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