Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/07/10 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 10, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tricia Ashby, Planning Division Secretary; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner;, Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0, to approve the minutes of May 22, 1996. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-12 - CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - Review of a detailed site plan, elevations, and landscape plan for the first phase of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-39) and associated Master Plan consisting of a 26,500 square foot administrative office building in Subarea 17 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Industrial Park), located at 7900 Center Avenue- APN: 1077-401-09 through 16 and 23. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant owns the full piece of property out to the street. Mr. Le Count answered in the affirmative. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Max Willlares, 276 N. Second Avenue, Upland, stated he is the architect for the Cucamonga County Water District. He informed the Commission that this project was designed in the context of the master plan which was approved in January 1995. He asked that Planning Condition No. 5, regarding the pedestrian gate be deleted because of the nature of the District's operation and the need for security. He went on to say that the District had gone to great lengths to keep the public areas public and the staff and District's areas private. He pointed out the location of the gate and the entry as well as the private drive, secured parking, and public parking. He observed that the entire frontage on the channel is secured with a concrete block wall as well as the dense landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he was happy to see some innovative architecture. He pointed out that there is a great change in elevation from the property under discussion to the water basin to the north at Church Street and Haven Avenue. He then asked if Mr. Willlares had taken future use into consideration with respect to drainage. Mr. Willlares responded that the Water Distdct has a very good rappod with the Flood Control District and he felt a certain coordination could be achieved in the future. Tom Shollenberger, 9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the General Manager for Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) and an appointee to the Zone I and Zone 2 Flood Control Advisory Board. He stated that the City is currently trying to undertake a project to eliminate some of the flooding that takes place along the Hermosa/Turner Street, down to and including the intersection at Foothill Boulevard. He further stated that the City is proposing to cut into the channel itself and install a project that will go westerly on Foothill Boulevard, turning nodh at Hermosa, and interconnecting somewhere in the area of Base Line Road, anticipating that project will cost about 4 million dollars. Mr. Shollenberger informed the Commission that through a cost shadrig with the Flood Control District they anticipate that they would acquire that particular parcel in exchange for their podion of that Flood Control Project. He revealed that CCWD is working with the City and that the whole site is looked upon as a community affair. They are looking at the fueling station as a possible NCG station in connection with the City so that it may be utilized unilaterally. He remarked that there had also been discussion with the City with regard to the possibility of a day care center being offered on some of that unutilized land which could provide for an excellent transition from the residential area to the west into the more industrial climate that has been projected on the plans, with the acknowledgment that the City may very well acquire that entire drainage parcel. Hearing no public comment, Chairman Barker closed the hearing. Mr. Buller informed the Commission that staff would not oppose a private, secured gate as a means of pedestrian access to the channel. He said staff is not looking for a public access point, but rather, in the future, an employee entrance. Commissioner McNiel mentioned that he and Larry Henderson were both on the Design Review Committee for this project. He admitted it is a trendy, contemporary, or even faddish design, depending upon your perspective. He felt that it works in the isolated area in which it sits and stated he likes the building. He understood staff's position regarding the gate issue, and felt that if a gate is required, it must be absolutely secure because of the isolated area. He voiced his concern, and agreed with Mr. Williams. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project is good. He went on to say that if it can be secured, there should be a gate in an attempt to make the community "pedestrian friendly." Commissioner Lumpp asked the status of a previous traffic study requested by the Commission. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the traffic study was complete and had been reviewed by the City's traffic engineer. He went on to say that the results indicated that there was no specific mitigation for this development. He reported that no traffic signal is required, but requested that CCWD be open to addressing certain routes that would need to be taken by their employees if problems do arise in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp was concerned about the current lack of improvements along Church Street and Center Street in relation to potential problems involving traffic and children transitioning back . and forth at that intersection. He stated that he would abide by staff's recommendation. He requested heavy landscaping on the northeast and southern sides of the project to provide some aesthetic relief along Haven Avenue. He then went on to say, with respect to the gate issue, that he was in agreement with Commissioner McNiel in that there would be a potential for encouragement to access the property if there is a gate. He suggested that employees work with CCWD officials if they want access to the trail. He stated that he would prefer not to put a gate in at this facility because it is a secure type of operation. He supported the project. Chairman Barker stated he would support the Design Review Committee's recommendation. He then suggested that the Water Distdct reexamine its position regarding the gate when it becomes obvious that there is some reason for that opening. He stated that he had reviewed the design and felt that there was really no reason for pedestrian access at this time. He voiced his concern regarding the criminal element taking advantage of a gate. He went on to say that he had never seen a gate that is as secure as he would like. He concluded by recommending deletion of Planning Condition No. 5. Commissioner McNiel reported that he had been to the site and noticed a lot of graf~ti in the area. He stated that a temporary chain link fence is being allowed but he does not want it to be interpreted that chain link is OK. Chairman Barker tentatively suggested revisiting the location. Mr. Buller stated that there is no trail to view at this time, only a right of way for maintenance vehicles. He went on the say that a public transportation corridor would require a lot of coordination and financing. He pointed out that it is a private, gated parking lot and it has been the position of the Commission in the past to support openings in both private and public projects. He continued by saying that to take this action tonight could set a precedent by stating that there is no gate requirement for a pdvate, gated parking lot used only for that business. He suggested that, through minute action, the Commission simply ask the applicant to seriously consider this as an option in the future. Chairman Barker agreed, saying that security needs to be taken into consideration. He suggested that, by minute action, the Commission advise CCWD that the gate issue be looked at when the trail opens. Mr. Buller summarized by suggesting staff delete the condition at this time, with the minute action, and to revisit the issue at a later date. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-39, with modification to request that the applicant consider a gated access to its trail in the future. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS B. USE DETERMINATION 96-02 - A request to determine if a beauty college can be classified as a beauty shop. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp asked if staff was requesting a change in the Community Commercial Zone Subarea 3 to permit vocational or business trade schools. Mr. Buller responded in the negative. Commissioner Lumpp asked if staff wanted to forget the college pad and just call it a beauty shop. Mr. Buller responded that it is staff's opinion that this padicular use is not in the category of what was felt to be a vocational school of the type not appropriate for Foothill Boulevard and it is simply a determination for a specific use, not a precedent for any and all vocational schools. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Brad Umanski, 7269 Fermo Place, Rancho Cucamonga, from Lean & Associates, stated that he represented the applicant and was available to answer questions. Commissioner McNiel asked if students will be required to park behind the building. Mr. Umanski replied that as a part of the lease, the landlord has mandated that if parking becomes an issue, the applicant will instruct the students to park in the rear. Commissioner McNiel strongly suggested he do so. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. There was no further public comment. Chairman Barker asked if a condition regarding parking could be included in the Use Determination. Mr. Buller responded by saying that there was no action to condition but the minutes will reflect the Commission's position. Chairman Barker then suggested that the Commission make the strongest possible recommendation to mandate student parking in the rear of the building. Commissioner Lumpp agreed and felt a letter should be sent to the applicant stating this recommendation. Chairman Barker then instructed staff to prepare such a letter. Mr. Buller agreed. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution approving Use Determination 96-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Barker requested that John Melcher be invited by formal letter to attend the Planning Commission Meeting of July 24, 1996 to receive a Resolution of Commendation. Planning Commission Minutes -4° July 10, 1996 Mr. Buller agreed to provide a letter. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for the status of the McDonalds. Mr. Buller informed the Commission that McDonalds had entered into a contract with a new landscape contractor and Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, had requested that they not proceed with any of the work until he returned from vacation on July 8. Mr. Buller said that Mr. Hayes is now in the process of working with McDonalds to have the work done, but that no date had been set. He concluded by saying that the City had been successful in having McDonalds remove some illegal signage. Commissioner Lumpp requested that McDonalds provide a schedule stating start and completion dates for this project by the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the landscaping that goes down Masi Drive was in an assessment district and who is maintaining it Mr. Buller informed the Commission that it is all on private property, maintained by Masi. Mr. James stated that even after the public improvements are accepted, the grass area will be privately maintained. He went on to say that the trees are designated as street trees and under the City's jurisdiction, but it's all maintained by the developer under Commercial Shopping Centers. Commissioner Lumpp then asked if the trailer on Haven and Church was owned by the County Flood Control District. Mr. Buller responded in the affirmative. He explained that it is the construction trailer for undergrounding the drainage ditch on the west side of Haven Avenue. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there is going to be some improvement from Church Street onto Haven Avenue going south. Mr. James replied that the channel will be replaced by storm drain pipe, completing the Haven Avenue street improvements. Commissioner McNiel brought up the fact that the Edwards Theater on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard is badly in need of maintenance. He wondered what could be done about it. Chairman Barker felt the lack of maintenance has spread throughout the entire center. Mr. Buller suggested staff address the issue by initiating a letter to the owner under the signature of the Chairman that would indicate that the Commission felt the property has reached a level where it needs some attention. Mr. Buller pointed out that each Commissioner had been given a copy of the new Development Code as well as the Mission Land EIR. He asked that the Commission take some time to look over the Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 10, 1996 EIR. He further stated that the Griffin EIR would be forthcoming. He mentioned the possibility that both EIR's may be heard the same agenda night, possibly in September. Chairman Barker then mentioned his concern regarding the current increase in graffiti. Mr. Buller stated that the fastest way to eradicate the problem was through the Graffiti Hotline at the City Yard. Chairman Barker felt that the City has an obligation to do something about graffiti located on private property. Mr. Buller responded by saying there has been a practice over the last couple years as the City has been dealing with graffiti, to define where the line is regarding the dsk the City is willing to take by going onto pdvate property to remove graffiti versus those which need go through pdvate means of trying to secure the removal. He offered to provide the City's current policy regarding graffiti removal at a future meeting. He agreed to bring this to the attention of the Building and Safety Department and Code Enforcement. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0, to adjourn. 8:07 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 10, 1996