Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/03/25 - Minutes - PC-HPC (2)CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 25, 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff had received a letter from the applicant for Item B, requesting a continuance for two weeks. Mr. Buller announced that draft minutes were provided to the Commissioners from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the Albert House for Item F. Mr. Buller commented that this evening's meeting would need to adjourn to a workshop on April 2 at 5:00 p.m. regarding a pre-application review for Smiths Superstore. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of February 26, 1992. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 14121 - J. P. RHOADES DEVELOPMENT - A request for a time extension for the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded tract map consisting of 46 single family lots on 9.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Milliken Avenue - APN: 202-211-48. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS Be MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - A request to modify the hours of operation and to expand the permitted uses within an existing 103,522 square foot indoor wholesale/retail commercial use located within the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-262-28. (Continued from February 26, 1992.) Chairman McNiel commented that a request had been received from the applicant asking that the matter be continued to April 8, 1992. He opened the public hearing, but there were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-03 to April 8, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02 - JACK MASI B. A request to add an auto court use, consisting of automotive services and related activities, as a conditionally permitted use to Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. C. A request to expand the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to include certain retail and service-related activities. (Continued from Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. March 11, 1992.) Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated two letters had been received from Michael Scandiffio and one from Dick Dahl Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 25, 1992 regarding the project. the letters. She commented that staff had not had time to analyze Commissioner Melcher asked how staff had arrived at a recommended maximum of 25,000 square feet for Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements. Ms. Nissen responded that the Light Wholesale Storage and Distribution category has a 50,000 square foot limitation but allows ancillary retail uses in conjunction. She indicated staff felt 50 percent may be appropriate, but the figure would be open for discussion. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why beauty supplies were added to the definition under Pharmacies and Specialty Medical/Health Stores. Ms. Nissen replied that beauty type supplies are often sold in conjunction with pharmaceutical supplies. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would include jewelry. Ms. Nissen replied that it was not anticipated that it would include jewelry. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that beauty supplies could be construed to be an expansion of what he had envisioned. Chairman McNiel noted that the public hearing was still open. Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Company, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, submitted an outline of currently permitted and conditionally permitted uses, the current definition of Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution, a page from a lease with Home Club, and proposed additions to the draft resolution regarding land use type definitions. He commended staff's proposed resolutions. He noted that Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution was already a permitted use with retail sales allowed from the premises with a conditional use permit. He remarked that the applicant had only asked for clarification on definitions of Business Supply and Retail Services and Business Support Services which are permitted uses and that wholesale and retail is permitted under the current definition. He remarked that their big concern was on Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements. He felt stores such as Dunn Edwards Paints, Carpeteria, and Wallpapers To Go, are generally seen in Industrial areas on the fringe of Commercial development. He noted that at the previous meeting it had been suggested that such uses belong in the Regional Related Commercial and he thought they would not be able to afford the rents. He said spaces are also generally not provided in those areas for the small 5,000 to 15,000 square foot user. He referred to a lease restriction from a Home Club lease. He remarked that general merchandise home improvement stores are typically found in centers and they generally have lease restrictions that no other store within the center shall sell any of the home improvement items they carry in their business unless the sales are incidental. He noted that Standard Brands is a 25,000 square foot general merchandiser and would not be included in the proposed definition. He felt the proposed uses are highly specialized. He said they do not locate in regional centers but instead are in industrial areas generally off highways. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 25, 1992 He noted that Ontario and Fontana have such uses and they currently cannot come into Rancho Cucamonga. He felt the Masi site is a good location for those uses. He asked for a broader definition. Mr. Scandiffio then requested modifications to the draft resolution. He suggested that the definition of Business Support Services be expanded to indicate it means services supporting professionals as well as businesses. He suggested that Pharmacies and Specialty Medical/Health Stores, Medical and Hospital Supply, and Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements be limited to areas located near Foothill Activity Centers within Subarea 7. Doug Nye, Bishop Hawk, 2143 East "D" Street, Suite 210, Ontario, stated he was the broker for the Masi project. He indicated the beauty supplies to be sold from Pharmacies and Specialty Medical/Health Stores would not include jewelry. He felt the expanded uses were ones that he currently drives to other cities to obtain. He said the only auto service he intended to put adjacent to the Auto Court was Chief Auto Parts. He felt such a use could not be buried in an Auto Court because it is a convenience store and needs visibility. He felt the 25,000 square foot limitation would eliminate the larger users and would limit the users to specialty merchandise. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He noted concerns had been previously raised regarding the effect on all of Subarea 7. Commissioner Tolstoy did not like the addition of the verbiage limiting the uses to areas in proximity to designated Foothill Activity Centers. He felt that beauty supplies can mushroom into other sales and he thought the use may be appropriate if the definition were tightened. He felt the sale of home appliances should be limited to major appliances to preclude the sale of toasters or irons. Commissioner Melcher was concerned with the impression that this amendment was to create a place for all the little uses that do not fit elsewhere in the City. He did not feel that was a valid basis for making all the changes. He noted that in looking at the current Table III-1, Automotive/Light Truck Repair-Minor was originally excluded from Subarea 7 and he thought that when the plan was originally approved, it was decided the use was not appropriate in the subarea. He questioned if it was appropriate to abandon the plan just because an applicant now wished to add the use. He was not sure the use fits. He also questioned if transmission repair would not cross into the Automotive/Truck Repair-Major definition and did not feel such a use would be appropriate in an Auto Court. He thought the plan already permits a wide variety of uses and he felt allowing the requested uses may result in leap- frogging along Foothill Boulevard. He said there is a nucleus of good retail at Foothill and Haven and approved projects in the vicinity of the interchange between Foothill and the 1-15. He thought that if time were allowed to pass and normal maturation of the need for the land would occur that the logical uses would eventually emerge. He thought the uses in the plan or other uses may be correct, but he questioned if it was appropriate to amend the plan at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Melcher. She noted that in Mr. Scandiffio's March 24 letter he indicated they had not propose that the entirety of Subarea 7 be changed to accommodate all of their proposed conditionally permitted uses, and in fact they believe it is undesirable to do so. She felt that if a use is to be permitted in one part of a subarea of the Industrial Specific Plan, it would be appropriate to make those uses available to other properties in the subarea. She remarked that the subareas are already rather limited in size. She did not feel it would be fair to allow a use for one property, but not for others. She thought it may result in shoehorning in a use just because someone thought it may work. She agreed that transmission repair should not be included. She was uncomfortable with moving the area into a retail type of area because she felt there are other areas in the City to accommodate most of the proposed uses. She did not support changing the plan for one user. Commissioner Vallette stated she is anxious to see the project move forward and she felt it will be an asset to the City. However, she felt that Subarea 7 is a well thought-out plan. She thought there is currently enough Commercial along Foothill Boulevard. She felt that perhaps in the future after further development along Foothill Boulevard, there may be a need for more Commercial, but it was not apparent at this time. She had reservations about amending the plan other than adding the Auto Court use. Chairman McNiel felt leap-frogging is relatively common because the land is not owned by one developer. He noted that in certain areas of Southern California development has occurred with a given use, and in a short time that use has been converted to a higher use as driven by the market. He felt that the proposed uses are a good set of uses. He was not sure the uses needed to be expanded to the extent the applicant was requesting, but he felt the Auto Court is something the community could use and the mitigations through design review could be met. He thought perhaps the design could be improved, however. He thought the liklihood of encountering problems with the balance of Subarea 7 is minor. Commissioner Melcher stated that he did not mean to suggest that he does not believe in the property owner's right to develop at this time, but he was not convinced it is appropriate to change the plan which was considered in the context of the entire community in order to enable a single project to proceed at this time. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Chairman McNiel felt that all of the proposed activities fit in with what is already allowed in Subarea 7. Chairman McNiel did not feel all of the proposed uses should necessarily be added. He asked if the Commissioners would like to consider the list. He felt that in Automotive Service Courts the developer should know that service bays would need to be adequately screened. Commissioner Chitiea noted that the removal of the requirement to have service bays face the rear of the buildings was to allow greater flexibility in order Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 25, 1992 for the most screening and best design to be achieved. She did not feel they should be visible from Foothill Boulevard under any circumstance and she preferred that they not be visible from the main entry. She saw no need to change the plan because she felt there are enough other appropriate locations within the City, including automotive parts stores along Foothill Boulevard and on Archibald Avenue. She felt a service station may be appropriate, but she was not in favor of an Auto Court. Commissioner Vallette indicated she was under the impression that auto supplies was part of the proposed retail uses. Chairman McNiel responded that the applicant had indicated that auto supplies is part of the proposed retail uses, not to be located within an auto court. He remarked that the applicant wants to put the automotive supplies on the street as he feels it needs to attract casual shoppers. Commissioner Vallette felt an Automotive Service Court would be useful to the City and would not be a problem with all of Subarea 7. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the Auto Court but he was opposed to auto parts stores located outside of an Auto Court. He did not feel such a use would be appropriate in Subarea 7 unless within an Auto Court. Commissioner Melcher hoped that the Commission would direct staff to rework the definition so that it is clear that the uses under the Automotive/Truck Repair-Major should not take place in an Auto Court. He did not feel heavy duty automotive work such as transmission repair, engine rebuilding, or body shops would be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that industrial type truck repairs or major overhauls should not be included. Chairman McNiel noted that under Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements there was a suggested maximum size of 25,000 square feet. Commissioner Chitiea opposed the use as a form of retail. She noted that 25,000 square feet is a large building. She stated she could understand specialty uses, but she felt the definition of specialty would need to be enhanced because she was concerned the use would grow to include Standard Brands Paint or Builder's Emporium types of uses. Chairman McNiel felt that none of the general home improvement companies would be under 40,000 square feet. Commissioner Vallette felt the concern was with a variety type home improvement store as opposed to a specialty type store. Commissioner Chitiea felt specialty stores may be appropriate. Commissioner Vallette did not oppose Specialty Building Supplies as a conditional use. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the other Commissioners agreed with the requested changes made by Mr. Scandiffio. Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant was suggesting that the uses be limited to Foothill. He did not feel that the term "professionals" needed to be added under Business Support Services, as he felt the definition was sufficient. Commissioner Melcher suggested that if the plan were amended, that additional restrictions be added to indicate that all storage, display, and sales activities would take place inside enclosed buildings with no merchandising outside. Chairman McNiel thought there is a provision for sidewalk or parking lot sales several times per year under current code. Commissioner Tolstoy noted the Commission was trying not to have retail activities and sidewalk or parking lot sales would be retail activities. He said he understood it to be home building supplies and he did not feel sidewalk sales should be permitted. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if the Commissioners wanted to only take action on some of the uses proposed under Part C or if they felt Item C was appropriate at all. Commissioner Vallette felt that the already designated permitted and conditionally permitted uses in Subarea 7 would be appropriate for the applicant's project and the project-should be reflective of the approved uses without expanding them beyond the Auto Court use. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the project should be able to stand on the merits of what the Industrial Area Specific Plan already permits. He felt the Auto Court use would probably prevail and he thought it would be appropriate to deny Part C. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Chairman McNiel called for a motion on Part B. had been requested. He asked what modifications Mr. Buller stated that Commissioner Melcher had requested that the definition make it clear that major truck repair would not be an acceptable use. He asked if the Commissioners objected to the heavy automotive repair uses, such as transmission repair, or the size of the vehicles. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the definition be modified to delete transmissions and general auto repair. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested adding a statement that services typically provided in the category "Automotive and Truck Repair-Major" would be specifically prohibited. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Melcher noted that he planned to vote against the amendment even with the suggested changes. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was in support of the Auto Court and he supported the modifications suggested. Commissioner Chitiea agreed. Chairman McNiel wanted to be sure that such things as tail light replacement could be performed. Mr. Buller noted that the remainder of the definition should cover such things. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration, and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 92-02, Part B. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Chitiea asked if the resolution for Part C could be modified to a resolution recommending denial. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, felt it would be better to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial in order to best convey the opposition expressed by the Commission. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 92-02, Part C, for adoption at the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that the resolution indicate that Subarea 7 has been designed as a transition area between the heavy industrial portions of the City and the retail and residential areas and the Commission feels it should remain as a buffer area. Commissioners Melcher and Vallette concurred. Commissioner Chitiea noted that one of the reasons the area was so designated was to protect the Commercial retail areas in the City so there is not so much saturation that no centers will be successful. Chairman McNiel felt the proposal was a reasonable transitional use and that some of the requests made by the applicant would work in that area. , , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 25, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA - A residential subdivision and design review for 13 condominium units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Related Tree Removal Permit 91-29. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the replacement trees should be with the · largest nursery-grown stock available (as required in the resolution) or with smaller specimens. Commissioner Vallette noted that Design Review had occurred prior to the tour with Engineering staff. She felt the Commission may wish to discuss the matter. Chairman McNiel opened the public testimony. Alan Smith, Southwest Design Group, 8632 Archibald Avenue, #201, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that they agreed with the majority of the conditions. He thanked staff for their work on the project and remarked that he thought the City will be proud of the project. He felt smaller trees should be used because he feared larger trees would be lost. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it will be a nice project. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission may wish to discuss the tree issue. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented that the language had been copied out of the Tree Ordinance. Chairman McNiel suggested that the matter be referred back to staff to decide on the appropriate size tree. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 15247 and design review thereof, with modification to require replacement of the trees to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 25, 1992 MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14407 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify a previously approved tract map consisting of 13 zero lot line homes and 114 condominium units in order to change the concept of land ownership to create a total of 139 lots, located on 11.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Mountain View Drive - APN: 227-151-15. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 Mountain Avenue, Upland, commented that they would build the recreational area with Phase I. He stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher asked if the introduction of property lines between the units would create any changes in construction which can be seen from the outside of the building, such as walls projecting above the roof. Mr. Cockroft responded there would be no changes to the exterior of the building. He stated there will be two 1-hour fire walls installed between each unit instead of one 2-hour fire wall. He noted that the building length will increase by 6 inches to accommodate the additional 2-inch air space between units. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Tentative Tract 14407. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-08 - LA PARRY - A request to establish a silk flower and gift shop totaling 612 square feet within the historic Albert House, on 1.23 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 10323 19th Street - APN: 1076-151-02. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel expressed concern that the tubular metal fencing should be attractive and not detract from the project. He suggested the design of the Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 25, 1992 fencing should perhaps return to the Historic Preservation Commission to determine the compatibility. He feared the fencing may be too industrial or institutional to be effective. Chairman McNiel then opened the public hearing. Roy La Parry, 8151 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga and 10323 - 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was leasing the Albert House. He remarked that he was planning to use wrought iron fencing with spikes on top and bottom. He reported that he had wanted to use white fencing but the Historic Preservation preferred black. He did not object to providing the parking spaces but questioned clarification on the enhanced paving material. He asked that the sidewalk construction on Hamilton Street and the street trees on 19th and Hamilton be delayed to the five-year plan until after they purchase the property. He noted that the Hamilton Street sidewalk would not enhance the business portion of the property. He observed that on the north side of Hamilton there is only a short stretch of sidewalk along the property to the west and there is no sidewalk on the property immediately adjacent to the east. He commented that in order to provide irrigation to street trees along 19th Street, he would have to go under the sidewalk, so he asked that the requirement be delayed. He said there are currently no street trees along 19th Street from Haven Avenue to Amethyst. He said they cleaned up all the weeds and plan to landscape in the future, but they hoped to minimize the costs until they own the property. He said his lease expires in September 1992 and they are trying to sell their other home in order to purchase the property. He indicated he did not object to the fence modifications because he realized there is currently a blind spot when exiting the driveway. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel noted that the Commissioners had draft minutes from the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Melcher commented that the house is beautiful. He was glad that the block wall will be coming out. He feared that an 8-hour per day, 7-day per week use may be too intense and would be detrimental to the house. He noted that the new home under construction to the west will have its rear yard adjacent to the Albert House front yard and he felt a 56-hour per week use may take away enjoyment from the outdoor space of that house. He remarked that homes of the Albert House era frequently had decomposed granite or gravel driveways, and he questioned if that would not be more appropriate than enriched paving. He did not object to delaying the construction of the garage. He also did not object to postponing the sidewalk along Hamilton, but stated he understood the policy of obtaining sidewalks whenever possible, so he thought the condition may have to remain. He commented that the property is not fully landscaped, but noted that there is no requirement to landscape it. He thought his major concern was the closeness of the two driveways devoted to commercial purposes. He was concerned that traffic speeds on 19th Street are quite high and he questioned if it would be safe. Commissioner Vallette asked the thoughts of the Historic Preservation Commission with regard to the enriched paving. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 25, 1992 Anthea Hartig, AssociateI Planner, remarked that the driveway is currently separated with real fieldstone expansion joints along the curve of the driveway. She said the Historic Preservation Commissioners did not want striped parking spaces, but instead they wanted the spaces to be more of an aesthetic part of the site. Commissioner Vallette commented that in reviewing the application she could understand why the applicant would have reservations about making the improvements immediately, but she felt the improvements need to be made. She questioned if the conditional use permit would be automatically reviewed after a period of time. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the permit would permanently run with the land. Commissioner Vallette indicated she had been going to suggest a one-year time extension for the improvements to be made, but thought that perhaps it would be best to require them immediately in order to be sure that the conditions are met. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Commissioner Vallette was also including the Hamilton Street improvements. Commissioner Vallette felt the application should be considered the same as other businesses in the City. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if she would be willing to forego the Hamilton Street improvements until the owner gains access from Hamilton Street. Commissioner Vallette replied that would be a possibility. Commissioner Tolstoy said he did not feel there is current access to Hamilton Street. He felt that will occur in the future and he thought that would be a better time to require the improvements. Commissioner Vallette agreed that would be a good option. Commissioner Chitiea recalled that a certain amount of time was allowed for the Christmas House to build a garage structure. She thought it would be appropriate to delay the construction of the garage and the Hamilton Street improvements over a five-year period. She felt the concept of putting in gravel for the parking spaces would be appropriate because if the use were not to continue, there would not be added hardscape that would then have to come out. Even though she wanted the trees planted as soon as possible, she was willing to delay the 19th Street landscaping improvements for a year because the applicants do not own the property and do not have a long-term lease. She approved removal of the block wall fence but felt the condition regarding fencing should be revised to require decorative wrought iron fencing in keeping with the period and style of the home. She thought the Commission could leave the color of the fence up to the Historic Preservation Commission, but she agreed with the applicant that white may be more appropriate and blend in better with the white on the house. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use would be appropriate for the Albert House. Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to agree with deferring some of the improvements. He noted that when most people enter a lease for a business, it includes some amount of tenant improvements or a period of free rent. He did not feel that the applicant had an opportunity to take advantage of such circumstances. He noted that the applicant is currently making two house payments. He remarked he would not object to deferring the landscaping and sidewalk for a minimum of a year, but he suggested it be a year from the time the applicant assumes the property. He thought the applicant may find within a year that the business will not be successful, and he felt the current natural state would be satisfactory if the property were to be used solely as a residence. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the fence alteration needs to be done immediately because it is unsafe in its present configuration. He felt that each business has start-up costs. He agreed that the trees should be planted as soon as possible. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that there could be some requirements for upgrading the landscaping in the future. Mr. Hanson suggested that a disclosure statement be required if some of the improvements are delayed for a five-year period. He remarked that the property may change hands with an innocent party being conditioned to make the improvements. He suggested that the applicant record a disclosure statement as to the deferred garage and improvements in a form suitable to the City Planner and City Attorney. He noted that Engineering Condition 5 requires an agreement be executed for improvements to 19th and Hamilton Streets and he suggested that such an agreement be recorded within 90 days. He noted that security is required for the street improvements and he remarked that it would be difficult to secure a bond agreement, so it may mean a lien agreement would be used. He observed that the suggestion to require some improvements within a certain period of time after the applicant obtains ownership would put staff in the difficult position of keeping track of the applicant's financial dealings. Chairman McNiel agreed that any deferral should be for a specified time from date of approval. Commissioner Vallette asked if staff could foresee any difficulties with deferring the improvements. Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that staff time will be required for administration and tracking of the project to be sure the improvements are completed. He noted that once the use is established, it may be difficult to get compliance if the applicant is unwilling or unable to make the improvements. He remarked that there is no need for a building permit, so he suggested that if a disclosure is required that it be required within a certain period of time. He indicated he would entertain the idea of delineating parking spaces with rock or concrete ribbons used with turf block for the enriched parking area. He said he would not encourage gravel. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 25, 1992 Mr. Hanson concurred that the disclosure statements should be required within 90 days of approval. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that several conditions indicate they are to be met prior to commencement of the use. Commissioner Chitiea stated the use was already in place. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, remarked that the use has been operating, but so far as the City is concerned, it is not a legal use. He liked the idea of the disclosure, but wondered if it would be possible for the applicant to get the disclosure recorded since the applicant does not own the property. Ralph Hanson stated that the conditions apply to the land, and so in essence apply to the property owner. Commissioner Melcher noted that if the application were for a standard home occupation permit, there would be a requirement that there be no employees outside of the immediate family. However, he questioned if the applicant would be permitted to have employees since the business will be established under the conditional use permit process. Mr. Buller commented that under a conditional use permit, outside employees would be permitted. Ralph Hanson commented that the conditional use permit process is unique because of the historic landmark status. Mr. Buller remarked that if the Commission was concerned about the possibility of a non-family member living on the property or operating the business, it would be appropriate for the applicant to identify such a potential within the conditional use permit application. He said the purpose of the conditional use permit process for historic structures is to encourage adaptive reuse. Commissioner Melcher noted that the application assumes an ongoing use and provides for the eventual construction of a garage to be accessed from Hamilton. He questioned if the property is large enough to allow for subdivision, and if so, if the Commission should restrict it so the land could not be split. Mr. Hayes replied that the lot is large enough to permit subdivision into at least two lots. Commissioner Melcher noted that if the property were being used as a residence, the applicant would not be required to take access from Hamilton. He questioned if a future lot split should be required to protect the garage access from Hamilton. Ralph Hanson observed that any future subdivision would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and he noted that staff would disclose previous Commission action with regard to the garage access. He thought it may be possible to split the property but still provide access to Hamilton Street for the garage. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Melcher suggested adding a condition that access to Hamilton Street must be preserved so long as the use continues. Ralph Hanson agreed that condition would be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher remarked that the fencing design should be reviewed with safety considerations in mind because of the height of the fence and its proximity to the sidewalk. Commissioner Vallette asked if the current owner had agreed to the use. Mr. Hayes responded that the current property owner had signed the application. Chairman McNiel asked if there was a consensus on the period of time for deferral of improvements. Commissioner Chitiea suggested one year for the 19th Street improvements and five years for the Hamilton Street improvements and the construction of the garage. She felt the fence should be done immediately. Commissioner Vallette concurred. Barrye Hanson noted that there had been discussion regarding several of the engineering conditions. He asked if there was consensus for changing the wording from tubular metal fencing. Chairman McNiel commented that tubular is generic and industrial sounding. Mr. Coleman commented that tubular was used because that is what exists on the property to the east. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be a mistake to allow it in front of the Albert House. She suggested decorative wrought iron fencing would allow some latitude in the design. Mr. Coleman noted there had been discussion about whether staff should approve the design or if it should be returned to the Historic Preservation Commission. Chairman McNiel felt staff could handle it. Commissioner Chitiea felt the City Planner should determine the appropriate height of the fence with consideration being given to safety and appearance. Commissioner Melcher felt the height should not exceed the height of the pilasters. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners agreed that sidewalk and street trees be deferred for one year. Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Chitiea felt a five-year deferral would be satisfactory for Hamilton Street. Chairman McNiel suggested the street trees along 19th Street could be delayed for one year. Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette wanted the street trees installed immediately. Chairman McNiel asked how many trees would be involved. Commissioner Chitiea noted it would mean irrigation in addition to the trees. Barrye Hanson guessed it would be three to four trees. Condition 7 required ground cover and a permanent addition to the street trees. He noted that Planning irrigation system in Commissioner Melcher suggested continuing the matter for two weeks to allow staff and the applicant to work out the details. Barrye Hanson noted that Engineering staff felt a lien would be necessary. Chairman McNiel asked about the landscaping. Mr. Coleman indicated that staff was trying to be consistent with what was done at the Christmas House. Chairman McNiel asked if the other Commissioners were willing to allow one year on the landscaping. Commissioner Chitiea noted she would be willing to allow a year because she felt it would take time to install the irrigation and landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a year would be acceptable. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to direct staff to prepare a revised resolution of approval for Conditional Use Permit 92-08 for adoption at the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-10 - WEST END TRAFFIC SCHOOL - A request to establish a traffic school in an existing building of 1,348 square feet, located on 3.8 acres of land in the Office District (Subarea 1) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan at 8746 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-102-32. Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 25, 1992 Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette remarked that the parking lot lighting must be sufficient and should be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Hayes replied that the actual design and type of lighting will be subject to staff's review and approval prior to installation. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Charles Williamson, 12676 Trillium Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he planned to comply with all the conditions that are under his control. He noted that the property owner planned to address one of the conditions. Commissioner Melcher asked how many classes would be conducted per week. Mr. Williamson stated that following certification by the Department of Motor Vehicles, he planned to start with two weeknights for four hours each, from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. He said he hoped to expand to four nights per week and one class on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He said they also plan to attempt to get a contract from the County to run the Driving Under the Influence program. He said there would be up to 57 cars in the parking lot. Commissioner Melcher asked where registration would be conducted. Mr. Williamson responded that the office would be open during court hours and his wife would handle the registrations. He said they would primarily handle registration over the telephone and the office is located in the loft of the building, but the registration would be on the ground floor. Lowell Gomes, 8772 Vivero Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property. He said there are currently temporary uses because it is a large property which he hopes to develop in the not-too-distant future. He objected to dedicating an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the Foothill Boulevard frontage until the property is fully developed. He disclosed that he currently holds two trust deeds on the property which he would have to pay off prior to any dedication. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the enhanced parking lot lighting is essential to the operation. He hoped it could be accomplished by lights mounted on the building, but he suggested that additional plans be required if the lights have to be installed in the parking lot. Commissioner Chitiea was very concerned that the lighting be adequate. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if lights are needed throughout the parking lot, their placement should be carefully considered. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Melcher noted that the application was for a commercial venture. He thought the project should meet all of the normal requirements and he did not feel the Commission should delete the requirement for the additional 10-foot right-of-way. He noted that the building had been reviewed by the Fire District, but he advised a preliminary review by the Building and Safety staff because he did not feel the building would be adequate for the projected number of students. He was not sure the building would be able to meet building access requirements. Commissioner Vallette commented that when she first reviewed the project, she had the same concerns as those raised by Commissioner Melcher. Upon further review, she felt circumstances were different. She hoped that newer development could occur in the near future and questioned if it would be appropriate to condition normal requirements of other properties along Foothill Boulevard. She thought that such conditions may delay better utilization of the property. She was willing to not force the issue on the lO-foot right-of-way dedication. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be acceptable to defer dedication of the 10-foot right of way along Foothill Boulevard until the property is further developed. Commissioner Chitiea noted that such deferral would not preclude landscaping of the frontage. She supported getting the property spruced up. Chairman McNiel felt the use will be interim only and he thought it would be developed fairly soon. Commissioner Vallette noted that the resolution did not require landscaping. Commissioner Chitiea indicated she had been looking at the site plan in the staff report. Chairman McNiel felt that only depicted the currently existing landscaping. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the applicant should improve the landscaping. Chairman McNiel noted he was more concerned with the driveway and the lighting becoming a problem for traffic on Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Vallette remarked that it is unknown how long the use would remain. She requested that a couple of mature trees be planted on site to enhance the property and felt the trees could then be replanted when the property is redeveloped to a higher use. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that staff would seek to locate trees in areas where they can remain and to choose the type of tree chosen to allow relocation should that be required. Commissioner Chitiea suggested directing the City Planner to see that the area is enhanced with appropriate interim landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 25, 1992 Mr. Buller noted that staff understood the concern for providing adequate lighting without causing a glare on Foothill Boulevard. He felt if lights mounted on the building cannot adequately address concerns, then the solution may be very costly and could perhaps deter development of the property. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-10, with modification to delete the condition requiring dedication of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the Foothill Boulevard frontage and to require that the street front landscaping and the lighting be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the commencement of the use. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , He ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff recommends certification of the Environmental Impact Report. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 to April 8, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 25, 1992 PHASING PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of the proposed phasing plan for a previously approved commercial retail center within the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and he suggested modification to the resolution to indicate that all pertinent conditions of City Council Resolution No. 91-248 would apply. He also presented a map outlining the proposed phasing. Chairman McNiel thought the phasing plan seemed like an impractical way to develop the property. He opened the public hearing. Greg Wattson, The Wattson Company, 3620 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, indicated that Major 3 had been signed up and they were ready to submit drawings. He felt that in today's economy the bank would not allow them to build too much spec. He felt they would secure a grocery store for Major 1 within the next 60 days and Major 2 (a drug store) would sign as soon as the grocery store was signed. He felt confident that Major 4 will be an electronics use and he anticipated that would take place within 30 days. He hoped they would be able to build the whole area at once, but he feared they would not be able to get financing for Majors 1, 2, and 4 until leases were signed. Chairman McNiel asked if Shop C was a different phase. Mr. Murphy noted that was the projected fourth phase out of five. Mr. Wattson indicated they would like to build the plaza right away but they had no tenants interested. He felt that once Majors 1 and 2 had signed, they would be able to secure tenants for the plaza. Chairman McNiel asked how they would build the grocery store and the drug store without building something where the plaza area is located. Mr. Wattson said they were hoping that once Majors 1 and 2 are signed up, they would have more success in marketing the plaza and the bank would allow them to build the plaza. Mr. Murphy noted the resolution of approval contains a condition to require temporary sidewalks if necessary to provide safe access. Commissioner Chitiea asked what would happen to the plaza area in the meantime. Mr. Wattson stated they would apply a chemical binder to hold the soil down and they would fence the area with a screen barrier. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that during the discussion on the Terra Vista Town Center phasing, the Commission requested a painted architectural Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 25, 1992 screen wall with a sidewalk and landscaping placed in front of it while Service Merchandise was being built. He suggested the Commission could ask the applicant to submit an appropriate program for screening, security, and walkways so that the applicant could then work with staff. Chairman McNiel asked what would happen if the last little section to which the plaza is attached does not get built. Mr. Buller commented the matter was before the Commission so they could determine the appropriate phasing pattern for the center. He indicated they could require the plaza at a time they determined was appropriate. Commissioner Melcher asked if the plaza could not be built with an earlier phase. Mr. Wattson said they would be happy to but the bank will not let them unless they have some tenants in place to support the debt ratio. Commissioner Melcher responded he was not talking about building the buildings, only the plaza. Mr. Wattson said they would not be opposed to building some of the plaza but he feared that if they put in the entire plaza before the surrounding buildings, they would damage the plaza when staging and constructing the buildings. Chairman McNiel asked if there had been any progress on the condition for historical art work. Mr. Wattson said they had submitted preliminary information to staff and hoped to submit an application by April 1. Chairman McNiel noted that the Historic Preservation Commission had requested a phasing plan be submitted for the implementation plan for the integral public art. Mr. Wattson responded they had not presented such a plan. Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, stated the Historic Preservation Commission was interested in tying down a time line that would assure the Commissioners that the mitigations would be in place. She indicated they wanted the mitigations to be integrated into the site rather than added on at the last minute. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he had some problems with Phase I, Phase II, and the western phase because the western phase is the smaller phase, but he had great reservations about the eastern phase. He felt a piecemeal approach was being proposed and the City would have to live with it for many years. He thought the eastern phase should be done in a more timely manner. He realized there may be funding problems, but he couldn't support constructing Major 3, Planning Commission Minutes -21- March 25, 1992 then Major l, followed by Major 2. He thought the eastern phase needed to be built in a more comprehensive manner even if it meant waiting for the section to be developed. He thought Majors 3 and 4 should be built together, and Majors 1 and 2 and the plaza should be part of one phase. He noted that it is not known what architectural treatments or parking individual tenants will require because the tenants are unknown. He observed that majors at other centers have dictated parking. He noted that the current parking and circulation plan may change as new majors are signed. He supported Phases I and II, but did not support the phasing in the eastern portion. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy in supporting Phase I and the western phase. She felt the plaza should have priority in the eastern phase. She agreed that screen walls may be supportable. She also requested landscaping for the empty pads along Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Melcher asked if there was any analogy between what is happening at this center and what happened at Central Park Plaza, where the departure of one prospective tenant has held up completion of a whole big chunk of the shopping center. He thought economic considerations should be considered. Mr. Murphy remarked that in speaking with Lewis Homes, the delay was caused by the inability to secure the tenant and not an economic consideration. He said they feared there may be changes in the building design based upon a new tenant with a ripple effect to the other areas. Commissioner Chitiea stated she understood the applicant's problems but she did not like the piecemeal approach. She felt there was a more comprehensive approach at Terra Vista Town Center, which was later broken down into smaller chunks as needed, so she recognized that development does not always go in in the manner planned. However, she was uncomfortable with a building-by- building approach. Commissioner Melcher asked if the request was before the Planning Commission because of the requirement to have an approved phasing plan before construction can begin on Price Club or WalMart. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher noted that Mr. Wattson could have submitted a phasing plan showing the entire eastern phase as all one phase and that would have permitted construction to begin on Price Club and WalMart. He suggested that the Commission approve a phasing plan with the provision that before any construction can begin on the eastern phase, an appropriate phasing plan must be approved if it is not to be built in one chunk. Mr. Buller indicated he would support simplify the phasing into two phases to allow the Price Club and WalMart construction to go forward with the streetscape perimeter issue in conjunction. He said the applicant could then approach the Commission if further phasing is needed. Commissioner Chitiea felt that was reasonable. Planning Commission Minutes -22- March 25, 1992 Mr. Murphy remarked that Mr. Wattson would prefer three phases with Phase I being Price Club and WalMart, Phase II being the satellite pads adjacent to Phase I and along Foothill Boulevard, and the eastern and western portions of the site being the third phase. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing to ask if they had tenants for all of the buildings along Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Wattson said they had tenants and would probably be starting construction as they are finishing WalMart and Price Club. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the western phase should be divorced from the eastern phase. Mr. Murphy suggested that condition 2 be reworded to require that precise phasing of the western and eastern phases be reviewed by the Commission at the time of Development Review applications for any buildings within those phases. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated the eastern phase would have to be carefully considered and he wanted more than one building at a time. He thought it could possibly split into two phases. Chairman McNiel said he would prefer temporary irrigation and lawn areas to having billboard fencing on unbuilt areas. He noted that if Majors 1 and 2 go in at one time the plaza link should be included in the package. Mr. Buller noted that typically streetside small pads are not built before the interior buildings. Me felt the Commission may want to make sure the architectural vocabulary and the integrated art are locked in before the Phase II buildings are approved. Mr. Murphy noted that the applicant is requesting modifications to some of the Historic Preservation Commission conditions at the April 8 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving the Phasing Plan for Conditional Use Permit 90-37, with modifications to require that phasing plans for the eastern and western phases be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the time of Development Review of any buildings within the phase and to indicate that all pertinent conditions of City Council Resolution 91-248 will apply. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -23- March 25, 1992 K. UPDATE REPORT ON FREEWAY LANDSCAPING Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report and a map delineating the location of the freeway right-of-way and indicating the adjacent approved and existing projects. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the meeting with the neighboring cities had been set. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, indicated a letter would be sent by the end of the week attempting to set up the meeting for April 29. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if issues in addition to truck traffic would be included in the letter. Mr. Bose stated the letter would reference landscaping, HOV interchanges, restrictions on truck traffic, plus other issues. L. BRIDGES - LOCAL FEEDER TRAILS Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if they are wooden bridges. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the attached drawing was the City standard one. Mr. Buller responded it is was prepared by a developer. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the drawing should make it clear that the wood is to be wolmanized, which is a chemical pressure treatment to preserve the wood. He noted that untreated douglas fir would not be satisfactory. Commissioner Tolstoy asked who would be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Buller said they are local trails, so the individual property owners will be responsible. Mr. Buller remarked that if a majority of the Commissioners planned to attend the walking tour of Old Alta Loma, tonight's meeting would adjourn to that tour on Tuesday, March 31, at 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Chitiea indicated she could not be there until approximately 3:30 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would meet at the Alta Loma Heights Citrus Packing House at 3:30 p.m. for the tour. Planning Commission Minutes -24- March 25, 1992 Mr. Buller also noted that on April 2 there would be a pre-application review workshop beginning at 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn. 11:15 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a March 31, 1992, walking tour commencing at 3:30 p.m. at the Alta Loma Heights Citrus Packing House. Res ully s itted, erBC.R~ek~yaunen Planning Commission Minutes -25- March 25, 1992