HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/09/09 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
September 9, 1992
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:
Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson,
Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City
Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez,
Planning Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that Items B and C on the agenda could be
heard at the same time.
Mr. Buller announced that staff desired to set up a Pre-Application Review
Workshop regarding the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road
on September 23, 1992, at 6:00 p.m., and if the Commissioners were in
agreement, tonight's meeting should adjourn to that time.
Mr. Buller stated that the Planning Commission had received several letters
regarding Item A on the agenda. He observed that the public hearing had been
closed at the last meeting and the Commission had directed staff to prepare
the resolution of denial on tonight's agenda. He remarked that if the
Commission wished to review additional information, it would be necessary to
re-advertise the item and place it on a future agenda as a public hearing. He
observed that the first available meeting would be October 14, 1993, because
of newspaper advertising deadlines.
, , , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Chitiea
and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August
18, 1992, regarding Planning Commission Goals and Priorities.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 with Chitlea
and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August
18, 1992, regarding McDonald's Pre-Application Review.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH -
A resolution of denial for a request to add a kindergarten through 8th
grade school to a previously approved church and school located at 10601
Church Street - APN: 1077-421-31.
Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission had received a letter from Pastor
Hindley requesting that the item be removed from the Consent Calendar to allow
additional consideration. He reiterated that if the Commission wished to
consider additional information, they could take no action this evening and
would have to direct staff to re-advertise the matter for a future public
hearing. He noted that if the Commission opened the matter for public
testimony, it would not be fair to the people who had appeared at the previous
meeting and believed that the matter was closed.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the Commissioners had received additional
letters from the applicant and other interested parties. He remarked that in
reading the additional material, he still did not feel that all of his
concerns had been addressed. However, in the interest of giving the applican~
an opportunity to present all pertinent information, he was willing to take no
action on the resolution of denial and suggest that staff re-advertise the
matter for public hearing at a future meeting.
Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Melcher.
Chairman McNiel felt that some of the statements in the letters received were
exaggerations.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to direct staff to re-
advertise Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-17 as a public hearing at
the October 14, 1992, meeting. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14038 - DANIEL - A
subdivision of 2.4 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the
northeast corner of Arrow Route and Maple Place - APN: 208-961-11. Staff
recommends issuance of Negative Declaration. Related file: Development
Review 91-12.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 9, 1992
NEW BUSINESS
Ce
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-12 - ARCHEION - The
development of four industrial buildings totaling 38,695 square feet on
2.4 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow
Route and Maple Place - APN: 208-961-11. Staff recommends issuance of
Negative Declaration· Related file: Parcel Map 14038.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Ruben Burrola, Archeion, 6 Morgan, Suite 100, Irvine, felt the conditions
added as a result of the January 16, 1992, Design Review Committee meeting
were unfair. He stated he had discussed the conditions with his client, and
his client agreed to accept the conditions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Design Review Committee had discussed the
possibility of reversing Building 3 with the parking lot to the north. He
noted that the buildings appear to face a blank wall across their parking
lots.
Chairman McNiel did not recall such discussions taking place but agreed
perhaps they should have.
Commissioner Melcher stated he did not wish to change the project at this
time. He noted that the buildings will help to soften the look of the blank
wall of the project on the adjoining property.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to issue Negative
Declarations and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map 14038
and Development Review 91-12. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-07 - GTE - A request to
construct a multi-phase switching facility with Phase I consisting of a
650 square foot remote switching station on 1.5 acres of land in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, between 5th and 6th
Streets - APN: 229-341-06. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Related file: Lot Line Adjustment No. 361.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Con%mission Minutes -3- September 9, 1992
Commissioner Vallette noted that the expansion area is mostly gravel.
asked if the area will be landscaped.
She
Mr. Hayes stated the area was conditioned to be landscaped unless development
occurs within 6 months of completion of this project. He stated the interim
landscaping plans will be reviewed during the detailed plan check stage.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
John McDonald, Clements & Clements Architects, 123 South Lake Avenue,
Pasadena, stated they preferred to use poured-in-place concrete instead of
tilt-up concrete. He felt they could match the look of the remainder of the
Bixby project.
Chairman McNiel asked if they felt poured-in-place concrete would be better
than tilt-up.
Besim Bilman, 553 South Lake Avenue, Pasadena, stated he is a structural
engineer. He said they would prefer to use poured-in-place concrete in lieu
of tilt-up. He felt they could achieve the same look, but the construction
would be better. He remarked that a tilt-up building was not practical
because the floor space is so small that the panels could not be cast on-site,
but instead would have to be cast elsewhere and hauled in.
Commissioner Vallette asked if poured-in-place construction would make a
difference when they wish to expand.
Mr. Bilman stated it could be designed to accommodate future loads better than
tilt-up construction.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Vallette asked if staff supported the applicant's proposal to use
poured-in-place concrete and if there would be a difference in the finished
appearance.
Mr. Hayes noted that the building will be painted and supported the requested
change.
Chairman McNiel stated that structurally it makes sense to use poured-in-place
concrete.
Commissioner Melcher agreed the applicant should be able to use poured-in-
place concrete.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review 92-07.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 9, 1992
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 92-14 - HOWELL - Appeal of the City Planner's decision
denying a request to remove two Eucalyptus trees located on the north side
of North Victoria Windrows Loop, west of Rock Rose Avenue - APN:
227-411-42.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher observed that the Commission had received word from Jeff
Barnes, Parks/Landscape Maintenance Supervisor, that the trees are located in
the City's Landscape Maintenance District and although there had been a
misunderstanding in the past and the trees had not been maintained, they would
be maintained in the future.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Roxanne Howell, 6595 Elderberry Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she felt
the trees pose a fire danger, but she realized that there are conflicting
opinions regarding that danger. She said that the trees pose a serious clean-
up mess for her. She remarked that her back yard is taken up almost
completely by a pool and the trees continually rain leaves into her pool. She
feared that the trees are lowering her property value because she did not
think anyone would buy her house because of the constant mess in the pool.
She noted that the letter denying her tree removal permit application stated
that if the trees are properly maintained, the fire danger is minimal and
there would be a reduction in the leaves being dropped into the pool. She
observed that the trees had been planted in 1985 and have never been
maintained. She stated she had called the City several times over the years
and had been told it is the wrong time of year or it is not in the City's
budget. She said she had asked to be able to pay for trimming of the trees
and was told she could not do so. She said she had not been aware of how high
the trees grow, and she now wanted them removed. She stated she was willing
to replace them with any other type of trees and suggested that liquid ambers
be used because they are the street tree along the adjoining street. She
asked that she be permitted to maintain her property in an enjoyable way.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had formerly raised concerns about Eucalyptus
trees in the planned communities and had taken a tour of the City with
landscape maintenance personnel about eight months ago. She observed that Mr.
Barnes had written a memorandum stating the trees should have been maintained
by the city and would be maintained in the future. She said she had seen a
big improvement in maintenance since Mr. Barnes took over. She feared it
would set a precedent if the homeowner were allowed to replace the trees. She
also remarked that because of the winds, the trees could only be replaced with
other deciduous trees, which would still lose their leaves.
Commissioner Melcher observed that for every homeowner who applies for a
permit to remove a tree, there are other residents who merely remove the
trees. He did not feel that street tree easements work very well. He hoped
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 9, 1992
that Mr. Barnes would have the trees trimmed as soon as possible and see what
could be done to rectify some of the problems. He expressed sympathy for the
applicant but felt as a Planning Commissioner he could not support the removal
of the trees.
Chairman McNiel commented that when the Victoria Community Plan was being
developed, the residents demanded that trees be planted and replaced. He
agreed that the applicant has a problem, but he felt the Commission needs to
support the strict tree policy. He recommended that the applicant appeal to
City Council.
In response to Commissioner Melcher, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated
that he had spoken with Mr. Barnes and been advised they would be able to
start tree trimming in the area in January.
Chairman McNiel requested that a sense of priority be given to having the
trees trimmed as soon as possible, before the windy season. He again invited
public comment.
Ms. Howell stated she appreciated the Commissioners' sympathy. She remarked
that eucalyptus trees shed bark and leaves all year long, not just in the
fall. She said she planned to appeal to City Council and she hoped they would
consider her pool and grant an exception.
It was the consensus of all three Commissioners that the appeal be denied.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
F. WORDING IN FOLLOW-UP LETTER REGARDING TIME EXTENSION GUIDELINES
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that he felt the proposed wording had raised
a larger policy question about which he would like direction from the full
Commission. He asked for guidance on the appropriateness of requesting
changes when time extensions are requested and there have not been any changes
to codes or standards.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he understood the original reason for
requesting additional wording was to be sure that project proponents realize
they may be confronted with changes and he had suggested language to convey
that possibility more clearly.
Commissioner Vallette believed the issue had come up in connection with
reviewing a time extension for a particular project which the Commissioners
Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 9, 1992
felt was incompatible with current guidelines. She did not feel a time
extension request should trigger an "open season" for changes, but she felt
the language should address the Commiseion's ability to request changes. She
thought the language could be strong but the development community should not
fear that changes would be requested when not appropriate.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated his only objection to the wording
in Alternate 3 was the wording "will require" because some projects cannot be
changed for legal reasons. He noted that vesting tentative tracts and
subdivisions for financial purposes cannot be burdened with additional
conditions even if the codes have changed. He suggested changing the wording
to "may require."
Mr. Buller commented that currently significant changes generally have
resulted in code changes and changes to projects would generally be required
only when the project is no longer consistent with larger issues or where code
changes have been made, but he feared that a future Commission may not
interpret the matter in the same way. He felt there should be some
understanding between the Commission and staff of when changes would be
required. He noted that typically time extensions have been dealt with as
routine and non-controversial.
Commissioner Melcher felt the developer's exposure in the event of a time
extension request should be clearly communicated. He felt it is important
that developers understand that changes may be required or time extensions
denied if their project would not be approved at the time they are asking for
an extension because the project has fallen down on the approvability scale
even if there nave been no changes in codes.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be necessary for the Commission to
point out specific differences in the code or would it be sufficient for the
Commissioners to find that the project would not be approved at the current
time perhaps because of maximum coverage of the lots.
Chairman McNiel felt changes could be required regardless of whether there
have been changes to the codes.
Mr. Buller noted that Alternative 2 pointed out that changes could be required
regardless of whether significant changes had taken place.
Mr. Hanson suggested the wording may spell out that the Planning Commission
may deny the project. He noted that it is still a discretionary action.
Commissioner Vallette felt it may be a good idea to state that possibility so
the developers would know up front.
Mr. Bullet stated the Commission had requested additional wording in the
approval letter to tell potential applicants that time extensions would not
necessarily be a "done deal." He thought staff would need clearer direction
on when a time extension would not be acceptable without changes to avoid
having staff place items on the Consent Calendar when the Commission felt
changes should be required.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 9, 1992
Commissioner Melcher noted that currently applicants have been wishing to
change their projects for economic reasons and the City generally is reluctant
to allow such changes. He stated that when the economy turns around, those
projects would be forced to upgrade. He thought it important to establish
clearly what the development community can expect from the Commission.
Chairman McNiel felt that applicants need to be advised that there is a
potential for changes at the time of time extension reviews. He thought that
may prod developers to move on projects rather than postponing them and
requesting time extensions.
Mr. Buller suggested revising Alternate 2 to include wording that the
Commission may deny the time extension request. He felt that would alert the
applicant to talk to staff. He recalled that changes have so far only been
requested when projects are in violation of current codes.
Mr. Hanson stated that when codes are changed before building permits are
pulled, the Commission does not have the right to grant a time extension
without changing the conditions because to do so would grant vesting rights to
which the applicant may not be entitled.
Commissioner Melcher felt it is important to add the language, particularly as
projects may be sold between approval and building. He suggested revising the
wording to state "...In reviewing requests for time extensions, the Planning
Commission may approve the extension as requested, order changes in the
project, or deny the request."
It was the consensus of the Commission that such language would be
appropriate.
Mr. Buller stated staff would change the language and implement it.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adjourn.
8:20 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber on September 23, 1992, regarding a Pre-Application Review for the
northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 9, 1992