Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/10/28 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 28, 1992 Vice Chairman Chitiea 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. Vice Chairman Chitiea then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRE SENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel (arrived 7:05 p.m.) John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planners Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 with Chitiea and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of September 23, 1992, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14771 - BROCK - A request for a time extension for a residential subdivision of 40 single family lots on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: Variance 90-08. Be TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 90-08 - BROCK - A request for a time extension for a variance to reduce the minimum net average lot size from 22,500 to 21,935 square feet and to reduce the minimum lot depth of Lot 3 from 150 to 124 feet for a 40 lot subdivision on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: Tentative Tract 14771. CJ TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION, INC. - A request for a time extension for a residential subdivision and design review of 32 condominium units on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, carried 5-0, to adopt the consent calendar. , , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS De CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-24 - RANCHO HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH - The request to establish a church in a 6,500 square foot leased space within an existing 65,000 square foot building on 6.6 acres of land in the Office Professional District, located at 7365 Carnelian Street, Suite 217 - APN: 207-031-27. (Continued from September 23, 1992) Chairman McNiel announced that Conditional Use Permit 92-24 had been withdrawn by the applicant. , , , , , NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Pad "E," a 7,000 square foot retail building within a previously approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-21. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Richard Mager, Lewis Development Company, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they had struggled with the building for over 1-1/2 years and felt strongly that the building should remain as designed. He felt higher building tower elements would overwhelm the 7,000 square foot building so close to the street. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher noted that the project had been seen by four Commissioners on three occasions and he had seen it all three times. He understood the thinking that pyramidal roofs should be provided on the two towers but he did not support that idea. He observed that the center is below the street grade, which compromises the visibility and makes the front buildings appear massive from the street. He felt the building should be considered in context with the entire center and the scale needs to be preserved while minimizing the down-hill look. He felt the proposed contrast between the corner towers and the tile roof would be pleasant. He stated he would like to see the project approved as submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be a compromise on the south elevation with a slightly sloping roof line added to the tower to the west because the tower is to the south and not on the street side. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 28, 1992 Commissioner Vallette noted she had suggested that idea at a Design Review Committee meeting and the applicant was not interested. Commissioner Chitlea felt that would be an interesting compromise but she was concerned that it may appear confusing to have two separate tower elements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had suggested the sloping roof line on one tower only because they would not be in the same sight line. Commissioner Chitiea felt the towers appear the same from ground level. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred but stated they would not be seen at the same time because they are on opposite corners. Chairman McNiel liked the way the proposed elevation appears. He felt it works well with the balance of the center and there was no need for sloped roofs on the towers. He remarked that a 7,000 square foot building is not that large. Commissioners Chitlea and Tolstoy agreed to accept the building as submitted. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 91-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Fe USE DETERMINATION 92-03 - ADAMS - A request for the Planning Commission to determine whether fortunetelling is a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Specialty Con~nercial Zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant had requested that the item be continued. He invited public comment, but there was none. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to continue Use Determination 92-03 to November 10, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-10/MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-01 - BEN WEST U HAUL - Review of status of completion of improvements required for U Haul rental facility located at 9797 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-282-05. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 28, 1992 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant had indicated he was willing to make the improvements. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively. He said the applicant had indicated he needed additional time to renegotiate his lease and arrange financing to put in the landscaping. Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the required improvements would bring the property up to the expectations of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Mr. Murphy replied that the materials are consistent but the amount of landscaping is not the same as required in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan because of the frontage road. He said the landscaping will be installed in the existing planters. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the Specific Plan requires. Mr. Murphy said that new construction would be required to install 45 feet from the edge of Foothill Boulevard. He noted that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for the elimination of the frontage road and elimination of the road would provide over 45 feet of landscaping. Co~nissioner Tolstoy did not feel the frontage road will be eliminated in the near future. He felt the landscaping should be installed as soon as possible. Me felt the applicant had already had a long time and an additional three months should be sufficient. Mr. Murphy noted that the six month request was from the August date. He said the applicant had indicated that improvements should be installed in January. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel felt six months from the August date would be acceptable. He suggested that if the landscaping were not installed by that time, the matter should return to the Commission for possible revocation of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the property is currently an eye sore. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant should be granted a six-month extension from the date of the request to install the landscaping in connection with Conditional Use Permit 91-10/Minor Development review 92-01 and that staff should work with the applicant to try to have the landscaping installed as soon as possible. Chairman McNiel requested that the applicant be told that the Commission was distressed that the landscaping has not yet been installed. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 28, 1992 Commissioner Melcher requested that staff require access easements to adjoining properties for any properties along the frontage road if one of the existing businesses should go out of business for six months. , , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS H. ESTABLISHMENT OF ETIWANDA NORTH SUBCOMMITTEE Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that at the October 14, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission had discussed the desire to appoint a subcommittee. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City Council has a subcommittee. Mr. Buller responded that two Council Members serve on a Sphere-of-Influence Subcommittee. He noted there are currently no active work program items that would consume a lot of time for a Planning Commission subcommittee, but as County referrals are received the subcommittee could be used as a sounding board. Commissioner Vallette stated she had initially suggested the Commission be more proactive on regional issues. She felt such a subcommittee could be kept informed on matters having to do with the Etiwanda North area and would be good for public relations. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he serves on several subcommittees and has become frustrated with two of them because he has not felt they have accomplished their goals or been kept well enough informed. He felt any development in the Etiwanda North area will have a tremendous impact on the City. He said he had helped form the Etiwanda Specific Plan and knew what residents had said at the time that plan was written. He felt the Etiwanda North area will have a large impact on the Etiwanda area. He thought the impacts from the Etiwanda North area will be so great that all Commissioners should be involved so that they can all express their thoughts. Commissioner Vallette asked if all the Commissioners should be informed and perhaps participate in all meetings between City and County staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the involvement of all five Commissioners in such meetings would perhaps cause problems because the meetings would then have to be noticed public hearings for the City whenever a quorum of Commissioners would be present. He suggested updates at the end of Planning Commission meetings to keep all Commissioners involved. He remarked that the Trails Committee is successful because it meets regularly and has clear objectives. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 28, 1992 Commissioner Vallette noted that the Route 30 Subcommittee had requested monthly updates but had not received any update since the middle of summer. She remarked that the Commissioners have concerns and she felt they should be kept updated so the Commission can provide input. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the Route 30 Subcommittee cannot keep the rest of the Commissioners informed because the subcommittee is not kept informed. Chairman McNiel suggested that Route 30 updates be given at the first meeting of every month. Commissioner Vallette noted that she is available during the day and she would like to be included in any Route 30 meetings. Mr. Buller noted that the meetings with CalTrans are infrequent and not regularly scheduled and the City Engineer must also work with the City Council subcommittee. He acknowledged the Commission'e desire to be kept informed. Commissioner Vallette stated she had not been informed about any meetings since May or June. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that Traffic Engineer Paul Rougeau and City Engineer Joe O'Neil are now discussing Highland Avenue. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Commission wanted to have input before decisions are made, not merely hear what had happened after the fact. Mr. Bullet suggested that Engineering give an update at the next Commission meeting. He felt the Commission could then determine if monthly updates would be necessary. Commissioner Vallette felt perhaps the entire Commission should act as a subcommittee on Route 30 and Etiwanda North. Chairman McNiel agreed that information on both areas should be disseminated to the entire Commission, but he felt subcommittees would be better. Commissioner Vallette suggested that subcommittee members could attend meetings with the County and then update the balance of the Commission. Mr. Buller noted that many times there are meetings with the County on a variety of subjects and questioned if the Commission really wanted to be informed about all meetings. Commissioner Melcher felt that the Commission discusses items but then falls into an abyss. He recognized that staff must be responsible to City Council because the City Council employs staff. He suggested that the Commission finish developing their goals and priorities statement and then ask the City Council to concur so that staff would no longer be caught in the middle. Mr. Buller stated that staff would be happy to keep the entire Commission informed regarding contacts with the County. However, he observed that many Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 28, 1992 times staff does not have much notice about upcoming meetings, and sometimes has as little as one or two days' notice, such as in the recent San Bernardino County Planning Commission hearing on the Gomes' project. Con~nissioner Tolstoy noted that staff had informed the Commission about the Gomes' hearing. He asked if the project had been approved. Mr. Buller stated it had been approved and the only change was that the open space area will be a common lot. He noted the project received the requested density bonus for excellent design. Chairman McNiel noted that staff had quickly assembled a presentation for the County hearing. He asked if it would have made a better impact if several City Planning Commissioners had attended the hearing. Mr. Bullet did not feel that would have made any difference with this project. Commissioner Vallette felt that if the City Commissioners artended County hearings it may help to develop better rapport and understanding between the two Commissions. Mr. Buller did not feel that would happen at public hearings. He thought contacts made outside of the public hearing process would be better. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commissioners should try to set up meetings with County Planning Commissioners. Con~nissioner Melcher felt he would be more effective for the City if he understood both sides. He noted the City will be impacted by development in the Etiwanda North area and he thought it important to try to work together with the County. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should study what could be done to lessen development impacts; i.e. drainage and circulation. Commissioner Melcher felt the City should also see what could be done to welcome the City's neighbors to the area. He noted they will be coming to Rancho Cucamonga to shop, go to school, enter freeways, etc. He felt it is important to make things work. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the impacts on Fire and Police services and the water district should also be considered. He feared the City will lose water pressure in some places. Chairman McNiel felt the Commission should select a subcommittee and perhaps accompany staff to a few meetings. He thought the Commissioners should personally get to know some of the County Supervisors and Commissioners. Commissioner Melcher felt the City Council Members should welcome participation by the Planning Commissioners because it would be an opportunity to share another point of view. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 28, 1992 Commissioner Chitlea felt an Etiwanda North Subcommittee would allow the Commission to participate in meetings where appropriate. She felt it would show the County there is interest by not only the Commission, but also by the City. She felt attending meetings would help to establish relationships for future dialogue and give the Commissioners an opportunity to meet County personnel in an effort to establish a more personal basis instead of an adversarial one. Chairman McNiel asked if any Commissioners were interested in being on the subcommittee. Commissioners Vallette and Melcher volunteered. Commission to accept their willingness to Subcommittee. It was the consensus of the serve as an Etiwanda North Commissioner Vallette stated that forming a subcommittee showed the Commission feels it is a priority issue. Mr. Bullet stated he would like to meet with the subcommittee to establish goals and issues. He questioned how involved they wash to be. Commissioner Melcher felt it would help the subcommittee if the Commission could receive an update on activity in the Etiwanda North area. Mr. Buller stated the City Council will be considering the Resource Management Plan and Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services Phasing Plan which the Commission had recently reviewed. He said the only other activity is an Environmental Impact Report for the Oaks (Landmark) project. Chairman McNiel asked what had happened to the consortium. Mr. Buller responded that it no longer exists. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that meant there was no coordination and probably less cooperation. , , , , , I. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SCHOOLS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the staff report included definitions and information on where various types of schools are permitted under the Development Code and various specific plans. He noted that all private schools are subject to the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that schools could fit into almost any area of the City so long as the location and facility are properly designed. Chairman McNiel agreed that accommodations can be made in designing to address concerns. He felt the Commission should establish standards for schools that might include play areas even if they are not required by the state. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 28, 1992 Con~nissioner Tolstoy agreed that problems arise when the facility is not built to accon~nodate a school, but attempts are made to retrofit the facility. Commissioner Chitlea agreed that part of her concerns with retrofitting is the compatibility with other buildings in the same centers. Commissioner Melcher agreed that development standards are needed. He felt the standards should apply to all schools outside of the public school system which offer Kindergarten through 12th grade education. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what would happen if a school agreed to use a van to transport children to a park for daily outdoor activities, but the van was not available. Chairman McNiel agreed that outdoor play areas are critical. would be willing to participate in formulating the standards. He stated he Commissioner Chitiea felt there was a sense of urgency in developing the standards because she felt the number of private schools may expand. She thought the standards should be developed before additional applications are submitted. Commissioner Melcher suggested convening a focus group of educators from both public and private schools to ask for input. He was not sure what would be appropriate. Commissioner Vallette felt standards should be consistent with what is required of public schools and child-care facilities. She thought the Commission could ask for consistency regardless of whether the schools are public are private. Commissioner Melcher observed that pre-schools and public schools have certain guidelines which they must meet, but there are no rules for private schools in the Kindergarten plus area. He questioned how extensive those facilities would need to be. He was not sure it would be appropriate to require them to provide as many acres of outdoor play area as required for public schools. Mr. Buller suggested that staff could open discussions with a local architectural firm and glean basic requirements for public schools as a basis for discussion. He thought they may have also worked on some private schools. Chairman McNiel agreed that would be a good idea. Commissioner Vallette suggested that Commissioner Chitlea and Chairman McNiel would make a good subcommittee to work on the matter. Chairman McNiel appointed Commissioner Chitiea and himself to a subcon~nittee to study school development standards. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Buller should arrange such a meeting. Planning Con~nission Minutes -9- October 28, 1992 J. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE - Oral report Commissioner Vallette announced that she cannot attend Design Review Committee meetings on Tuesday evenings because she is taking classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. She stated she would like to remain on the Committee and suggested that the meetings be changed to earlier in the day or a different day of the week. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that having the meetings earlier in the day would create problems for other committee members. He suggested the meetings be moved to Mondays. Chairman McNiel stated that Monday evening would be a problem for him and also for Brad. Commissioner Melcher stated he would be willing to attend the Design Review Committee meetings on Tuesday evenings and step aside whenever Commissioner Vallette could attend. Commissioner Vallette suggested that the meetings be held during the day and thought she and Commissioner Melcher could serve on the Committee. Commissioner Melcher stated he could attend during the day, but he would prefer not to. He asked what time Commissioner Vallette would need to leave on Tuesdays in order to attend classes. Commissioner Vallette said she would have to leave by 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Melcher stated he would be unable to attend on Monday evenings. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the meetings could be held on Wednesday evenings when City Council meets. Mr. Buller stated he would be unable to attend the Design Review Committee meetings, as he has to attend City Council meetings. He said there may also be times that staff members would have to attend the City Council meeting but also have an item on the Design Review Committee agenda. Chairman McNiel did not feel it would be fair to ask staff to attend Design Review Committee meetings on the same night as City Council meetings. Mr. Buller said that the Committee could meet on Wednesdays at 5:00 p.m. if activity does not increase too dramatically. He noted that typically Pre-Application and other workshops are held on the same nights as Design Review Committee meetings and stated he would prefer to be able to attend the workshops. Commissioner Vallette suggested that Commissioner Melcher serve on the Committee with Chairman McNiel. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 28, 1992 Chairman McNiel appointed Commissioner Melcher and himself to the Design Review Committee. It was determined that alternates would be in the following order: Commissioners Tolstoy, Vallette, Chitiea. Chairman McNiel asked that a listing of Committee members be provided at the next meeting. , , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that applicants had been contacted and it would be possible to cancel the second meetings in both November and December. He noted that the November 11 meeting would be held on November 10 because of the holiday. , , , , chairman McNiel stated he would like to meet again on Planning Commission Goals and Priorities. It was the consensus of the Commission that a meeting would be scheduled for Wednesday, November 4 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss Planning Commission Goals and Priorities. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 9:00 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop to be held on November 4, 1992, at 5:30 p.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room regarding Planning Commission Goals and Priorities. That meeting will adjourn to 7:00 p.m. on November 10, 1992, in the Council Chamber in lieu of the regularly scheduled November 11, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 28, 1992