Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/09/13 - Special Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting September 13, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Special Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 5:12 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL C~T.L COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be recognized with three awards at the annual Vintages & Vinegars Awards Program sponsored by the local chapters of the American Institute of Architects and the American Planning Association. He said the presentations would be made at a dinner to be held on September 20. He asked if any of the Commissioners could attend to accept the awards. Commissioners McNiel and Lumpp indicated they would attend. PUBLIC HEARINGS MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-01 - KENT - A request to delete certain conditions of approval relating to the construction of an 8,166 square foot day care facility within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Highland Avenue - APN: 201-271-92. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. John O'Meara, Diversified Shopping Centers, 2910 Red Hill Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated they were in agreement with the staff report. He commented that they had agreed to undergrounding conditions in 1991 even though they did not feel they were liable but at the same time they were going through a condemnation trial initiated by Caltrans. He reported that in September 1993 the court ruled that Caltrans was the legal owner of Parcel 10 as of April 15, 1986. He said the trial briefs document that Caltrans considers Parcel 10 to be a commercially developable parcel which will be developed if Caltrans does not build the freeway. He noted that when they developed their parcel in 1985, they completed all of the undergrounding along Parcels 1 through 9 consistent with the policy at that time. He said the day care facility is on Parcel 9 and the nearest above-ground pole line is over 179 feet from Parcel 9. He stated that when Kindercare processed Conditional Use Permit 95-01, they did not object to the undergrounding conditions because it had been their understanding that Diversified Properties had already bonded to complete the undergrounding. He requested that Engineering Conditions No. 1 and 2 be deleted. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with staff's recommendation to delete the conditions. Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving modifications to Conditional Use Permit 95-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried VARIANCE 95-03 GONZALES - A request to reduce the required parking spaces from 20 to 16 spaces, reduce the parking setback on Estacia Court from 25 to 15 feet, and reduce the side yard setback from 15 to 5 feet for proposed parking improvements on 0.4 acre of land in the Specialty Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Estacia Court - APN: 208-153-01 and 02. NEW BUSINESS C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-15 - GONZALE$ - The request to convert an existing historic landmarked residential structure for commercial use and provide parking improvements on 0.4 acre of land in the Specialty Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Estacia Court - APN: 208-153-01 and 02. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the conversion of the house for commercial use would require any architectural alterations. Ms. Fong replied it is staff's understanding that none will be needed. She said a condition had been added to the Development Review resolution to advise that a Landmark Alteration Permit will be required if interior improvements require changes to the building exterior. Commissioner Melcher asked about signage. Ms. Fong replied that the project is conditioned to require that the signs shall be sensitive to the heritage and complement the architecture. Commissioner Lumpp asked who owns the alley. Ms. Fong replied that it is staff's understanding that the applicant has acquired the rights for use of the portion of the alley. She said the adjacent property owners all have rights to use the alley. PC Special Meeting Minutes -2- September 13, 1995 Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the lower portion of the alley is a publicly dedicated right-of-way which the applicant is conditioned to improve to full standards of an alley. Commissioner Lumpp recalled that the conditions were contained in the Design Review resolution. He asked if it is a publicly dedicated alley with an underlying ownership of the adjacent property owners. Mr. James confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Lumpp noted that Engineering Condition 1 calls for an irrevocable offer of dedication for 53 feet. He asked where that will be located. Mr. James responded that the offer of dedication will run along the west side of Archibald Avenue across the front of both' parcels. He noted the City is not requiring a full dedication because that would be too close to the buildings. He said the City is just getting an offer so that future owners will know the intent of the City when the area redevelops. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the minimum 20-foot stacking distance can be provided from the Estacia Court curb face to the edge of the first on-site parking stall. Ms. Fong said it is available. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there had been a previous application on the property. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there had been a previous application, but it was withdrawn and never acted on. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Richard French, 818 North Mountain Avenue, #219, Upland, said Ms. Fong had summed it up. Nadine Eshelman, P. O. Box 967, Pauma Valley, stated she owns the service station next to the alley and the lot behind the current flower shop. She asked what will happen to the alley. Mr. James responded that property owners currently use the alley for access. He said a condition has been added to this project to require improvements to the alley so the use can continue and access to Ms. Eshelman's lots will be better. Ms. Eshelman asked if the access is not too close to Archibald. Mr. James responded it is an existing ingress and this development is not large enough to require that it be moved. He said the location will be moved if the whole block develops. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with staff's findings on the Variance. He recalled that when the project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee, he had requested reciprocal access requirements be included if the property becomes available for a joint use. He wanted to be sure an access is provided to the property to the south. PC Special Meeting Minutes -3- September 13, 1995 Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out that Standard Condition L5 requires reciprocal access. He suggested that condition could be expanded to provide for reciprocal access for all adjacent properties. Commissioner Lumpp stated that was acceptable. Mr. James said the intent of the Standard Condition had been for reciprocal access between the two properties owned by the applicant. He agreed such a condition could be added. Commissioner Lumpp acknowledged that the applicant could not mandate that the adjacent property owner provide reciprocal access, but he wanted a vehicle so that reciprocal access would be available from this property. Commissioner Melcher expressed concern regarding the arrangement of the four parking stalls on the west side of the property. He feared that people will try to back out into Estacia Court. He also thought that the most northeasterly parking space will be 3 feet closer to the street than shown because the striped area must be 8 feet wide instead of 5 feet in order to be van accessible. Ms. Fong believed there is room for the extra 3 feet because there is currently a 4 foot open area to the south. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. French said the property does allow for the one accessible parking space with an 8-foot strip. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolutions approving Variance 95-03 and Development Review 95-15 with modification to provide for reciprocal access to parcels adjacent to the development as well as those adjacent to the public alley south of the development. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY - carried PUBT.IC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS D. STATUS REPORT ON CITY PLANNER HEARINGS Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. He also stated that as a result of a conversation with Commissioner Melcher he would like a discussion of what procedure the Commission would like to follow if a Commissioner feels an item should be forwarded to the Commission instead of being reviewed by the City Planner. He asked if it should be an appeal process and it should be referred PC Special Meeting Minutes -4- September 13, 1995 up to the Commission if one Commissioner requests it or if it should be a majority of Commissioners asking that a project be referred. He suggested the Commission may wish to develop some guidelines on what should be referred. Chairman Barker said guidelines had been established that City applications should be referred to the Commission. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the process seems to be working from the City Planner's perspective. Mr. Buller felt the process is working very well. He thought most applicants appreciate the fact that the matter is being heard by the City Planner at the courtesy of the Commission in an effort to expedite the process. He said there had only been a few meetings where he had felt slightly uncomfortable being the only decision maker when there were opposing parties. He did not regret any of his decisions. Commissioner McNiel felt the process is working well. Chairman Barker noted that there was only one appeal of the 23 approved projects. He felt the Commission should discuss what should happen when one of the Commissioners feels that a particular project is a hot item and the Commission should be making the decision and taking the heat rather than the City Planner. He asked if one Commissioner should be able to appeal. He observed that the Cowmission receives the agenda after the meeting has been advertised and posted. Mr. Buller agreed that the Commissioners receive the agenda the weekend prior to the hearing and the action agenda on the day following the hearing. He noted that staff does prepare a tentative agenda but stated that it is tentative. Commissioner McNiel asked if public notice is given for City Planner meetings similar to Planning Commission ones. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively~ Chairman Barker felt it would not be necessary for the Commissioners to know what date something will be heard. He thought the Commissioners could raise questions without knowing when an item is scheduled. Commissioner Lumpp stated that an appeal cannot occur until after an action has been taken. He therefore felt a Commissioner should have the right to appeal the City Planner decision to the Planning Commission just as a City Council member has the right to appeal a decision to the City Council. He did not think an appeal to the Planning Commission should require a majority to appeal. He felt they all have the right as a citizen to appeal. Chairman Barker stated he would hate to slow down the process and he felt the decisions made so far have been good. He asked if the Commissioners felt a single member of the Commission should have the right to appeal a decision. Commissioner Melcher stated he would rather not be in a situation where Planning Commissioners appeal a City Planner's decision because he felt it potentially creates a combative appearance if not a combative reality. He thought it could tend to make a City Planner gun-shy about decisions. He felt that good judgment makes for good City planning. He preferred to trust the City Planner's judgment to refer up those items where the Commission has previously expressed more than passing interest. He felt the City Planner could refer such matters to the Commission even though he has the authority to act. He noted the Commission has PC Special Meeting Minutes -5- September 13, 1995 always voiced concerns about parking arrangements and student drop-offs and pick- ups for private schools, especially in industrial parks. He thought that the Calvary Chapel proposal for a private school would be of interest to the Commissioners. He said he is in favor of the process and is happy with the results which have occurred. He hoped that the City Planner would refer such projects to the Commission in the future. Commissioner McNiel felt that when the streamlining began, he was sure the City Planner was concerned about the process and what would be handled by the City Planner. He acknowledged that Mr. Buller may not always be in the position and he did not feel it would be wrong to have an appeal process. He agreed with Commissioner Melcher that it could become a confrontational situation; however, he felt the Commissioners have the right to appeal under the law. He felt it would behoove the Commissioners to discuss any concerns with the City Planner prior to the decision being made and felt the City Planner would still have the authority to forward the decision to the Commission. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioners Melcher and McNiel. He did not feel the Commissioners should be a watchdog over the City Planner. He suggested that if a Commissioner has a concern about something after talking with the City Planner, the Commissioner bring the matter up at the end of a Planning Commission meeting prior to making an appeal. He agreed that the appeal process is built into state law. Commissioner McNiel stated he agreed with Commissioner Melcher in theory. Mr. Buller said he hopefully would be diligent and considerate of what the Commission has spoken about. He said he considers past Commission actions and comments in making his decisions. He stated he would not necessarily shirk his responsibility to make a decision, but may instead test the ground to see if he is on track with the Commission's directions as they have been addressed in the past. He noted that the Calvary Chapel school item had been continued several times. He suggested that a Commissioner may wish to request that a discussion of schools within an industrial area be added to a Commission agenda, and ask that the City Planner refer such issues to the full Commission until the Commission can further address the issue. He observed that Calvary Chapel is currently attempting to secure the owner's permission and the item will be re-advertised. He said if the Commission were to tell him that such a matter should be referred to the full Commission, he could then advertise the project to be heard by the Commission. He said he values input from the Commissioners prior to the City Planner hearings. Chairman Barker concluded that the Commissioners will attempt to communicate with the City Planner ahead of time, would also attempt to create a policy by history, and the City Planner will attempt to determine those areas where matters should be referred up to the Commission. He said he also heard two of the Commissioners state they did not believe they could give up the right to appeal even though they would hesitate to use that right. Commissioner McNiel felt that eventually the City Planner may be placed in a position where approval will be granted even though he does not necessarily wish to approve the project and there should be an appeal of that item. He thought the Commission has greater discretionary powers than the City Planner does. Chairman Barker hoped that such an item would be referred to the Commission by the City Planner instead of hearing the matter at the City Planner level. PC Special Meeting Minutes -6- September 13, 1995 Mr. Buller stated he has considered whether it would be fair for a staff person to make a decision if there are many people on both sides of an issue. He thought he would probably use the judgement that such an item would be a community issue; and that rather than have one person make the decision, he would refer the matter to the Commission since its members sit as the citizens' representatives. He thought that group would appreciate such an action as opposed to his making a decision which would then have to be appealed up to the Commission. Chairman Barker agreed. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. 6:01 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bulle'r Secretary PC Special Meeting Minutes -7- September 13, 1995