Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/02/20 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 20, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the Tolstoy residence, 9540 Hillside, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, 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; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner, made brief introductory remarks regarding the direction of the City with respect to number of employees and fiscal impacts. He discussed Planning Department issues for Fiscal 1992-93 and distributed the Draft Work Program for Fiscal Years 1992-94. Mr. Buller next discussed the sphere of influence. He remarked that there had been a settlement agreement regarding the City's lawsuit; however, the agreement was awaiting signatures from the Caryn Company and the County. He noted that the Fourth Street Rockcrusher was in the process of obtaining entitlements to process aggregate on sfte. He commented that there has been an increased level of project activity within the sphere, including University-Crest, Landmark's golf course, Gomes, golf course on Flood Control land at the north end of Haven, and Tracey. He noted that a group called the San Bernardino Sage Friends is becoming more active in an effort to protect sage brush. He felt they would be applying pressure to both the City and County. He observed that staff plans to continue reviewing projects in the sphere and will focus on (1) infrastructure and phasing; (2) environmental impacts; (3) community services including police, fire, parks/trails/ recreation, and schools; and (4) development standards. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the County would compare proposed projects to the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan'once it is adopted. Mr. Buller replied that after approval, staff will be able to refer to an adopted plan when making comments to the County on specific projects. He noted that two developers who recently annexed to the City, Ahmanson and Aikins had approached the City to ask to increase density because they maintain the land is too expensive to develop at the currently zoned rates. chairman McNiel asked when it was anticipated that the Gomes project would be processed through the County. Mr. Bullet replied that Mr. Gomes hopes to be through processing in the County by May 1992. Mr. Henderson remarked that City staff has put out feelers to landowners in the sphere to advise that we are willing to annex. He noted that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Wildlife are holding up flood control permits for Etiwanda Creek and asking for habitat conservation. He did not feel a lot of developers will buy much land in the area to develop because of the economy and uncertainties. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, felt there is currently a leadership vacuum in the property owners within the sphere of influence because Joe DiIorio had been the facilitator. Mr. Buller next discussed the Pre-Application Review. Process. He suggested having the project proponent make a brief presentation of what they would like and then have the Planning Commission respond. He expected that the City Council Subcommittee Members and representatives from the Building Industry Association and Chamber of Commerce may attend the first few meetings. He remarked that Commissioner Melcher had indicated he thought staff should participate. Mr. Buller felt it will be difficult to cover all issues within the short time span allotted. He thought that there should be 5 minutes at the end of the meeting to capsulize what had been heard. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commissioners would have the material to study before the meetings. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated that staff will try to distribute the materials at least two weeks before the meeting. Mr. Buller remarked that it would be distributed at least one week in advance. Commissioner Melcher thought the most valuable way to respond may be for each Commissioner to make their own observations in a few sentences followed by a summary presented by Chairman McNiel or Mr. Buller. He felt there may be five different directions. He suggested having the applicant speak first, followed by staff, and then having each Commissioner speak only once. Chairman McNiel observed that the Pre-Application process should not be considered a bargaining table. He thought the Commissioners should comment in a broad-brush approach and then refer the applicant back to staff. It was the consensus of the Commission that the meetings should be organized as follows: Staff comments Applicant comments Commissioner comments Summary 5 minutes 5 minutes 15 minutes 5 minutes Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 20, 1992 Commissioner Melcher felt there should be a time monitor. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, felt that some developers will try to get feedback on zoning changes. He observed that the process is not set up to deal with land uses issues or questions on changes in circulation. He indicated that staff will make an effort to tell people to apply for zone changes where applicable. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that projects should be submitted within guidelines of the City's ordinances. Mr. Bullet observed that applicants may pursue placement of buildings$ such as requesting to push buildings back within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area even though the plan requires that buildings be pushed up to the street. Mr. Coleman suggested that during the summary, the applicant should be directed to return to staff for interpretations of what was discussed. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel 30 minutes would be sufficient time. Mr. Coleman remarked that the plans will be merely sketches, not fully developed plans. Mr. Gomez remarked that when the City conducted a survey of developers, it was indicated that applicants would like this opportunity to get preliminary feedback. Mr. Buller felt the process would be a good chance for applicants to present creative ideas. Chairman McNiel observed that it must be made clear that projects are not to be considered approved and the Commissioners must be cautious to refer the applicants back to staff. He felt minutes should be prepared to document the meetings. The Commission next discussed Design Review Committees. Chairman McNiel felt closer attention should be paid to time and a concerted attempt should be made to stick to the schedule. He also felt that when time drags out, the Commissioners have more of a tendency to compromise. He thought that if the meetings were on time, the process would be under less scrutiny and criticism. Commissioner Chitiea did not like receiving information from staff at the beginning of the meeting for all projects, because she felt there is the chance that some details may be forgotten by the time the project is reviewed. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that he did not like reviewing all of the projects at the beginning of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 20, 1992 Chairman McNiel felt that if the meetings were on schedule., the Committee would be able to preview each project immediately before meeting with the applicant. Mr. Kroutil observed that discussing the project immediately prior to admitting the applicant may give the appearance of making decisions before the applicant presents the project. He felt it is important to keep the time between applicants to a minimum. Commissioner Melcher thought staff could use the time to "bullet" the issues and the Commissioners could ask questions. He did not feel it is wrong if the Committee does not present a united front. Commissioner Vallette felt the developer should be advised that certain issues are most important, such as site plan. She didn't think the Committee should get into discussing architecture until site plan concerns are addressed. Chairman McNiel noted that sometimes the applicant has already addressed some of the staff comments. He felt the Committee should be advised that certain issues have already been resolved so that time is not wasted discussing those issues. Commissioner Vallette suggested that written comments could be provided by staff on what had been resolved. Mr. Kroutil noted that developers are not in as much of a hurry to build because money is tight, so there is more resistance to requested changes. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what type of feedback the City is receiving regarding the design review process. Commissioner Vallette indicated she had heard there had been complaints that the Commissioners are too detail-oriented. She felt that was part of their function. She thought the Commissioners are there to make sure that development is to high standards. Commissioner Chitlea remarked that the Town Center is an example of where the Commission had gone into great detail, and she felt that was what made it a great center. She did not feel staff has the time to look at every detail and she thought that developers would not listen to staff. Chairman McNiel thought the Commissioners should be firmer in sending applicants back to work with staff. Co~nissioner Tolstoy felt that every time the Commissioners attempt to massage a project, the City loses. Commissioner Melcher agreed that when a substandard project is presented, the applicant should be told it is substandard and the project should be sent back without the Co~mittee°s trying to make it better. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 20, 1992 Commissioner Vallette felt there would be improvements if the Committee kept to the time schedule and made applicants return to a future Design Review meeting if there was insufficient time to deal with their project. Mr. Buller observed that it would be a minimum of four weeks before the projects could be rescheduled for Design Review. Commissioner Melcher felt that perhaps staff could detect weak architects and suggest submission for a Preliminary Review. He thought it would be easier for an applicant to change their plans at that point because they wouldn't have spent $20,000 getting ready for Design Review. Mr. Coleman remarked that staff outlines Design Review comments by major issues. Commissioner Melcher observed that was helpful. Commissioner Chitlea stated that sometimes if site plan issues are minor, direction can be given and they can go on to the next step of review. She felt it was important to still limit time. Mr. Bullet commented that on Foothill Marketplace the City had tried to deal with the site plan issues, but the developer had succeeded in moving along to other issues, and as a result there are still site plan problems which haven't been addressed. Chairman McNiel felt that staff does an excellent job of putting the package together and advising where there are problems. He thought the Commissioners should pay more attention to the big problems. Commissioner Melcher suggested that on small commercial projects perhaps applicants should be given an opportunity to present alternates. He said they are presently having to utilize pad buildings. Mr. Coleman felt developers are using pad buildings to maximize site coverage. Commissioner Melcher felt the pad buildings are not working well in many of the small centers. Commissioner Vallette suggested that each project be scheduled for I hour. Mr. Buller remarked that currently up to three items can be scheduled, with a fourth added If the project is critical. Mr. Kroutil noted that some of the items are returning and should only take 5-10 minutes. Mr. Coleman remarked that larger projects are already scheduled for i hour reviews. Chairman McNiel suggested the Committee should give direction and move on instead of redssigning buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 20, 1992 Mr. Buller summarized that the Commissioners felt that all areas of concern should be noted, but the focus should be on critical issues. He felt the applicant should be able to leave with clear direction on what needs to happen. He felt that "non-negotiable" items should be noted and that the Commission's energy should be spent on major items, such as site plan orientation, density transition, building style, mass, etc. He next suggested that some items could perhaps be delegated to staff as opposed to requiring Committee .approval. He disclosed that staff members would now be doing reflective reviews of each project when it is signed off for occupancy. Commissioner Melcher noted that he had reviewed the Hillside Grading Ordinance and he planned to discuss it with Commissioner Tolstoy and then staff if Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with his comments. He felt there are some changes that could be made to better achieve what the City would like. He felt that the character of the buildings will be more noticeable. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that one of the things he feels is wrong with the Ordinance is that it indicates there should be as little grading as possible. He felt grading should be allowed, but it should be made to look as natural as possible. The Commission next discussed design guidelines. Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a way to define the general philosophy. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, stated that he wants to make a guide book that can be amended fairly easily so that new ideas could be readily added. He indicated he would like to include a lot of examples that would satisfy the intent of the General Plan and said he would like to reference appropriate sections of the General Plan. Co~unissioner Tolstoy felt that would be good because appropriate pages could be provided to developers over the counter. Chairman McNiel felt that "not this" examples are as critical as examples of good design. Mr. Warren requested ideas from the Commissioners for inserts. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to workshop the manual when it is ready for review. He feared that a design guidelines book may become a cookbook and less able developers will just copy the ideas. Mr. Warren noted that he planned to include a statement that a design to minimums would not be acceptable. He remarked that if minimum standards are used in one area, the minimum should be exceeded in other areas. Mr. Buller suggested that it would be acceptable to tell a developer that a project is not acceptable because it is too similar to other development in the area. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 20, 1992 The Planning Commission recessed from 7:55 p.m. to 8:05 p.m. The Commission next discussed single family subdivision design. Mr. Buller asked the Commissioners where they wanted to go. He suggested they try identify what they feel is the problem and determine how widespread it is. He suggested they discuss whether the current code gives the Commission strength to say no to a bad development. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the problem is clutter caused by big houses on small lots. Commissioner Vallette thought the problem is exaggerated in the planned communities. She felt that too often develo~nent only meets minimum standards. She noted that the planned communities provide amenity packages instead of allowing room on individual lots for some amenities. She felt everything is "maxed" out. Commissioner Melcher remarked that he thought the Mayor had indicated that where the community offers open space, it is acceptable to build big houses on small lots. Commissioner Vallette felt that overall planning should not be an excuse for what the Commission does not like. Commissioner Melcher thought development standards are the problem rather than lot sizes. He felt that small lots are needed because of the greater population. Commissioner Chitlea noted that when the planned communities were being considered, it was felt that combined open space gave a better feeling of community. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that hollywood bungalows were built on small lots with low-roof architecture, front porches, and adequate setbacks and did not give the appearance of overbuilding. Commissioner Melcher noted that people used to build modest houses as opposed to the pretentious ones being built today. Commissioner Vallette felt that if other products were offered, people would still move to the City. Chairman McNiel noted that greater yields on lots are more advantageous to the builders and that is why they build at minimum setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 20, 1992 Commissioner Vallette thought that restricting the product to two-story, large houses attracts only certain buyers. She felt older, retired people do not generally want two-story homes or homes larger than 1,800 square feet. Mr. Kroutil felt it was obvious that most people prefer a more open feeling. Commissioner Vallette felt that floor area ratios should be considered. She suggested there is an overabundance of large houses on small lots and she thought there should not be such a large proportion of house to lot. Mr. Kroutil suggested considering density factors. He felt it may not be appropriate to allow single-family homes in some of the higher density areas. He suggested attached town homes may be more desirable that large detached houses on small lots. Commissioner Melcher felt that developers are building larger homes because the market has taught the consumer that is what is desirable. He felt that government should be sure that houses are sensitive to each other and the environment. Commissioner Vallette suggested that counter people tell developers that minimum development standards are not acceptable. Commissioner Melcher remarked that when he worked for a developer, they were constantly being pushed to be innovative. He said all they do now is build larger houses. He felt it may be time to change the rules by setting limits and allowing bonuses for innovation. He suggested a density bonus may be given for locating garages in the back on larger lots. Chairman McNiel feared that dictating small houses on small lots may lead to future ghettos. Commissioner Vallette felt that was extreme. She indicted she would like to see a variety of housing products within a tract including single-story homes on slightly larger lots. Commissioner Melcher suggested creating floor area ratio and giving a bonus for one-story homes. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the bonus system. Commissioner Melcher suggested that if the Commission determined that a one- story house with a lower slope roof appears less crowded from the street, the standard floor area ratio could perhaps be increased. Mr. Kroutil noted that staff if staff knew the objectives of the Commission, then staff could work on techniques to obtain the objectives. He felt there is a danger in requiring single-story houses within each subdivision because it would only create another pattern. He suggested that variety could be obtained by utilizing different siding materials. Commissioner Vallette asked how the City could encourage variety. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 20, 1992 Mr. Buller noted that mature landscaping would add to variety because individual homeowners landscape differently. He asked if that would create enough variety to satisfy the Commissioners or if they were looking for variety in materials or mass. Commissioner Vallette felt that on many lots there is not enough land for landscaping to make a difference. Commissioner Chitiea felt that massing is critical and too many times all homes have similar roof lines, etc. Commissioner Melcher agreed that scale and massing have a great deal to do' with the impact of the overall neighborhood. He said the Commission tends to think about what something will look like next year as opposed to 30 years in the future. He felt that themed architecture may be the best way to go on small lots. He thought that contrasting styles tend to blend better as landscaping matures. Commissioner Chitlea noted that quality is important. Mr. Coleman remarked that 7,200 square feet is the industry standard for average lot sizes. Commissioner Melcher felt that the Rochester tract does not have a crowded feeling. Chairman McNiel felt that trees growing over a street and mature landscaping tend to conceal the architecture. Commissioner Vallette remarked that the trees which survive best may be deciduous and would lose their leaves for half the year. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there is a large lack of individual landscaping within the City. He thought that street trees may be the main landscaping of the future. Chairman McNiel felt the issue is high priority because there are different views. He thought research may help the Commissioners to focus better. Mr. Bullet suggested staff could look at zoning. He said the City Council's perception is that people wou~d prefer crowded, single family detached houses as opposed to attached products. Mr. Kroutil noted that there was a consensus that more variety is needed. Chairman McNiel felt the Commission should grasp the mindset that innovation is necessary. Commissioner Chitlea felt it may be a good time to regroup because there is not a lot of development in process. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 20, 1992 Commissioner Melcher did not feel the Commission should prohibit single family de=ached housing on any lot sizes. Mr. Buller next broached the subject of what should be governed by ordinances, policies, or discretionary judgment. He noted that the benefit of an ordinance is that it becomes a "must." However, he suggested that things may become so directlye that creativity is stifled. He noted that policies provide concrete direction, but they can be flexible, while discretionary judgment is based on established goals and policies but is very subjective. , , , , The Planning Commission recessed at 9=15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Con~nission Minutes -10- February 20, 1992