Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/03/09 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 9, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:21 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, John .Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements at this time. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, to adopt the minutes of January 12, 1994. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 3-0-1-1 with McNiel absent and Melcher abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 23, 1994, as amended. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 3-0-1-1 with McNiel absent and Melcher abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 23, 1994. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an Environmental Assessment and Ordinance amending the Development Code to implement transportation control measures mandated by State and Federal Air Quality Regulations. This action will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of the Public Hearing before City Council will be separately noticed. Be ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an Environmental Assessment and Ordinance amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan to implement transportation control measures mandated by State and Federal Air Quality Regulations. This action will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of the Public Hearing before City Council will be separately noticed. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a developer created a specific plan but then sold off the parcels to create smaller projects, if the smaller projects would then be subject to the telecommunications requirement. Mr. Rougeau replied that the definition of what constitutes a project is currently unclear. He said there are even questions regarding the necessary size of a telecommunications center. He thought such ambiguities could be answered by administrative adoption of changes to the Transportation Control Measures (TCM). Commissioner Tolstoy felt that sharp developers will divide projects into smaller projects in order to avoid having to comply with tougher restrictions. Commissioner Melcher stated it was his understanding that new projects beyond a certain size would be subject to certain restrictions which would result in less pollutants than existing projects. Mr. Rougeau responded that was correct. Commissioner Melcher thought the measures are minuscle in comparison to the problems. Mr. Rougeau stated it is hoped each reduction will contribute to meeting the standards. Commissioner Melcher felt that the high threshold of 500 residences necessary for establishing a telecommuting center would exempt all residential development except perhaps a new planned development. He asked if existing planned communities would have to comply as they continue to build out. Mr. Rougeau replied that the intent is to impose the requirements on new development rather than existing development. He thought perhaps in the future smaller projects could be joined together to provide the centers. He noted that the plan may need to be revised in the future if the air quality goals are not met. Chairman Barker asked if there is a specific definition of a project. Mr. Rougeau replied that separate tracts would probably qualify as a project. Chairman Barker doubted there would be any project hereafter exceeding 500 units. He asked how successful existing telecommunications centers are. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 9, 1994 Mr. Rougeau replied that there is controversy over how successful they are. He noted there is nothing in the plan that indicates how such centers would be maintained once they are developed. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the TCM was developed with broad definitions in order to allow the local agencies flexibility to achieve South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations. He observed that SCAQMD had said that telecommuting centers and video conferencing will better air quality. Commissioner Melcher questioned the motivation for any one City to address air pollution. He suggested consideration be given to a per unit mitigation fee to provide for maintenance and operation of telecommuting centers and he thought the 500 unit threshold is too high. He asked if an additional review board would be created to review trip reduction measures. Mr. Rougeau replied that the measures would be integrated into the existing development review process and no new review board would be created. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the programs will be monitored. Mr. Rougeau replied that each large employer must report every quarter on the success of carpooling. He said the new regulations will require the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to gather enough data to establish that the number of trips per day has been reduced. He thought the Cities will report to SANBAG which will report to SCAQMD. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the General Dynamics proposal would require a telecommunications center even though the area will be parceled into a number of smaller projects. He thought that since a master plan will be required, the requirements could be imposed. He asked when definitions would be generated to determine if master plans would qualify as a project. Mr. Buller said that the General Dynamics Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses air quality. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how mixed use would be affected. Mr. Rougeau replied that the Congestion Management Plan calls for adding the uses together to determine the effect. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the ordinance and intent but felt it should be tougher. Commissioner Melcher noted that the staff report indicated a county wide bicycle plan was to be released in August 1993. He questioned if it had been issued. Mr. Rougeau was not sure. Commissioner Melcher asked if SANBAG had reviewed the effectiveness of the measures with any independent air quality consultants. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 9, 1994 Mr. Rougeau replied that the plan had been developed in close coordination with SCAQMD. Commissioner Lumpp asked if it had been determined how much each project should contribute for the telecommunications center. Mr. Rougeau replied that it had not. He said he hoped they could work with the other Cities to set a uniform amount. Commissioner Lumpp asked if measures other than those shown as Attachment A in the staff report had been dictated by SCAQMD. Mr. Rougeau stated that the Core Actions shown in Attachment A were required to be adopted. He said a listing of recommended actions and a list of discretionary items were also available. Commissioner Lumpp felt conditions should not be imposed upon individual projects if the conditions had already been imposed on a larger project of which the individual project was only a portion. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Chairman Barker closed the hearing. There were no public comments and Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 94-01 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 94-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried , , , , Ce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-04 - INLAND ANSWERING SERVICES, INC. - A request to establish an answering service in a leased space of 1,790 square feet within a multi-tenant industrial building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of 6th street and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-261-52. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Inland Medical Services was still in business. Mr. Bullet replied it was his understanding they were no longer in operation. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. He asked if the applicant was present and there was no response. As there was no other public comment, he closed the hearing. Commissioner Melcher remarked that he did not like to take action on items when applicants are not present. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 9, 1994 Chairman Barker again opened the public hearing. Bob Berwick, P. O. Box 2029, Lake Arrowhead, stated he is one of the owners of the property. He said as an owner, he had financed the application. Commissioner Lumpp asked how long the business has been Inland Answering Services rather than Inland Medical Building Service. Mr. Berwick replied that he was not sure. He said so long as he had known, the business has always been Inland Answering Services. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp echoed Commissioner Melcher's comment that applicants should be encouraged to attend the meetings. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried , , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-05 - BSW INTERNATIONAL - A request to establish an arcade in conjunction with a children's indoor recreation facility (Leaps & Bounds) within the Tetra Vista Town Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-70. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report and suggested that Planning Condition 3 be deleted. Commissioner Melcher questioned why the applicant was just now requesting the addition of the arcade. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gary Baker, BSW International, 5733 East 103rd Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, stated they had been retained by Leaps and Bounds. He said they had not realized that skill games would be considered arcade games and would thus need a conditional use permit. He said the games are designed to create dexterity at different age groups. Commissioner Melcher recalled that at the time the design review for the building was approved, the applicant had indicated that adults would have to accompany children. Mr. Baker stated that was correct. He said there will be a security system for checking in and out and that youngsters must be signed in and out by an adult. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 9, 1994 Commissioner Melcher said it appeared the games would not then attract unaccompanied minors and he did not foresee problems. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant agreed to the conditions. Mr. Baker said the conditions were acceptable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-05 with modification to delete the condition stating that the approval would run with the applicant. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-20 - WILKINSON - The development of a 33,000 square foot office building on 3 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-144-80. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Tim Beedle, K B & Associates, 9650 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented the owner. He said that the plans had gone through a number of changes in the design review process and the plans now represented what had been requested. He thanked staff and the Design Review Committee for their assistance and said he felt the design had been improved by going through the process. He noted that the resolution calls for bicycle storage spaces within a certain distance from the main building entrance and further requires at least five lockable, all weather storage spaces. He questioned if the bicycle lockers could be located near the employee entrance rather than the main entrance. Mr. Buller replied that was acceptable. Mr. Beedle observed that the resolution requires dedication of a 33-foot right-of-way for Red Oak Street. He said the street was already fully dedicated and improved. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, thought the current dedication is only 30 feet. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 9, 1994 Mr. Beedle thought the requirement had only been for 30 feet at the time the original project was approved. He said the road is fully improved and it was his understanding it had been dedicated and accepted by the City. Mr. James responded that the sidewalk has not been installed. He said the additional 3 feet is required to bring the project up to current standards and would be included in the sidewalk area. Mr. Beedle did not think there should be a problem so long as the additional 3 feet does not impact the landscaping plan or placement of trees. Mr. James replied that the approved plans had been available for the applicant's review during the process. Commissioner Lumpp recalled there had been some discussions regarding the location of the bus shelter. Mr. Beedle stated they had met with the City Engineer regarding the location of the bus shelter. He said they had been informed that staff policy is to place the bus shelter on the private side adjacent to the public right-of- way. He believed the shelters are a public facility and should be placed in the public right-of-way and turned over to the City for maintenance. He said they would be willing to accept the bus shelter on the private side but he would like the opportunity to discuss the matter further with the City Engineer. Commissioner Lumpp questioned why bus shelters are built on private property. Mr. Buller stated that the City desires that bus shelters be architecturally integrated with the surrounding development and that the shelters be privately maintained by the business entity. He said shelters are therefore placed outside of the public right-of-way but adjacent to the walkways. Commissioner Tolstoy believed the policy should remain as is. Commissioner Lumpp disagreed and felt the matter should be studied. He noted that the plans indicate "bus stop area (by others)." He asked for confirmation that the applicant would be building the bus shelter. Mr. Beedle confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher commented that Mr. Beedle had requested that he review the architectural concepts. He said he thought a number of understandings had been reached at that meeting. Commissioner Melcher felt that the rendering does not adequately represent the elevations. He observed that the elevations show the parapet height to be uniform while the rendering shows a portion of the north side to extend above the remainder of the parapet. .He hoped the height is to be uniform. He noted that the elevations depict columns in the area that the rendering depicts the ribbed concrete surface extending under the overhang. He felt the rendering is the preferable option. Commissioner Melcher remarked that according to the floor plan, the recessed area shown on the rendering to the west of the triangular projection is no longer there as Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 9, 1994 the area is now enclosed by glass and will be used as a vestibule with doors on the western end. He indicated that the landscaping depicted on the west side of that area in both the rendering and the conceptual landscape plan would have to be deleted if the doors open to the west. He stated he had also been given some hope that there would be some layering in the other three elevations; however, they appeared to remain very flat with only minor offsets on the east and west elevations. He thought the employee rest area also appeared very plain. Mr. Beedle etated the process had gone through a number of changes since he had earlier discussed the project with Commissioner Melcher. He said the reliefs on the east and west elevations were portrayed in the designs which were reviewed by the Design Review Committee and the Committee opted to pull out the wall rather than having a porte-cochere over entrances on the east and west wings. He said revisions to the south elevation had been made at the direction of the Design Review Committee to enhance the employee rest area. He stated that the rendering was an earlier concept which had been presented during the initial review by staff. He said earlier designs did not have a lintel which is part of the vestibule entrance which was added following discussions with staff. He said the final detail elevations reflect structural requirements in order to design the lintel. He said the design depicted in the rendering would not be able to structurally hold the lintel because of the sheer wall that it ie connected to. He said the lintel must rest on a column and therefore the columns were introduced. He noted the door entrance had been repositioned to avoid the Santa Ana wind problem. He suggested the door could be moved back. Chairman Barker thought the rendering should not have been provided for this evening since it does not reflect the proposed building. Mr. Beedle felt the rendering was necessary to give the proper identification of the forms and characteristics. He said the detail elevations show what occurred during the Design Review Committee process. Mr. Bullet agreed the illustration should not be part of the approval unless the Commission wished to go in that direction. He said the hard line elevation drawings would be referred to if the project were approved tonight. Chairman Barker believed the rendering should agree with what the Commission was being asked to approve. He did not feel those Commissioners who were not on Design Review should have to reinterpret the elevations. He thought the renderings depict creativity while the elevations reflect rather plain architecture. He requested that in the future renderings not be presented unless they accurately reflect what the Commission is to approve. Mr. Beedle felt the addition of the columns would not greatly affect the appearance. Commissioner Melcher felt the changes from the rendering are significant. He said the rendering suggests the entrance is recessed, when in fact the glass would be pushed out. He noted the nice effect of the sloping surface sliding under the other is no longer there. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 9, 1994 Mr. Beedle felt the rendering reflects the overall thrust of the design. Con~nissioner Lumpp stated he had been on the Design Review Committee and staff had expressed concern about the triangular portion and the Committee had viewed a rendering similar to the one shown this evening. He said he had relied heavily on the rendering and liked the recess on the north elevation. He did not favor approving the project if it is not reflective of the rendering because he would like to see it built as depicted in the rendering. Mr. Beedle stated the design of the vestibule entrance was to accommodate the comments regarding the Santa Ana wind. He said they could adjust the design to provide for the setback several feet back from the drip line. He commented that unfortunately the rendering is not structurally sound because a column is necessary for support of the lintel and they could modify the rendering in order to depict the column. Mr. Bullet suggested the Commission could review the project based only upon the elevations excluding the rendering, continue the matter, or take action with an added condition that elevation features could be deferred back to staff or Design Review to consider the specific architectural elements prior to issuance of building permits. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that a more accurate rendering be provided. Mr. Beedle felt the building design is as reflected in the rendering with the exception of a column to hold the lintel. He felt the overall character of the building is accurately depicted on the illustration. He volunteered to move the entrance door back to the north side. Marshall Wilkinson, 20401 Bayview Avenue, Santa Aria Heights, apologized for the consternation. He thought the bulk of the problem occurs in the treatment of the entry. Chairman Barker felt all of Commissioner Melcher's concerns were valid. Mr. Wilkinson said the entry feature is approximately 9 feet deep from the face of the building to the drip line. He stated they could do whatever they wanted within the 9 feet. He recalled it had been suggested during the design review process that they locate the doors on the west elevation of the entry feature in order to provide some protection from the Santa Aria winds. He said that locating 6-foot wide entry doors within the 9-foot element limits the amount of recess available on the glass. He felt they could create 1 to 2 feet of recess with the use of a soffit. He said that as more recess is created, anyone entering the door will be faced with a glass wall. He said the recess could be created by moving the doors back to the north elevation. He stated the property is currently in escrow and he would like to co~unence construction as soon as possible. He requested the project be approved and he be able to work out the matter with staff. There was no further public testimony. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 9, 1994 Chairman Barker stated he did not wish to see the entire Commission function as a Design Review Committee. He noted that focus had been aimed at the primary element of concern, the north entry, but he felt all the concerns raised by Commissioner Melcher were valid. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the applicant provide renderings which reflect what will occur as well as a floor plan that is compatible with the illustrations. He said he agreed with Commissioner Melcher's concerns regarding the front. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had looked at the rendering at Design Review and he had used it as a focus feature for changes that were pointed out. He felt the matter should be continued until an accurate rendering is presented. Chairman Barker was comfortable with referring the matter back to the Design Review Committee. He invited further public comment. Mr. Beedle stated they had made the changes recommended by the Design Review Committee. Chairman Barker felt the important thing at this point was to process the project through so that the property owner could build his project and the City is happy with the building which is built. He thought enough recommendations had been given this evening to facilitate the process. Mr. Bullet thought the east, west, and south elevations depict the direction given by the Design Review Committee. He did not think the glass vestibule area was reviewed by the Committee. He thought the Commission had expressed a preference for the illustration and the removal of the glass vestibule. He said the applicant had expressed a willingness to do that. He was not sure if the column is structurally necessary for the lintel. He thought that if the column is necessary, the Design Review Commission may wish to look at other options. He suggested that the Commission advise the applicant now if the columns are acceptable as in the elevations, rather than the rendering. Commissioner Melcher suggested the proper approach would be to refer the matter back to the Design Review Committee to look at a full set of integrated exhibits. Mr. Beedle asked if they could bring exhibits to the March 15 Design Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Melcher commented that the building will probably be in existence for the next 30 to 50 years. He said he respected the developer's time constraints but he wanted to be sure City standards are met. Mr. Beedle asked if the matter could be brought back to full Commission at the March 23, 1994, meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that the matter should be continued to the April 13, 1994, Planning Commission meeting with the applicant providing accurate comprehensive drawings for the April 5 Design Review Committee meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 9, 1994 Mr. Beedle confirmed that the applicant should provide a floor plan, fendsring, and elevations which are precise to each other. He asked if there was consensus that the east, south, and west elevations represent what the Design Review Committee and staff had recommended. Chairman Barker stated that if he were on Design Review, he would point out that there are several things which can be done to the other elevations which would improve the project. He felt Commissioner Melcher had articulated some good suggestions and suggested that Mr. Beedle either review the tapes or talk to Commissioner Melcher. Commissioner Melcher felt his other comments should be considered. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 93-20 to April 13, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 9:24 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. , , , , Fe DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-21 - CAPELLINO A request to construct a 29,580 square foot industrial building on a 1.88 acre parcel in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place - APN: 209-471-02. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Mark Capellino, 1815 West 213th Street, Suite 225, Torrance, stated he was available to answer questions. There were no additional public comments. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 93-21. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCNER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 9, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ***** COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked if any Commissioners would be able to attend the Arbor Day celebration on Saturday, March 26. Commissioner Melcher stated he would be able to attend. Commissioner Melcher commented that he had spoken with the City Engineer and been informed that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the 1994/95 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) within the next few weeks. He suggested it would be helpful to the Commission to be provided with the 1993/94 CIP at the same time so they could see what projects are on line for this year. He said he also understood that a longer range CIP is in place and he requested that the Commission have an opportunity to review that in conjunction with the 1994/95 CIP. He said he understood the funding sources cannot be particularly well defined on the long term plan but he thought it would be helpful to be able to look at the projects in the context of what will be done over a period of time. He thought it would also be helpful to have a briefing on the amount of gas tax funds received and how they are spent. He expressed concern about maintaining the streets. He said they had acknowledged last year that not enough money is being spent on maintenance. Chairman Barker observed that the City Council had asked for a study on traffic lights. Mr. Buller confirmed that the Mayor had requested such a study. Mr. Barker said the Mayor had beat him to it. He requested that the Commission also receive a report on it. He felt that there should be a better way to synchronize lights. Chairman Barker stated that the two new Commissioners had visited a number of sites. He felt they were both available to see other sites. He suggested the other Commissioners might think of things they should look at. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 9, 1994 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, to adjourn. 9:39 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 9, 1994