Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/08/26 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 26, 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, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the meeting would adjourn to a special workshop on Tuesday, September 1, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. regarding Planning Commission Goals and Priorities. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vailerrs, carried 3-0-1-1 with Chitiea absent and Melcher abstaining, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 12, 1992. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to approve the minutes of August 12, 1992. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western City limit - APN: 202-021-37. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 92-09. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette asked if the color palette was as depicted on the wall. Mr. Hayes confirmed that it was. Commissioner Melcher asked who would construct the entry monument. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that it will be constructed by the developer as part of the public improvement plans. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City would be responsible for maintenance once the landscaping has been established. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the house which is to be demolished is an historic structure. Mr. Hayes responded that it was not on the City's listing of historic structures. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jason Fan, JKF Development, 376 South Lemon Creek Drive, Walnut, stated he was available to answer questions. Maria Droll, 6810 Sard Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her property is directly south of the project, across Hamilton Street. She said she had already lost her privacy when Upland built in the wash behind her property. She objected to the development because she felt the new homes across Hamilton Street would then allow people from the north to look into her house and she would lose her view of the mountains and to the valley. She did not feel that Hamilton is a large enough street to handle the traffic. She remarked that developers have already contacted the property owner to the east to build homes on that 5 acres and she feared that would add more traffic. She also felt that 19th Street is too overcrowded. She thought that the removal of eucalyptus trees along 19th Street would result in a higher noise level at her house. She indicated they had purchased their property 12 years ago because of the country atmosphere and she did not feel the City needs more progress. She said her neighbors had not come to tonight's meeting because they felt they had lost when Upland permitted the houses to be built in the wash. She asked if the City would look out for the rights of its citizens, or only the rights of developers. Chairman McNiel stated the City has to consider the rights of all. Ms. Droll felt Hamilton Street would need to be widened. She said she and her neighbors had fought Upland so that Upland would not make Hamilton a through street. She feared that all of the land east to Jasper would be developed with more houses. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 26, 1992 Chairman McNiel asked Mr. James to respond to traffic. Mr. James said that Hamilton was originally designated as a through street to Upland, but Upland did not build the street when the development to the west was built. He felt that had Upland continued the street, it would have reduced traffic on Hamilton because it would have permitted another exit. He indicated that Hamilton would be able to handle the traffic generated by the 17 proposed additional homes. He did not feel people would be traveling from 19th Street down through the new tract to use Hamilton Street. Chairman McNiel asked about the value of eucalyptus trees in mitigating noise. Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded that scientific studies have shown that trees may provide a visual barrier, but they do not mitigate noise. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the proposed project would be constructing a block wall along 19th Street and the 17 two-story homes would mitigate noise from 19th Street better than the trees do. Ms. Droll felt the wall would not help to mitigate the noise because they are further south and the trees are taller than the wall will be. She also indicated that Jasper Street now has a stop sign on every block because of the school. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt the plan is a good attempt to work with a difficult piece of property. However, because the property to the east will probably redevelop in the future, he thought it may be premature to build this development. He asked if any thought had been given to other possible street layouts. He suggested that Hamilton be made into a cul-de-sac from the north, as he did not think that the currently proposed Lot 14 is a good lot layout. Mr. Coleman stated that the developer and staff had studied a number of possible layouts and in all other cases Street A would have exceeded the 600-foot limit for cul-de-sacs. He noted that until the property to the east develops, Street A would be a dead-end street unless constructed in the manner proposed. Commissioner Melcher stated that he was proposing Street A as a cul-de-sac off Street B, and he did not feel it would exceed 600 feet. Mr. Coleman stated that the 600 feet would be measured from 19th Street. Commissioner Vallette stated that in Design Review they had raised concerns about some of the irregular shaped lots and had discussed the matter with staff. She said staff had assured them that the proposed street configuration was the best that could be attained. She said they had also been impressed with the unique character of the homes and they felt the development would be an asset to the community. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 26, 1992 Commissioner Melcher noted that Engineering Condition 8 requires that the east parkway of Street C be landscaped to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He asked if the property could become part of the west yard of the existing residence to the east. Mr. James stated that was the intent. He said the developer is conditioned to provide the landscaping because the house and yard already exist. He indicated the intent is to improve the .area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the homeowner. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the developer would have to do the on-site undergrounding on the Cucamonga County Water District site to connect to the existing antenna. He felt it was a shame to make the applicant responsible for undergrounding on someone else's site. Mr. Coleman stated there is a cable television station head-in station on the Cucamonga County Water District site. Mr. James felt the developer would be responsible for the undergrounding to the antenna as it would not be fair to the existing property owner to bear the burden when someone else is conditioned to do undergrounding in connection with development. Commissioner Melcher noted that Engineering Condition 5 requires the construction of curb, gutter, pavement, street lights, etc. in front of the Cucamonga County Water District property and he was not sure it was appropriate to. place the burden of that cost on the buyers of the homes. He said that although he realized it is City policy, he was not sure that was fair since it does not front on the developing property. Mr. James said it was correct that it is City policy. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the design of the tract handled the constraints very well. He felt this would be a good connection to finish out Hamilton. He thought the architecture to be a good departure from the normal design and wholly supported the project. Chairman McNiel asked what would happen to the portion of Hamilton Street that is being vacated. Mr. James responded that the land would revert to the adjoining lots who had originally dedicated that portion of land for the street. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to respond to some of Ms. Droll's comments. He said that most likely when her house was built, a large lot was subdivided similar to what this developer is now trying to do. He noted that owners of the lots have certain rights guaranteed by law. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14162. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 26, 1992 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSTAIN: MELCHER -carried Be MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH - 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. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the Mommy and Me classes had been limited to 22 students. He asked how many students are currently enrolled in the ARISE Academy. Mr. Coleman responded that currently the ARISE Academy only has a small number of students in a theater group but he noted that other classes may be added. Commissioner Vallette remarked that the new floor plan listed pre-natal classes. She asked if such classes were currently being conducted and if they were in connection with the church or the school. Dan Coleman responded that he did not know. Commissioner Vallette asked where schools are listed in the Terra Vista plan as being permitted in office parks. Mr. Coleman stated that schools are listed under the special facilities category and are conditionally permitted in this area. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff knew what had happened to the Mommy and Me classes. Mr. Coleman responded they were negotiating with other churches in order to relocate the Mommy and Me classes because there is not enough room in the facility to continue to accommodate the Mommy and Me classes as well as Wise Oak School. Commissioner Vallette stated that the primary conditional use permit applicant is the Willow Community Church. She asked if a secondary applicant, in this case Wise Oak Schools, should apply for its own conditional use permit. Mr. Coleman responded that the church already has an existing conditional use permit and they had applied for a modification to include the private school. Commissioner Vallette noted that the school would actually utilize the facility for more hours than the church, and she questioned if staff had considered having a separate conditional use permit for the school. Mr. Coleman stated that course of action had not been considered. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 26, 1992 Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that even the Willows Community Church is not the owner of the property, but rather a lessee. He noted that the school is a sub-lessee. He remarked that there is no difference in the authority of the Planning Commission whether there is one lessee or a series. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Forrest Hindley, Pastor, Willows Community Church, 8968 Archibald, Suite 300, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the pre-natal classes are conducted by the church as a non-profit ministry with classes in the evening. He noted that Mommy and Me had a definite commitment from one church, but was holding out for approval at another facility. He said he had contacted the Community Services Department regarding occasional use of Spruce Park and had been informed the park is a non-reserved facility available on a "first come, first served" basis. He felt there should not be a problem with their using it. Chairman McNiel asked the distance from the school to the park. Pastor Hindley responded that it is only a few blocks away across Church Street. Chairman McNiel asked how the children would get to the park. Pastor Hindley said that children in kindergarten and under would be transported in the school van and the older children would walk. He remarked that he had thought the school could operate under the previously approved conditional use permit without any modifications. He said the church had originally thought they would have their own school, so he preferred to proceed with a modification to the church's conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette asked if there would be an additional conflict with having Wise Oak School and the ARISE Academy. Pastor Hindley stated that the school ends at 2:45 p.m. and ARISE does not start classes until 3:30 p.m. in order to allow time for public school children to arrive. He noted that Wise Oak has before- and after-school care from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and a number of parents who take advantage of the before- and after-school care and are planning to have their children attend ARISE classes. He said that the times for dropping off and picking up children is stretched out because of the before- and after-school care. He stated that eases the arrival and departure time crunch. He said the number of participants in the Mommy and Me classes was restricted because each parent came in their own car which was then parked there during the entire class time. He said there would be less cars parked in the lot during the day with Wise Oak School because there would be one teacher per class of 20 or so students. Commissioner Vallette observed that the originally approved conditional use permit limited the Mommy & Me classes to a maximum of 29 students and faculty members. She felt it had been clear that the original approval was only for the Mommy & Me classes and the ARISE Academy, which would be short term classes. She questioned where the confusion had been. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 26, 1992 Pastor Hindley stated the title of the June 26, 1991, staff report had referenced a request to establish a church and school. He said he now understood that any time there are classes, it is called a school. He noted that the original staff report had also indicated the "classrooms will host a variety of activities including Mommy & Me classes. The church is also affiliated with the ARISE Academy..." He stated the resolution also referenced the Mommy & Me classes and a variety of art classes. He felt the statements had been inclusive rather than exclusive. He noted that the resolution had limited the number of students for the Mommy & Me classes, but not for the ARISE Academy classes. He therefore felt the limitations were only for the Mommy & Me classes. Chairman McNiel stated that one of the reasons for the limitation was the parking situation. Pastor Hindley stated he had been confused and he thought more exclusive statements would have made it more clear. He said he had thought that moving out the Mommy & Me classes and moving in the Wise Oak School would not be a problem because they operate on approximately the same hours and he felt the parking demands would be less because parents would be dropping off children rather than staying for classes. Darlene Weber Forney, 6948 Doheny Place, #D, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was available to answer questions. Commissioner Vallette noted that the primary user is the Willows Community Church and she believed signage for the church would remain. She asked how Wise Oaks School would address the signage issue. Ms. Forney stated there is a square monument sign on the side of the building that identifies the school. She said there are also signs on windows to lead parents to the correct entrance way in addition to a temporary advertising banner. Commissioner Vallette asked if the school would be satisfied with no major signage at the site. Ms. Forney felt that would not be a problem because people would know where they are after a period of time. She said they will advertise in local newspapers, etc. to let people know where they are located. Commissioner Vallette asked the plans for the use of outdoor play areas. Ms. Forney said there is an indoor gymnasium in the building which will be utilized, especially on rainy or hot days. She said it allows for basketball, volleyball, and indoor gym sports and they would be getting indoor equipment for younger age children. She stated they would also be utilizing Spruce Park for their physical education program. She said they would go through the Park and Recreation Department to gain use of the baseball diamond. Commissioner Vallette asked how often students would be at the park site for outdoor play. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 26, 1992 Ms. Forney said there would probably be several of their groups at the park on a daily basis, mostly in afternoon hours. Commissioner Vallette asked if private schools have state requirements or guidelines for a certain amount of outdoor play area. Ms. Forney responded she did not think there were any such requirements of private schools. Commissioner Vallette thought that an outdoor play area is required for facilities providing day care. She asked if the facility would not come under those guidelines since they are offering extended care hours before and after school. Ms. Forney stated that they would probably be taking the younger age children to the park on a daily basis to have outdoor play. She said they would be taken to the park by van. She said they would also use the gym. Commissioner Melcher asked if Ms. Forney had operated Wise Oak School at its facility on 19th Street. Ms. Forney responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher noted that when Ms. Forney had appeared before the Planning Commission in July 1991, conditions had been placed on the 19th Street facility for its continued use as a school. Ms. Forney agreed that at that time the Commission had approved the project which had been submitted. She said there had been several delays regarding their plan work. She stated it had been financially exhausting and stressful to try to comply with the requirements. She said she felt the move to this new location would be better because she would no longer have the financial burden of trying to meet the requirements placed on the 19th Street facility and it would allow the school to grow. Commissioner Melcher asked if the required physical improvements had ever been made to the 19th Street facility. Ms. Forney stated the physical improvements had not been made and she was not sure of the technicalities of where they were in the process with their plans. Commissioner Melcher noted that proposed Condition No. 3 for the new facility states that occupancy shall not commence until all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. He asked if the school had not already commenced occupancy. Ms. Forhey acknowledged they were currently moving into the building. Pastor Hindley said that all conditions were met last year for E-1 occupancy. He stated he had first applied for an E-3 occupancy level, but discovered that would only allow them to have children there for a maximum of 12 hours per week. He said they proceeded with designing the building for E-1 Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 26, 1992 occupancy, but the designation never got changed on the paperwork. He remarked that Ron Nee from the Fire District had recently indicated the building meets E-1 occupancy requirements and Phil Mosley from Building and Safety had indicated things look good. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there has been a final inspection. Pastor Hindley responded that the final inspection occurred last summer for E- l occupancy, but they had to pay another $50 to formally change it to E-1. He said Ron Nee confirmed and Phil Mosley has checked it out that it is legitimate for E-1 occupancy. Mr. Coleman stated that he had talked to both Ron Nee and Phil Mosley and they indicated the church had been required as a correction on the plan check to change the plans to an E-3 occupancy because the building did not meet E-1 occupancy requirements. He said the building had been approved, inspected, and permitted as E-3 occupancy. He reported that a letter had been issued this week regarding the change from an E-3 occupancy to an E-l, and it requested additional plans and information including an emergency evacuation plan. He said he understood that the church has already begun to respond to a number of the items, such as exit signs. He said it did not appear there is anything major, but it is still in plan check. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been concerned about the E-1 occupancy. He said he had spoken to the Chief Building Official who said that the Building Department is satisfied on most of the major issues, such as corridor width, etc., but a number of minor issues remain and an appropriate set of plans still need to be reviewed. He said it troubled him to have a condition that states the occupancy shall not commence until such time as the requirements are met when the occupancy has already taken place. Mr. Coleman stated that all non-construction conditional use permits have the same wording to alert applicants of the need to take care of building and fire code issues. Pastor Hindley stated he had invited Wise Oak School to move into the facility with the personal belief that they were approved for the school use. He said only after the school moved in did they receive notification that they were in violation of the conditions of the approval, and they therefore applied to change the conditional use permit. He remarked that Wise Oak School had already sold their old playground equipment, and it would be hard to reverse the move. He said he had submitted the requested plan to Phil Mosley on August 25 and the plan is currently being reviewed by Building and Safety and the Fire District. He indicated he had also talked to the Park and Recreation department to address concerns raised by staff. Commissioner Vallette referred to the minutes of June 26, 1991, and noted that she had clearly stated that the conditional use permit did not allow for day care. She said she had made the statement at that meeting for clarification as to what was being voted on and there had been no response that day care was being requested. She felt it should have been clearly understood that day care was prohibited. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 26, 1992 Pastor Hindley stated they are not proposing a day care facility. Commissioner Vallette felt the before- and after-school care is day care. Pastor Hindley stated that day care refers to a pre-school in educational terminology. Commissioner Vallette felt that day care also applies to before- and after- school child care. Pastor Hindley stated that pre-schools are required to have adjoining playground facilities, but there is no such requirement for a grade school. Commissioner Vallette asked if he was stating there are no state guidelines for private schools equivalent to public school guidelines requiring outdoor play areas. Pastor Hindley stated that private schools are not required to have any playground facility at all. He referred back to Building and Safety requests. He said they had already installed the requested exit signs and submitted the requested plans. He said they have emergency evacuation plans posted on the walls, but they still have to submit an evacuation plan packet to the Fire District. He felt it would be easy to merely pull the plans off the walls and put them in a packet and submit them and he indicated he was waiting for a return call from the Fire District regarding congregation points. Commissioner Vallette asked if the school is required to have monthly fire drills. Ms. Forney stated they are not required to have drills, but they do anyway. Debbie Baker, 7720 Paramount Court, Rancho Cucamonga, across the street from the facility. She said she noted that there had been an advertisement in the Penny Saver for a pre-kindergarten through 8th grade school. She felt it should be considered a pre-school facility and she asked that the Commission consider the safety of the children and the fact that there are no crosswalks going to the park. She also felt the location in a business park is not conducive to education. She was concerned about the projected number of students, 125. She felt there should be an adjacent outside playground facility. Joyce Eckhoff, 11869 Antler Peak Court, Rancho Cucamonga, thought 20 students per class in K-8th grades would be a lot of students. She asked if use by the private school would interfere with public school use of the park. She questioned the number of students using the park at any one time and if it would interfere with citizen use of the park. Commissioner Melcher stated that Spruce Avenue Park is adjacent to the Ruth Musser Middle School site and he recalled that the school was planned with its playground contiguous with the park and a certain amount of joint use between the school and park had been planned. He did not know if that was still the case. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 26, 1992 Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the Ruth Musser School is still planned to have a joint playground/park connection. He said to his knowledge, Wise Oak School had not indicated it would be using the park to the frequency indicated this evening. He said the park is unreserved and there is no guarantee it would forever be available to Wise Oak School. Commissioner Melcher felt a private, profit making entity should not base its business plan on making use of a public facility on a permanent basis. Ms. Forney said they are a non-profit agency. She said they advertised as Pre-K, but they start at 4 years, 9 months, so they are considered and licensed as an elementary school, not a pre-school. She said they would not allow the children from grades kindergarten through second to walk to the park unless there was strict supervision in going there. She said they planned to use the school van for taking those children to the park. She felt the older children could walk together to the park on nice days. She said they would closely supervise the children on the way to and from the park and at the park. She said they even plan to use cellular phones to connect to their office while at the park. She said there would be a maximum of 25 students at a time at the park. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel questioned the need for private schools to have outdoor play areas. Mr. Coleman stated he had researched the matter and there is no requirement for a private school to have an outdoor recreation area. Chairman McNiel asked if there is a physical education requirement for private schools. Mr. Coleman stated he had not asked. Commissioner Melcher recalled requesting the establishment of a business park in Terra Vista when he worked for the developer. He said he remembered working over the list of uses which were acceptable to the Planning Commission and staff and also workable from the developer's standpoint. He said that listing discusses community uses which could include public and private schools, but he did not believe it was the intent of the City or the developer at the time the use was established to have a kindergarten through 8th grade school on that site. He questioned if the developer is completely in accord with the current request. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Don Thompson, Lewis Homes, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated they are in accord with having the school at that location. He did not know if it was originally intended that a school would be in the business park, but he stated the developer did not have any objections to the use. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 26, 1992 Co~nissioner Tolstoy stated his biggest concern is that the school currently has 80 students and projects up to 120 students. He stated that when schools are designed, there is thought to site planning for proper circulation to provide adequate student drop-off and pick-up areas. He stated that need was not considered at the time the parking lot was designed because it is a business park. He said he realized that some students may travel together, but he questioned if there would be a conflict in traffic flow with approximately 100 vehicles dropping off students before 9:00 a.m. when the other business facilities in the park will probably also be opening between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. He noted that the suites next to the proposed school are currently rented by the Central School District with a minimum work force but large trucks delivering to the site. He felt that when the school district moves out and there are more individual businesses in the park, there may be more traffic congestion. He also noted there is a lot of traffic on Church Street and there is no stop sign at the corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street. He felt people attempting to leave the site would have a long wait on Terra Vista Parkway if attempting to cross or enter Church Street going west. He remarked that the Engineer had indicated that the corner would eventually be signalized, but it is not high on the priority list. He was also concerned about the children crossing over Church Street to go to the park. Commissioner Vallette agreed that parking is an issue. She was also concerned about congestion problem with parents picking up students from school and other parents dropping off students to attend the ARISE Academy. She agreed there may be traffic conflicts. She felt the children should have an opportunity to play outside but she was concerned about having the children cross the street and she questioned if the park was intended to be used by private day care or schools. She felt the lack of outdoor adjacent play area was a major issue. She thought the Commission should determine if the site is appropriate for a school. She felt that even if the state does not require private schools to have outdoor play areas, it would still be within the purview of the Commission to determine if the use is appropriate in this location because of the lack of adjacent outdoor play area. She did not feel the use was appropriate in this location and she did not know how it could be made safe. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when the church was last before the Commission, he had voted for the Mommy & Me program because of the limit on the number of students per class. He felt even the projected 22 students for Mommy & Me was excessive for a business park. He remarked the business park was designed for businesses, not schools; and he felt 120 students would be too much of a strain on the facility as it is designed. Commissioner Vallette felt there was no problem with having toddlers indoors for 2-1/2 hours for a Mommy & Me class, but she did not feel it is appropriate to have children indoors for an extended period of time or even 6 hours without the availability of outdoor play areas. She noted that some students could potentially be there from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Melcher noted that the resolution provided for termination of the use if the Commission later determines there are adverse effects upon adjacent Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 26, 1992 businesses. He questioned if the permit for Wise Oak School could be terminated without terminating the use by Willows Community Church. Commissioner Vallette stated that was why she had suggested a separate conditional use permit. Mr. Hanson stated the applicant had requested a modification to this particular aspect of the conditional use permit. He said it would be cleaner to have two separate conditional use permits but it would be possible to control the offending part of the activities conducted on the site. Commissioner Vallette asked if legally the use could be considered a sub-use even though the majority of the hours would be for that use. Mr. Hanson said that was correct. Chairman McNiel felt that the parking arrangement in front of the school is a treacherous situation. He also thought the use of the park was frightening because Church Street is a well traveled thoroughfare. He felt that even older children walking en masse to the park would be a disaster waiting to happen. He thought the whole concept had been driven by the wrong forces and he felt Wise Oak had attempted to shoe-horn into the facility. He said if the Commission were approving another school facility, there would be appropriate drop-off areas, fenced play areas, and other necessary facilities. He said the conditions which were applied to the Wise Oak School facility on 19th Street were no different from what should apply at this location because it concerns the safety and welfare of the children. He did not feel it made any sense to ignore those requirements. He said he was aware that the grand opening was scheduled for August 27, but he still felt the right thing to do was to deny the application. Commissioner Melcher stated it is a matter of state law that it is not necessary to provide outdoor playground facilities at a private school. He thought if that were the choice of the operator, he wondered if the Commission should impose that requirement on the operator. He noted the facility is located on private property and he felt if the landlord and the tenant were willing to absorb the risks associated with the circulation pattern, the Commission should perhaps be willing to let them do so. He thought perhaps the Commission should go ahead and approve the conditional use permit. He said his one serious reservation had to do with leaving the site and traveling to the park and he felt the park should not be used on a regular basis. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission had a duty to oppose the use because the safety of children is important. She noted that many times the standards of the City have been higher than surrounding communities. She felt that is why many people take pride in being residents of Rancho Cucamonga. She thought that they should require an adjacent outdoor play area even if the state code does not require one. She did not think the location is appropriate. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the September 9, 1992, meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 26, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he partially agreed with some of Commissioner Melcher's thoughts. He said that one of his thoughts was that there is no state requirement for an outdoor playground. Although he felt there should be adjacent outdoor facilities, he questioned if the Commission could place such a requirement on a private school. He felt the important issue was that a business park is not properly designed for a school drop-off and sign-in of students at the same time that employees of other businesses are arriving. He said if the application were for another facility, the Commission would make sure there was appropriate traffic circulation and outdoor play facilities were provided. Chairman McNiel said the Commission can strengthen state requirements, but cannot diminish them. Mr. Bullet stated that under the conditional use provisions, the Commission must find that the use is appropriate and compatible with its surroundings. He observed conditions can also be imposed. He said that if the Commission determined that the use would only be appropriate with adjoining adjacent open space, the Commission could either require the open space or deny the use because the open space is not available. He stated the Commission must determine the compatibility of this use to surrounding uses. Commissioner Melcher noted that staff had recommended approval. He asked if any new information had surfaced this evening that would alter its opinion, or if staff would stand by its initial recommendation of approval. Mr. Buller stated the use of the park had been deferred to the staff of the Park and Recreation Division and they had not expressed a concern about the use of the unreserved community park. However, he said that neither he nor the Park staff had been aware of the intensity of the use now being suggested and he would be concerned if the school was depending upon availability of the park. He remarked it had been his previous understanding that use of the park would be infrequent, occasional, and unnecessary to the program. He said he would stand by the original recommendation of approval only if the school were to indicate that the use of the park was not going to be a key element of their business. Chairman McNiel asked if the motion and second still stood. Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy responded affirmatively. The motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the September 9 meeting carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE CHITlEA -carried , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 8:50 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 26, 1992 NEW BUSINESS Ce DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-05 - JEFFREY GROUP - The development of an 8,000 square foot single family residence on 0.5 acre of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8921 Reales Street - APN: 1061-801-26. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated the Design Review Committee had reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval. He noted that a proposed resolution of approval had been provided for the Commissioners. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Doyle Barker, Jeffrey Group, 34179 Golden Lantern, #201, Dana Point, concurred with the staff report and stated he would be pleased to answer any questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette indicated she had served on the Design Review Committee. She felt the home will be beautiful. She remarked that she originally had reservations because of the amount of lot coverage by the house and hardscape, but the applicant had relocated the tennis court and addressed her concerns. Commissioner Melcher agreed it should be a beautiful home. Commissioner Tolstoy appreciated the unique roof surface and felt the architecture was well thought out. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that Standard Condition B14 should be deleted. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 92-05. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE CHITlEA -carried , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 26, 1992 D. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Commissioner Melcher stated that, with Commissioner Tolstoy'e help, he had prepared the marked up copies of the current Hillside Development Ordinance. He discussed the principal areas of suggested changes and areas that he felt the Commission should further discuss. Those areas included roof pitch and form, wall massing to avoid the appearance of great height, gentlet sloping to provide a more natural appearance (even if more area is graded), and potential trimming of the building envelope to reduce the boxy appearance. Chairman McNiel asked if a 25-foot maximum height to the building envelope would allow adequate roof pitch. Commissioner Melcher felt it could work. He felt that the current 30-foot height is allowing for abrupt two-story mansions which do not seem to fit the hillsides the way the Commission had intended. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Commissioner Melcher noted the Commission had just approved an enormous house which may not have been so large if it had to fit the proposed envelope. Commissioner Vallette was concerned that custom homes would not be reviewed at Design Review unless the slope exceeds 15 percent. Commissioner Melcher stated he did not mind if the City Planner approved those houses on slopes that range from 8-15 percent. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that custom houses on slopes of 8-15 percent can be approved by the City Planner, but as a policy those homes are reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Melcher felt that was good. Mr. Coleman stated that there have been discussions at the Design Review Committee level on how the ordinance should be applied where custom lots have already been mass graded. He said in those instances, there is no natural grading left. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that particular attention should be paid to custom lot subdivisions in the hillside area. He noted that developers grade in order to construct the streets and then when the houses are built the lots are graded from that pre-graded situation. He felt the Commission should carefully consider such subdivisions to avoid having the grading for streets completely alter the natural terrain. Commissioner Vallette stated that she was also concerned with street grading and how streets are laid out. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy's concern regarding custom lot subdivisions. He recalled one small subdivision where the property owner had presented a model of how houses could be fitted to the contours of the individual lots. planning Commission Minutes -16- August 26, 1992 Mr. Coleman noted that staff feels mass grading is more appropriate as the grade gets steeper, because it would be too difficult to grade each lot individually as a buyer submits each custom home. He said such submissions would require the individual lot owner to solve all grading and drainage problems, which would then affect each subsequent lot. He felt it is better to look at the total solution. Commissioner Melcher concurred. He also suggested requiring computer generated three-dimensional pictures of the land mass as it exists and as it is proposed for all projects subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. He noted that is not an expensive service and would make it easier for the Commission to visualize the grading. He suggested requiring a uniform level of exterior design on all sides of a structure instead of requiring architectural treatment to all sides. He felt architecture comes from inside the house and what the house looks like on the outside as a result of what goes on on the inside. He thought that architectural treatment sounds like frosting being applied to the box. Commissioner Vallette liked that concept. Commissioner Melcher suggested changes to the Land Capability Schedule to reduce the allowed density more drastically as the grade goes up. He suggested starting at 8 percent instead of the current 10 percent and reducing the capacity factor as the grade gets steeper. He noted that if those requirements had been in place, there would have been an enormous difference in the Sahama development. He said the proposal had been discussed with staff and a good deal of the land which has that type of slopes is outside of the City limits. He noted that the more the ordinance is tightened, the less likely the land will be annexed into the City. He felt staff should provide more input in that area. He suggested the Commission may refer the proposed changes to the ordinance to staff and ask that staff respond to the ideas and suggest other ideas as time permits within the work program. Commissioner Tolstoy felt lot coverage by peripherals to the dwelling units (tennis courts, patios, terracing, etc.) should also be considered. Chairman McNiel felt that typically the lots are built from fence line to fence line. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Commission should consider such aspects. Commissioner Vallette reported that on Development Review 92-05 the lot coverage by structure and impervious surfaces (the house, sport court, pool and plaza) is 63 percent of the .5 acre lot. She thought there should be a more sensitive use of the land on the hillside. She noted that one of the comments was that hillside structures should be limited to one-story. She showed pictures of various examples of homes on hillside lots. She felt that custom homes should be seriously considered so that they are not built to maximum lot coverage. She felt that leads' to overbuilt homes which are not sensitive to the environment or natural flow of the land and view corridors. She thought natural landscaping could be utilized. She felt the sizes of homes on the hillside should be downscaled and that larger homes fit in better Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 26, 1992 in flatter areas. She suggested conditioning that hillside tracts be developed as a package and not sold for individual, custom lots. She felt the Commission would then have more control over the site planning and layout. She also noted that the front of some of the custom homes have beautiful treatments with only stucco in the rear. She questioned why custom home standards are below what is required of subdivisions. She felt there should be a greater focus on custom lots in relation to hillside development. Commissioner Melcher agreed but stated that traditionally cities have stayed out of the area. He agreed that people are becoming very ostentatious about showing their wealth and are building larger houses, but he was not sure the City Council would allow the Commission to more closely regulate custom homes. Commissioner Tolstoy felt architecture should be organic on hillside lots. He noted that Frank Lloyd Wright had suggested that a house should never be built on the crest of a hill, but should be built down. He felt a house should look like it belongs, rather than being plunked down. Commissioner Melcher felt that the illustrations on Pages 174 and 175 should be strengthened if the Commission decides that is a goal. Chairman McNiel noted that if the height is limited, the houses will merely spread out in order to get the square footage desired and the grading will increase. He noted that market forces dictate the larger houses. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be a happy medium. Commissioner Melcher noted that if the houses on the hillside hug the land better, they will look better. Commissioner Vallette felt that quality of development attracts certain types of people. She felt that if homes are built which are more sensitive to the environment, it will attract individuals who are more sensitive to the environment. Chairman McNiel agreed there is a need to take the remaining hillside seriously and he agreed certain restrictions should apply. He thought perhaps the minimum lot sizes should also be increased. He said that would allow more space for larger homes. Commissioner Vallette stated that on Development Review 92-05, the structure footprint covers 24 percent of the lot and the maximum is 25 percent. She noted the house is 8,000 square feet. She thought perhaps the maximum size should be reduced. She asked about Claremont's restrictions. Mr. Buller said there were some restrictions on lot coverage in the rural area of Claremont. He noted that in Claremont the entire City requires cross-lot drainage. He said therefore everything terraces up and there is a respect for views of the mountains and the valley. He noted that grading and drainage are handled differently in Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 26, 1992 Con~nissioner Tolstoy felt that large homes and extensive bardscape are fine so long as the property is large enough. He thought that a .5 acre lot should not be covered so extensively. Commissioner Vallette referred to the drawing on Page 179 of the ordinance. She felt it depicts a clustering of homes off a private access road. She said that in Claraboya they utilize one main road and allow development only on the southern portion of the main road to preserve view corridors. She felt such a street configuration may work on our hillsides. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the driveway clustering depicted on Page 179 was a tremendous idea. Commissioner Melcher noted that Commissioner Tolstoy had made the comment that shared driveways are a nice concept, but they do not work. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the graphic on Page 179 depicts a shared driveway, but rather individual driveways off a private access road. He noted there is an example on Padua Avenue in Claremont which has landscaping between the road and the shared access which softens the effect. He felt that such a shared road should loop around to the street higher up so that fire trucks would have easy ingress and egress. Commissioner Vallette felt the landscaping section should specify that plant materials should be indigenous to the hillsides to give a more natural appearance. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed there are a number of good native plants that could be used that would take no water once they are established and are natural rather than manicured looking. Mr. Coleman noted that Landscaping Development Standards under Section 17.24.070.F already requires native or naturalized plant species. Commissioner Melcher felt that where there are existing tracts with many of the houses already built before the ordinance took effect, it would be unfair to force the requirements on the few remaining houses to be built. He said it would be hard to tell such a homeowner they had to use native grasses when their neighbors have manicured lawns. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed there should be a section in the Ordinance to address such situations. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission should address a transition of some sort where the requirements may not be as stringent. However, she felt the Commission should allow no more homes similar to what had been approved tonight as Development Review 92-05. Commissioner Melcher agreed that any individuals submitting applications to the City should be led in the direction of the ordinance and to a certain extent required to comply with it, but he did not feel it would be possible to require everything that would be required of a new development because the Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 26, 1992 individual house would not fit in with its surroundings. He agreed that it was a good idea to cut down on the amount of flat area permitted. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that individuals buy lots in the hillside area because they want the view, but they then also want a large flat area upon which to build. Mr. Buller said he heard a concern raised by Commissioner Vallette about the intensity of use on lots and he questioned if that would apply throughout the City, rather than just in the hillside area. He said it had always been almost sacred to allow individuals to do pretty much what they wanted for single lot custom homes. Commissioner Vallette stated she understood that several developments came in and were approved as development packages but are now being sold off as custom lots, so the City is not getting what had been approved. She felt that if a development is to be sold off as custom lots, certain issues need to be addressed up front. She thought the projects should be conditioned so that the lots cannot be sold off as custom lots. She felt the amount of hardscape appearance from the street should be reduced in the hillside area. She thought driveways clustered around a bend in the road is not a sensitive treatment. Mr. Buller noted that time is not currently allocated in the work program, but he said staff would evaluate the comments and perhaps set the topic for a future meeting. He said the Commission could then establish priorities and determine if the Hillside Ordinance should be amended. He suggested that the Commission would need to further discuss the impact on the sphere of influence. He noted that toughening up the ordinance would not attract annexation into the City. Commissioner Vallette felt that perhaps there should not be development in the area. She thought Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy had done excellent job in their comments. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that staff look at what had been presented and return with an oral presentation to the Commission to allow for further discussion by the Commissioners. It was the consensus of the Commission that would be appropriate. , , , , , E. DISCUSSION OF ETIWANDA FOOTHILLS NATURE PRESERVE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER MELCHER Commissioner Melcher felt that the biggest issue in his mind regarding changes to the Hillside Development Ordinance was how it relates to the sphere projects. He felt the City needs to look beyond City limits in trying to establish working relationships and solving some of the mutual problems. He felt there should be integrated planning to have harmonious development of all the land, not just the land in the City. He thought the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 26, 1992 should encourage the idea of looking at foothill issues on a larger basis, rather than on a project-by-project basis. He suggested the Commission go on record as being interested in the idea of an Etiwanda foothills nature preserve. He hoped the City Council would endorse the idea eo that staff and the Planning Commission could become more involved and hopefully have more integrated planning in connection with the County. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agreed with the newspaper article that the larger the contiguous area that is preserved, the better it will be. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the description of the proposed area for the preserve was as a result of the City's proposal in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He agreed there should be an effort between the City and County to try to acquire larger areas of land for a preserve. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was overwhelmed when he read that CalTrans was interested in participating. Mr. Buller pointed out that CalTrans will be responsible for mitigating effects of freeway construction of Route 30. Chairman McNiel felt the more restrictive the City becomes regarding the hillside area, the less the City will be responded to by the development community and probably the greater the conflict with the County. Commissioner Melcher remarked that there seemed to be a contentious atmosphere between the City and the County when there was an active project in the Etiwanda North area. He felt that, in the absence of a specific proposal, it may be a good time to approach the County to see if it would be possible to work together for something that works for everyone. Chairman McNiel agreed that was a good idea. He asked if any projects in that area are currently being processed by the County. Mr. Buller responded that there are. Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be possible to set up a meeting with the County. Mr. Buller stated that both he and Community Development Director Rick Gomez have been in contact with Tim Johnson, the San Bernardino County foothill area manager. He felt Mr. Johnson is willing to sit and listen but he thought it would be necessary to work with the County Supervisor and property owners as well as with Mr. Johnson. He said it would be appropriate for the Commissioners to talk with the County Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Melcher felt it is time for the City to take a pro-active posture toward healing the wounds and toward coming to a workable plan for the area, even if it means adjustments to the City's goals for the sphere. He thought it is inevitable that development will occur in the area and it will have impacts on the City and its streets. Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 26, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it is an excellent time to consider the matter because development has slowed for economic reasons. He felt it is a good time for dialogue with the County and developers. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission should request a meeting time with the County Planning Commissioners and County Supervisor. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should first determine where it is coming from with regard to the Hillside Development Ordinance. Commissioner Vallette felt it would be better to have the County's input before changes are made to the ordinance, rather than presenting a finalized plan. Chairman McNiel agreed it would be better to have room for negotiations, but he felt the Commission should have a document that it agreed upon first. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission needs to have a vision of what it wants to accomplish, and he felt that vision may be different from its original vision. Commissioner Melcher felt the Hillside Development Ordinance is only a small part of the picture in dealings with the County. He thought it would be better to set the Hillside Development Ordinance aside and try on a larger scale to find a more agreed-upon approach to sphere development. He suggested the City and County could hopefully adjust their goals slightly to find a common ground. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should first have a joint meeting with the City Council to determine the Council's current feelings. Mr. Buller noted that the article focused on a preservation area for the hillside wildlife. He observed that is a common ground that all of the property owners are going to have to address. He said the County is going to have to be responsive to the Foothill Freeway, development, and pressures from the environmental coalitions. He thought it would be beneficial to go on record as agreeing with Mr. Johnson that the idea is not a pie-in-the-sky idea while recognizing there is no money. He felt it may be good to see what the City can do to help the County look for the money. He felt it may not be wise to reopen the issue of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the talks should be on common ground and the preserve idea should be a common ground. Commissioner Melcher felt the City should make known its support for the concept of addressing the issue on a regional basis so that guidelines could be established to address problems in a total way. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission was trying to establish a relationship and dialogue on key issues. Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 26, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that one of the key issues is the preservation of open space, as described in the newspaper article. Ne felt the Commission should meet with City Council prior to initiating any meetings with the County. Mr. Buller recommended that the Planning Commission Chairman meet with the Mayor and then report back to the Commission. Chairman McNiel agreed that would be a good idea and suggested he may wish to include Commissioner Melther in such a meeting. Commissioner Melcher indicated he would be available. F. DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE COMMISSIONER MELCHER SUBMITTED BY Commissioner Melcher stated that he had been interested in the report on regional government. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that Planning Directors in Southern California are generally more skeptical of regional government than those in Northern California. He observed that the Congestion Management Plan is now moving toward having traffic govern what land uses will be allowed. Commissioner Melcher stated that he had observed some "not in my back yard" sentiment when he attended the community meeting regarding the Design Competition Program for the project which will include some affordable housing units. He commented that there are some items that are larger in scale than what any one community can cope with. He stated that he was not in favor of another layer of government, but he feared that if cities are not willing to talk and cooperate with adjoining districts, such regional government will be mandated by the state. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the City should join with its neighbors to address common issues, such as the freeway. He noted that Rancho Cucamonga has discussed certain areas, such as the level of landscaping and spacing of on- and off-ramps. He felt such actions are appropriate and productive. He also thought public transportation should serve the entire region instead of having individual bus systems in each city. He did not want a regional government, but he felt the City should participate with neighboring jurisdictions in discussions regarding common needs. He thought that the City would have a higher impact with CalTrans if the City were part of a larger group. Commissioner Melcher felt it is important to continue to have dialogue with neighboring jurisdictions before problems arise. Mr. Buller noted that the City participates in such organizations as Southern California Area Government (SCAG), San Bernardino Area Government (SANBAG), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the Transportation Planning Commission Minutes -23- August 26, 1992 Commission. He said that some of the regional bodies have greater power and authority to get things done and some of them have more money. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commissioners should devote more time to discussion, education, and involvement regarding the regional issues. Commissioner Melcher agreed the Commission should be looking at issues on a broader basis. He felt the Commission has an awesome responsibility to make the hard decisions that will keep the City nice. He said the Planning Commission is the only body able to make such difficult decisions without political pressure. He felt it is important that the Planning Commission not abdicate its responsibility on the tough, big issues. Chairman McNiel felt giving staff more latitude as had been discussed at the Planning Commission Goals workshops would give the Commission more time to become more involved in the big planning issues. , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adjourn. 10:50 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a Goals and Priorities Workshop on Septen~ber 1, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. to be held in the City Planner's office. Respectfully submitted, City Planner Planning Commission Minutes -24- August 26, 1992