Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/04/28 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 28, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Shelley Petrelli Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that he had received a call from the League of California Cities regarding the copy each Commissioner received of the Planning Commissioner's Handbook asking for comments or changes the Commission feels are appropriate. Mr. Bullet stated that the deadline is May I and that he would like to meet with the Commissioners after the meeting regarding their comments or changes. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 24, 1993. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 7, 1993 regarding Design Award Nomination Field Trip. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of the April 14, 1993, as amended. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 - STANDARD PACIFIC - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Lots 1-5 and 23- 26 of Phase 4 and Phase 5 of a previously County approved map consisting of 47 single family lots on 125 acres of land, north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-211, 222, and 261. Be TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14459 - L. A. CHANCO - A residential subdivision of 37 single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Consent Calendar Items A and B. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried Ce VACATION OF PORTIONS OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB AND RANCHERIA DRIVES - A request to vacate portions of Red Hill Country Club and Rancheria Drives, located at the northwest corner of said drives - Tentative Parcel Map 14376. Commissioner Melcher pulled item C. He wished to note for the record that the architect for the project is a friend of his and he has discussed this project with the architect. Mr. Melcher stated that he is unsure if the architect is the applicant for the Parcel Map. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Consent Calendar Item C. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-02 - COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES- A request to establish a vocational training facility within an existing industrial building in the General Industrial Designation (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8520 Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-021-30. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked what the specific use of the facility would be. Mr.'Murphy stated that there would be some training taking place and that the employees will arrive earlier than the students so there will be some office activity prior to the students' arrival. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 28, 1993 Chairman McNiel asked if dual rest room facilities were available. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Conditional Use Permit runs with the property rather than with the use. He wanted to know if the facility changed hands later and another user had students in there, who were able to drive, what would happen to the parking situation. Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that it runs with the property and that any school moving in would need to meet all the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. He commented that the Commission could place a specific condition to limit the school to this type of vocational school in the current resolution. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Planner, stated the staff report/resolution reflects that students shall be transported to and from the facility to avoid impacting the parking. He stated he felt that Mr. Murphy had covered that concern well with this condition. He further commented that would limit this approval. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Robert Horigan, Vice President of Cole Vocational Services (a.k.a. Horigan, Cole Enterprises, Inc.), 155 W. Hospitality #130, San Bernardino, CA 92408, stated that they were moving to this location because it is much larger and it is also on a bus line. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant agreed to all the conditions. Mr. Horigan replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated it appeared to be an appropriate use. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 5-0, to approve the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-02. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried , , , , , OLD BUSINESS EVALUATION AND COMMENT ON PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR A NEW HIGH SCHOOL SITE IN ETIWANDA - CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - Pursuant to State Law (Public Resources Section 21151.2}, the School District requests that the Planning Commission comment on a proposed 53 acre high school site located at the northeast corner of Highland and East Avenues - APN: 225-191-03, 04, 13, 15, and 20. (Continued from April 14, 1993.) Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 1993 Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that since the report was prepared he had met with the Superintendent and the Director of Business Services for the school and he believed that they have initiated the Environmental Review process already. Chairman McNiel asked if they looked at the other site suggested by the Commission. Mr. Buller stated they are still open to suggestions, but according to the School District, their last approach to the Supervisor's office regarding that site was not received well. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the intended use is for the northeast corner of Milliken and Banyan. Mr. Buller responded that, according to the School District, the County indicated the land is committed under the lease to Fourth Street Rock Crusher. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification regarding a statement made in Mr. Warren's report that if the school is located in a very low residential district, fewer residents will be exposed to the impacts than in other residential districts with greater density. He stated while that was true, wasn't it also true that the same percentage of residents will be inconvenienced regardless of the density. Mr. Warren agreed with Commissioner Melcher's statement. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Dean Smothers, Superintendent Chaffey Joint Union High School District, 8516 Bella Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was present to address any questions that the Commission may have this evening. He stated that they are in escrow on the property and they have a time frame in which they must meet the State requirements. Commissioner Melcher asked who was taking care of the environmental process and how the process worked. Mr. Smothers stated that they are not that far into the process$ they are still determining what they must do to satisfy the City and themselves. Chairman McNiel etated he realized that the school has certain criteria they need to satisfy~ however, he noted the Commission's concerns regarding the site's proximity to the freeway and the immediate surrounding neighborhood. He asked Mr. Smothers if they also take those type of concerns into consideration when selecting a site. Mr. Smothers stated that the State Department of Education had been down to look at the site prior to making an offer to see that it meets the State criteria. He stated they have also met with CalTrans to see what mitigations Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 1993 may have to be placed as a result of the impact of the freeway's being adjacent to the property. He stated that there are other environmental issues that they are required to satisfy before completing a transaction. He said ingress/egress parking is a concern. Mr. Smothers commented that the school district believes that they will need at least two additional sites. He stated their study indicated that the Chaffey District population will likely double to approximately 29,000 students in the future which would require a minimum of two or possibly three sites. He stated they are having difficulty finding a site acceptable to the State that has a developable grade to meet the district's needs without losing too much property: they need a minimum of 40 acres and the site needs to be a certain distance from power lines as well as having road access. He said this is the most acceptable site they have found so far but they would be open to looking at the site at the flood control property. He commented he was not sure if the long-term lease on the property was going to be acceptable to the district. Chairman McNiel asked what the projection was for construction of a school on the site. Mr. Smothers stated there is no current projection, but assuming development picks up again in the next two to three years and looking at the elementary students who will be moving up the high schools, it could be approximately seven to ten years. Chairman McNiel asked if the district is in contact with the elementary and junior high schools regarding their projections. He stated they are in contact with them annually. He stated that the district must get the other schools' projections before they can make their own projections. Chairman McNiel asked if the lower level schools anticipate needing more facilities. Mr. Smothers commented the schools in the northern part of town are probably built out, but the Etiwanda schools may need more facilities. Chairman McNiel asked about the population at the local high schools. Mr. Smothers replied that Alta Loma High School is over capacity with a projected enrollment of 2,700 students next year (originally designed for 1,500)~ Rancho Cucamonga High School has 1,600 now, with a projected enrollment of 2,100 next year (maximum capacity is 2,500 - 2,700)~ Etiwanda has 2,200 now, but moving the seniors from there to Rancho next year will drop the student population to 1,950 next year (maximum capacity is 2,700). Commissioner Vallette asked if CalTrans had indicated if the Route 30 Freeway would be below grade at the projected high school location. Mr..Smothers stated it was his understanding that the freeway would be below grade there. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 28, 1993 Commissioner Vallette asked what comments the State representative had made regarding the proximity of the proposed freeway. Mr. Smothers indicated that the freeway location was not one of the criteria the State considered and that a representative was impressed with the site. Mr. Buller commented that the Planning Commission had been given a letter from a resident opposing the proposed location of the high school. He further commented that the action before the Commission is to either: 1) forward Commission comments through the minutes of the last two meetings~ or 2) formalize a recommendation, either negative or positive, for the purchase of the site. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission would have the opportunity to talk to the Police Department regarding the school site. Mr. Buller stated that a representative from the Police Department was not present. He stated that staff can forward any questions to Police and have them respond to Chaffey Joint Union High School District as well as responding to the Commission later. Commissioner Vallette asked if White Sage is present at the proposed site. Mr. Warren stated it was a possibility but he had not inspected the site for it. Commissioner Melcher asked staff what type of environmental review had to be conducted by the school. Mr. Bullet responded that staff's opinion is that they must follow CEQA. He also stated that the school district is doing a two-tiered environmental review: one at purchase and one at development, and that they expect the State to expedite review. Commissioner Chitlea reiterated her concerns regarding the parking on and off site, stating that the single ingress and egress access could be dangerous if there was a need to evacuate and that additional traffic and parking problems created will be burdensome to the neighborhood. She commented that these were serious considerations that should be addressed prior to purchasing the property. Commissioner Melcher stated that, while the school district does a fine job educating our children, it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to see to the proper planning of the community. He stated that the staff report indicates a litany of reasons that indicate, if the Commission were making the planning decisions, they would not select this site. He remarked that, without being hostile toward the district, he felt the appropriate action of the Commission is to recommend that the district not purchase the site. Commissioner Vallette stated that she shared the same thoughts on the site as Commissioners Chitiea and Melcher. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 28, 1993 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Smothers if this could be a landbank deal and that a school may never be built there. Mr. Smothers responded affirmatively, but he stated that concept was not being deeds the site would be purchased outright. He remarked he could not guarantee that a school would be built there but it is likely. He asked if the Commission had suggestions for alternate sites for the high school. Mr. Bullet responded that, prior to Mr. Otto Kroutil's leaving, he was working with the school district on locating a 40 acre site. He also stated that the Commission has gone on record and supports a high school near the intersection of Banyan and Milliken. He commented that staff will continue to work with the district if it is their wish, but he agreed with Mr. Smothers in that it is difficult to find a single parcel piece of land. He said there were several locations where it would take the consolidation of many landowners' property to make a parcel that size, but they are available. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Milliken/Banyan site is approximately the same distance from Rancho Cucamonga High School as the proposed site is from Etiwanda High School. Mr. Bullet responded that the Milliken/Banyan site would be further. He then pointed out the current high schools and proposed sites on the map posted at the meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the site is not desirable for the school. He felt that its close proximity to the freeway was not good in terms of noise. He said he thought the district could work with City staff and some real estate representatives to combine pieces of property for the 40 acre site. He stated there were too many unanswered questions regarding the freeway and this particular site. Chairman McNiel stated he was less concerned about the freeway proximity but he was concerned that access and parking will be difficult and that the adjacent residential area will be impacted. He commented he had to agree with Commissioner Melcher, although reluctantly, because he has been working with Mr. Smothers on another project in the City and they are on friendly terms. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, that the Commission, with a deep sense of regret and sympathy for the school district's predicament, recommends that the district not purchase the land, based upon the concerns and comments raised in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote. AYES= NOESz ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS~ COMMISSIONERS= COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried Mr. Buller stated that the Commission's motion and vote put the school district on notice and they may still proceed because they are only required by law to keep the Planning Commission informed. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 28, 1993 Chairman McNiel requested that the City staff personally work with Mr. Smothers to find an opportunity that serves both the community's and the school district's purposes. Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that there are probably land owners and real estate people that are interested in working out a deal with the school district for the 40-50 acre parcel they need. Mr. Buller stated there was a Fire District representative present if the Commission wished to ask any questions. The Commission had no questions for the Fire District. , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Fe AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 118 - FOOTNILE MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - A request to amend the Uniform Sign Program for Foothill Marketplace to change the definition of a "major tenant" and to allow for "logo graphic signage" within a previously approved commercial retail center in the regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-27 through 44. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Murphy was able to find the chart the Commission once had regarding sign heights. Mr. Murphy replied he had not. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated he knew where it was and that he would get it. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, 3620 Birch, Newport Beach, stated what they are proposing for Office Depot is 36 inch letters which are more in scale with the building's architecture and massing and could be read from Foothill Boulevard. He referred to a study from an independent sign consultant, Gemini, Inc., that stated the readable distance for signs that far from the street (460 feet) is 42 to 48 inches. He stated that the 24- or 30-inch signs are too small for the buildings' architecture. Me commented that approving their request does not take the matter out of the Commission's hands because it has to come back to the Commission for final approval. He did not feel that staff's comparison of their center to Tetra Vista in the staff report was appropriate. He stated that other stores would be obscuring the view of these buildings which is not the case at Tetra Vista. He also commented that Tetra Vista had two categories for signage: over 50,000 square feet, which allows a 4 foot 3 inch sign; and under 50,000 square feet, which allows a 24 inch sign. Me stated that Ross Dress for Less is 26,000 square Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 28, 1993 feet and was approved for a 24 inch sign, but there sign is 48 inches high. He said his tenants are 24,000 and 25,000 square feet, respectively, and they would be comparable to Ross in square footage. He stated Big Five has a total of 42 inches of signage. Chairman McNiel asked what color the Office Depot signs are. thought it was a royal or dark blue. He stated he Mr. Wattson stated the signs are yellow with a royal blue outline. commented that Petsmart would be red. He Chairman McNiel asked how tall the letters for Petsmart are, including the bouncing ball. Mr. Wattson stated what they are asking for is a 36 inch sign. Commissioner Melcher asked what the area of the footprint is for Office Depot. Mr. Wattson replied that it is 24,978 square feet and it is 150 feet long. Commissioner Melcher stated that if the footprint were 33 feet deeper in the north/south direction, the store would contain 5,000 more square feet and the frontage would ~stay the same, but by the definition of the sign program, they would be entitled the larger sign. He commented he did not have a problem with the requested change. Chairman McNiel asked who the five major tenants are. Mr. Wattson replied the major tenants are Food 4 Less (50,000 square feet), Sports Chalet (36,000 square feet), Circuit City (33,000 square feet), Office Depot and Petsmart. Mike Bank, General Coordination Consultant for Office Depot, 4949 Ethel Avenue, Sherman Oaks, stated he has worked with Mr. Wattson closely on this project and he agrees with his comments. He stated that Office Depot is a tenant of a comparable class to the major tenants in the center. He stated that because of the size of the entrance to the building that a 36 inch sign would be more appropriate. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette stated she could not remember how the larger Tetra Vista signs got approved. Mr. Murphy commented that there was at least one amendment to the sign program that made an allowance for Ross, Service Merchandise, and Montgomery Wards to have larger signs. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that those stores were approximately 770 feet from the street where Office Depot and Petsmart are only 390 feet from the street. Commissioner Vallette asked why Mr. Murphy was recommending approval of the trademark logo signs and denying modifications to major tenant. Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 28, 1993 Mr. Murphy stated that with the logo there is not accompanying lettering so it means a reduction in sign area which is a tradeoff for allowing the logo. He commented the issue with the letter size is based on what has been allowed in the past, in this center as well as other centers in the City, for the necessary height for clear visibility from Foothill Boulevard, and the architecture. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commission followed staff's recommendation if the applicant could come back to Design Review for the 30 or 36 inch letters. Mr. Buller responded that, if the Commission approved this request, the applicant's options are 24-, 30-, or 36-inch signs but the applicant is limited to 30 inches or less if this request were not approved. Commissioner Melcher stated he has concerns about the shape and design of the Petsmart sign. He commented that, if the request were granted based on the Office Depot sign, the Commission may want to remember that the applicant cited the overall dimensions of the field that is occupied by a sign and it might be a good idea to deal with the Petsmart sign on that basis - from the top of the uppermost curve to the bottom of the lowermost curve - to regulate its height. Mr. Murphy stated that, even if this request were approved tonight, there was no guarantee that the applicant would get anything beyond a 30 inch sign. Commissioner Chitlea stated that she did not see the justification for the request and she agreed with staff on the intermediate sign sizes because the stores are not as great a distance from the street as the stores mentioned at Terra Vista. Commissioner Tolstoy recommendation. commented that he also agreed with staff's Chairman McNiel asked for further clarification that if the request were granted, it still wouldn't commit either the Commission or the applicant to a sign that large if it doesn't fit architecturally. Mr. Murphy stated that it only commits everyone to a 30 inch letter; everything just shifts six inches - 24-30 inch letters are currently allowed; approval would change that to 30-36 inch letters, subject to Design Review approval. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission had been concerned previously over the size of a sign on a building and it turned out fine; he cited the Target building as an example. He remarked that he thought that sign would be too large, but he didn't think so after it was up. Mr. Bullet suggested an alternative might be to develop a formula that would allow up to 36-inch letters if there is excess space horizontally. Commissioner Vallette stated she has always been in favor of addressing the sign program because it is important to the business community to make sure Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 28, 1993 that their business has the visibility it needs to succeed and it serves the con~nunity to let them know what exists there. She stated she thought it could be done tastefully, as Mr. Buller suggested. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Commissioner Vallette if she was suggesting the applicant be allowed to have 36 inch letters if the Commission changes the definition. Commissioner Vallette replied affirmatively, if it could be done within the appropriate available space and if it fit architecturally. Commissioner Tolstoy stated if that was the case, approval should be done on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket basis. Mr. Bullet stated that all signs are approved on a case-by-case basis if they wish to go up to 36 inches. He stated that staff could establish a policy that states 30- to 36-inch letters would be allowed only if certain criteria are met. Commissioner Melcher remarked that the change makes some sense, but the Commission has to be careful how it will impact the other three stores. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it opens the door for other regionally related centers to increase their signage and, by changing the square footage, the Commission would be setting a precedence. Commissioner Melcher stated he thought each center had it own program. Mr. Buller replied that both centers have their own sign programs. He stated that they used the Town Center as a guide but this program is different from the Town Center and it has been accepted by definition by the Commission. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to accept staff's recommendation to approve the use of trademark logo signs, and deny modifications to the major tenant definition. Mr. Bullet stated if the Commission wanted to keep the door open for the option he mentioned, they could deny this request without prejudice, and then the applicant could come back with a request for a 36-inch sign if they meet the additional criteria to be established. Commissioner Vallette stated she would include that in her motion. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would also accept that amendment to the motion but it was Just putting off the argument for another time. The motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 28, 1993 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Melcher suggested combining agendas for pre-applications with the regular agendas. He suggested they come at the end of the agenda. He also suggested that the Public Comments section of the agenda be moved to the beginning of the agenda before the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Melcher stated with Time Extensions on Consent Calendar, he did not think it was necessary to attach all the previous staff reports and exhibits and that just a cover memo would be acceptable. Mr. Bullet stated that in the past the Commission has asked for the full report to come back. After some discussion the Commission concurred that they still would like to get the full report. Commissioner Vallette requested the next agenda include an update on the Route 30 Freeway. She commented she would give the report. Chairman McNiel gave an update on the Graffiti Task Force. He commented that it was originally set up for four months, but the time frame was extended by two weeks. He stated they have contacted other cities and the State regarding legislation. He commented they are close to setting up a municipal "People's Court"-type court system because the regular court system can not handle this problem. He said the Sheriff's Department is arresting taggers and they are working on various punishments for them which include: (1) painting over the graffiti~ (2) additional public service, such as cleaning out culverts, etc.; and (3) billing the parents for the damages. , · , , , ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to a workshop in the Rains Room regarding Pre-Application Review 93-02 - Yeh. Respectfully Submitted Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 28, 1993