails and that they would diligently work on the issues and keep the Commission informed as to our progress in resolving the issues. Chairman McNiel interjected that he hoped the trails situation would be prioritized. Commissioner Mannerino commented that he would like the possibility of the use of Park and Beautification funds be brought before the City Council and that the Planning Commission recommend the prioritization of the trails be brought back to the Commission as a Commission Business item on the agenda in the near future. The Commission recessed from 8:20 p.m. to 8:35 p.m. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-10 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. (WALGREENS) - A request to construct and operate a drive-thru pharmacy, totaling approximately 16,170 square feet in size, in the Neighborhood Commercial District on approximately 1.15 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Carnelian and 19th Streets - APN: 202-541-060. Related Des: Variance 99-02, Tree Removal Permit 99-18, and Preliminary Review 98-18. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 14, 1999 H. VARIANCE 99-02 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. (WALGREENS) - A request to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces from 64 to 60 and to reduce the minimum and average landscape setbacks along 19th Street and Carnelian Street from the required minimum 25 feet and average of 35 feet to 21 and 25 feet respectively at the southeast corner of Carnelian and 19th Streets - APN: 202-541-60. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 99-10, Tree Removal Permit 99-18, and Preliminary Review 98-18. The staff report was presented by Sal Salazar, Associate Planner. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the developer had accepted all of the conditions. Mr. Salazar reported that they had. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Sharon Douglas, Douglas Development, 664 Marshall Court, Claremont, reported that they had worked with staff since 1998 and that they had originally designed a large one-story building but that because of the parking requirements, they went to a smaller footprint with a basement. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He noted that he was pleased the developer had taken staft's suggestions from the design review and that it was a pleasant experience to work with them. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to issue a Negative Declaration and to approve Conditional Use Permit 99-10 and Variance 99-02 by adopting the resolutions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT 16000, AND DESIGN REVIEW 99- 13 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - A proposed Tentative Tract Map consisting of 6 lots for condominium purposes; along with Design Review of 306 apartment units on 16 acres of land, located within the Terra Vista Planned Community. The site boundary is formed by Spruce Avenue, Church Street, and East Elm Avenue. Existing Terra Vista Community Plan land use designation is High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), proposed development density is within the Medium High Residential density (14-24 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 1077-421-55 and 60. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. The staff report was presented by Debra Meier, Contract Planner. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the development was planned to be built in phases or if it would be built all at once. Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 14, 1999 Ms. Meier stated that it would be built in three phases and that it has been given to the developer as a condition that they could build Phases 1 and 2, but then La Mission Park must be built. Commissioner Mannerino asked when the tot lot is scheduled to be built. Ms. Meier indicated it is to be built in the first phase along with the other recreational facilities. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. David Lewis, Lewis Apartment Communities, 1156 Mountain Avenue, Upland, expressed his thanks and kudos to the various design team members excellent work on the project and said that they would continue to be available to answer questions and concerns. He also noted that the recreational facilities as well as the tot lot would be built in the first phase. Chairman McNiel asked what the time frame is for the various phases to be built. Mr. Lewis stated that it would depend upon the leasing of the units but their intention is to build them close together. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Tentative Tract 16000 and Design Review 99-13 by adoption of the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried J. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-12 - JACK IN THE BOX - The development of a fast food restaurant building totaling 2,478 square feet on a 0.75 acre parcel within a proposed shopping center in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-21. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-19. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed a concern that the Jack in the Box would be built and the rest of the project would be "dumped." He questioned whether it is tied to the rest of the building project. Mr. Grahn did not think the applicant would be economically able to design and complete the necessary improvements without the rest of the project being completed. He reported the developer is working things out with Caltrans and the Army Corps of Engineers to complete improvements along Foothill Boulevard to the channel. He noted they have been through plan check and the City is ready to issue permits on the entire project. He indicated the approved conditional use permit does not include a phasing plan. Mr. Buller, City Planner, stated it was staff's opinion that an independent pad could not go in without the rest of the center without a phasing plan being in place; however, the required improvements Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 14, 1999 and infrastructure could be made. He suggested that if the Commission was concerned, a condition could be added that approval of this project would be dependent upon the development of the main tenant under the original conditional use permit. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Schneider, representing Jack In The Box stated emphatically that they had no intention of building the restaurant without the main tenant being built and that they were not interested in the site if the grocery store is not there. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant had read the conditions of approval. Mr. Schneider replied that he had and indicated no concerns. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that a condition regarding the phasing of the project be added to the conditions of approval. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy to approve Development Review 99-12 - Jack In The Box with the condition added that the surrounding project will be constructed as single project and shall not be phased. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. USE DETERMINATION 99-02 - RAY'S BAIL BONDS - A request to determine that a bail bond business is similar to Clerical and Professional Services, which is a permitted use within the General Commercial District of the Development Code. The staff report was presented by Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification as to where this designation would be permitted. Ms. Fong stated that this designation would not be listed in the Community Plans such as Terra Vista, .but would be in any zone that allowes General Commercial, Office Professional and Neighborhood Commercial; for example the Starer Brothers center, or the complex where Commissioner Mannerino's office is located. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jim Vick, Ray's Bail Bonds, 179 South Waterman, San Bernardino, described his business operation as including all licensed bondsmen who are notaries as well; a white collar office. He noted that they provide bonds for the release from custody and the guarantee for the client to appear in court. He explained that their advertising is mostly in the Yellow Pages and by referral Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 14, 1999 from attorneys and other professionals, and because of the West Valley Superior Court located next door to City Hall, they are very busy. Chairman McNiel asked if they have much walk in trade. Mr. Vick explained that there would be more walk-in trade if they were located closer to the jaiIs, but they have occasional walk-ins. He said they also provide their services via a mobile service whereby they visit the clients in their homes and, therefore, are in and out quite a bit. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the applicant to review the hours they are available especially since most businesses in shopping centers are only open until 8:00 p.m. in the evening. Mr. Vick reported that their staffing hours in the office differ but they are on-call and would work with the neighboring businesses to establish workable hours and that this was negotiable if it is a concern. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Raymond Sears, 8605 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, described himself as a 45-year resident within a neighborhood comprised of Cucamonga Elementary School, a Senior Center and two churches. He explained that the strip mall that the bail bond service is located has a cafe, a check cashing business, a liquor store and other small businesses typical of "small-town U.S.A." He expressed concern about not only the type of clientele that would be loitering in the area, but the family and friends of the clientele as well. He also expressed concern about having bounty hunters in the neighborhood and the safety and welfare of the local children, noting that bounty hunters often carry weapons. Mr. Sears asked the question, "How many of you really want this in your neighborhood mall where you pick up your bread and milk, or where you take your kids to Little League?" Arnold Castaneda, 9870 Salina Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had spoken with Jim Butler of the Cucamonga School District, who voiced his disapproval as well. He indicated he liked the strip mall as it is and that all the merchants are nice, but that he did not feel this business belongs in their center. He felt that this type of service should be close to the jails and courthouses. Glenn Sears, 8605'Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a long time resident of Rancho Cucamonga and that he does not approve of the proposed location for this business. He felt it should be close to the jail and/or courthouse. He questioned why Mr. Vick no longer has an office close to the jail. Mr. Vick offered a rebuttal and stated that he used to have an office on Arrow Route but that it was a month-to-month.lease and the owner wanted the space to expand their own business. He stated that the profession of bail bonds carries with it a negative stigma but is not harmful to anyone. He noted that the "indemnitor" or the friend or family member who uses his property to guarantee the appearance of the client in court, is often a responsible homeowner, a person who holds a job, and someone with good credit. He indicated that it is a closed minded, discriminatory view to not allow them to open their business there and that they are providing a service to the residents of the community. Geoffrey Abbot, 9786 East Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, pointed out that this malt has recently "uplifted itself" with the cafe, the ice cream shop, and the gift shop. He stated he was against having the business there. Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 14, 1999 Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino stated he had participated on a study regarding the influence of attracting the criminal element and that the greatest attractor is the courthouse, 25 yards across the parking lot, and that the people using the service are not coming to the place of business because they are in jail, but that this was not the question. He continued by saying the question was whether or not we classify bail bonds as clerical and professional. He indicated that he felt there were distinguishing differences between clerical and professional and bail bondsmen. He recommended that staff require the bail bond service to make an application to amend the Development Code because he felt that issuing a Conditional Use Permit for that type of service in certain areas might be appropriate under certain circumstances. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that this business can be conducted in other places where it is already permitted. He asked rhetorically why the applicant does not pursue going into those areas. Commissioner Stewart agreed that a Conditional Use Permit is needed. Commissioner Macia$ stated that since this type of business stays open longer hours, it makes it less "friendly" to the neighborhood and that they would also have to deal with the perceived fear from the residents in the neighborhood. He noted that a Redevelopment Agency he had worked for had performed a two-year survey and discovered that what is feared most in a neighborhood is 1) liquor stores, 2) adult businesses, 3) Bail bond services. Chairman McNiel observed that a bail bond service is not an "over-the-counter" business. He stated he saw no need for a change. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the Commission's support was necessary to proceed with the proposed amendment to the Development Code. The amendment would allow these businesses into the areas where they are not already permitted. Mr. Buller indicated that was correct. Commissioner Mannerino interjected that he wanted to be clearly understood that by allowing the applicant to pursue an amendment did not indicate how he (Commissioner Mannerino) would respond to that request and that he was not necessarily indicating his support, only that he was allowing the applicant to make the request and to initiate the process for an amendment. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he would vote "no" because this type of business is already allowed in other locations. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to initiate and amendment to amend the Development Code to conditionally allow this type of business in the General Commercial zone upon receipt of an application. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, STEWART, NOES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE -failed Chairman McNiel commented that he did not feel the need to go through the process of an amendment and that it probably would not go through anyway. Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 14, 1999 Commissioner Mannerino asserted that the issue was whether or not the Development Code could at any time allow this kind of business within this kind of a land use. Mr. Buller indicated that there is a provision in the Development Code that to only the Planning Commission or the City Council can initiate text changes, in order to avoid having individuals constantly requesting changes that may not be valid or appropriate and that the Commission has the right to say no to that. Deputy City Attorney William Curly confirmed Mr. Buller's explanation and indicated that the first motion was to allow the process of an amendment to occur and that motion failed, but the Commission still needed to address the Use Determination and the Commission needed to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the business is clerical and professional. Mr. Buller noted the process to act on the issue would be to change the verbiage of the resolution indicating denial rather than approval and changing the section B. 2. a, which should now read "The use in question does not meet the purpose and the intent of the district in which it is proposed" and section B. 2. b, should now read "The use in question does not meet and conform to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan." Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to adopt a resolution denying Use Determination 99-02 and finding that a Bail Bond Business is not similar to Clerical and Professional Services. The motion carried 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. COMMISSION BUSINESS L. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - (Oral report) Brad Buller, City Planner gave the report indicating three top priority areas of study for the Task Force, first being .to determine the potential of the 1-15 corridor, mainly the commercial areas, extending from Base Line Road south to Arrow Highway as well as 4th Street; second, to determine how Rancho Cucamonga can become the center for cultural, performing arts in the Inland Empire and how the General Plan can give direction to that end; and third, historic preservation and the importance of that in the City. He noted that the City has historic structures, does not have a comprehensive plan for them. Commissioner Mannerino agreed with Mr. Buller's summation noting that Mr. Morrissette representing American Beauty, was present at that meeting and is anxious to offer his comments and Mr. Buller had indicated he would have plenty of opportunities to do so. Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 14, 1999 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the study will include 4th Street Commissioner Mannerino stated it will. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if it will include the golf course. Commissioner Mannerino said that it will not specifically address the golf course but the general land use balance. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the issue of housing in Industrial areas would be addressed in any of the studies. Mr. Bullet stated that this may be addressed independently by those who may want to bring in a project in that area prior to the completion of the General Plan and that the Commission may have the opportunity to deal with that issue if that occurs. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0 for the Planning Commission to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. to a workshop to discuss Pre-Application Review 99-04. The workshop adjourned at 10:45 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Min,~tes -18- July 14, 1999