Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/01/08 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 8, 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; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller; Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, reported that the notices had been sent out to request nominations for the Design Awards program. He stated that staff would be contacting the Commissioners to establish a date and time for a field trip to review the potential list. Mr. Buller announced a joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop had been tentatively set for January 29, 1992. , , , · , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 - LUSK COMPANY - A request for a time extension of the design review for building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-081-06. Related files: Minor Exceptions 89-21 and 90-02. (Continued from December 17, 1991.) Be TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF TRACT 10035 - PACIFIC FIRST BANK - A request for a time extension of the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Lots I through 21 of a previously approved tract consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 11 and 207-641-01 through 10. Related file: Variance 89-12. Commissioner Melcher requested that both items be pulled for discussion. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 Commissioner Melcher observed that the elevations had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee on December 5, 1991. He indicated he was surprised that some of the houses had only partial siding and commented that he thought it was policy that siding be required on all sides. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the developer and the Committee had agreed there would be siding all around the houses. Commissioner Vallette stated that at the last Design Review Committee meeting there had been discussion regarding incorporating single story houses in the develol~nent in order to break up the streetscape. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Anna Suttner, Lusk Homes, 3741 Merced Drive, Suite H, Riverside stated that the Design Review Committee had approved the elevations and asked them to review the possibility of plotting single-story houses within the tract. She said their marketing department had determined that single story homes would not be marketable in the area. She said the average size lots are 4,500 square feet and the proposed homes are a minimum of 2,200 square feet. She said they wanted to keep the houses within the required setbacks and a single story product would appear as too much mass on the pads and would not be cost efficient. She felt the variety of elevations would provide an attractive streetscape. She said they had addressed the siding issue. She said they had indicated on the plot plan those homes which which would be visible from streets or trails and the siding would be enhanced on all sides of those homes. Chairman McNiel asked if the project would be returning to Design Review. Mr. Coleman responded that the Committee had considered the changes minor and indicated the changes could be approved by the City Planner. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette stated that part of her reason for not requiring that the siding treatment be carried along the sides of the houses was that most of the lots are 45 x 95 feet with 5-foot side yard setbacks. She thought that Planning CommisSion Minutes -2- January 8, 1992 with the front yard setbacks, the sides of the houses would not be visible from the street. She said she had visited the project and the curbing and driveways are already constructed. She estimated there is an average of only one car length distance between driveways. She felt that with such large homes on minimal lots the plan will appear as an endless row of two-story homes and the introduction of single-story houses would create a better streetscape. She also pointed out that page 189 of the Victoria Community Plan indicates that each separate community should have 15 percent affordable housing. She felt inclusion of a single-story product would provide the affordable housing. She observed that development criteria have changed since the approval of the tract. She noted that 5-foot side yard setbacks were appropriate when the project was originally approved, but the current code requires a combined 15-foot side yard setback between adjoining lots. Commissioner Melcher noted that both siding and stucco can be seen at the second floor level on some of the rear elevations. He commented that second story rear elevations are often visible from surrounding streets and he asked if the developer would be providing siding on those rear elevations. Chairman McNiel thought the developer had indicated a willingness to complete siding on those houses that are side street adjacent or visible from certain vantage points. He did not feel they were proposing to do so on mid-block units. Mr. Ross indicated that was correct. Commissioner Melcher said he was not opposed to the design, but he did not feel it would be fair to require other developers to fully side a house if the requirement were not imposed on this developer. He said the requirement had already been imposed on other developers. He thought that if the Commission were to now approve this deviation from policy, future developers could use essentially the same arguments. Mr. Ross remarked that when the design review was originally approved two years ago, it was not Planning Commission policy to require siding be carried entirely around the building. He noted that the next project which was approved was required to have siding all around, so the developers eliminated the siding and only used stucco. He said that the Design Review Committee felt that having the majority of the second stor~ elevations with expanded siding would be sufficient. Commissioner Melcher was not sure it would be fair to impose the requirement of including single-story houses because the Commission had originally approved the project with all two-story houses. He observed that there are now many subdivisions composed entirely of two-story houses on relatively small lots and the result is a cookie-cutter look. He noted that the site immediately to the east looks very crowded because it is all two-story houses on small lots. He thought that perhaps the Commission may wish to consider making changes to the Develo~nent Code and the various specific plans to require more variety in order to provide a feeling of more spaciousness. He supported the idea that row upon row of two-story houses is rather monotonous. Planning Con~nission Minutes -3- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Chitlea felt that valid points had been raised. type of material was proposed for the siding. She asked what Mr. Ross responded it is masonite. Commissioner Chitlea felt that masonite is not a particularly durable material over the years. She was not sure adding such a material all around the house would be to the homeowners' advantage in the future. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that 360 degree architecture is not only for those people viewing the houses from the street but also for the benefit of neighbors viewing the houses from back yards. He also felt the request for single story houses was valid. He felt tracts should give a visual spacious look. However, as the tract had been approved two years ago, he felt it would now be difficult for the Commission to request changes at this time. Commissioner Vallette observed that it was her understanding that if the Development Code or 'standards have changed, that the Commission has the ability to address those issues at the time of an extension request. She indicated she was not necessarily asking the developer to revise their entire site plan, but she felt the introduction of a single story product would be the easiest way to obtain some variation in light of the fact that the development standards have changed. Mr. Ross remarked that the development standards had not changed since the project was approved for Low Medium development. He said the Design Review for the tract was approved after the Low Medium standards had been revised to change the side yard setbacks to a total of 15 feet. He said that standard had been revised after the tract was approved with a conceptual prototype calling for a 5-foot side yard setback. He said the tract was then exempted from the requirement because of the approved conceptual prototype. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the extension action was a discretionary action. He said the Design Review Committee had forwarded the action to the full Commission with apparent positive recommendation based on the issue that the applicant was willing to make some adjustments to the elevations as a compromise. He said the project had been found consistent and acceptable for approval two years ago. He remarked that the Commission had the right to deny the extension if the Commissioners determined that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Commissioner Chitiea thought that Commissioner Vallette's concerns were extremely valid. She observed that as more projects have been built at those densities, it is resulting in streetscapes which were not envisioned when proposed. She thought the small lot concept was originally proposed with affordable housing in mind. She thought that perhaps the Commission should currently move in the direction of not permitting such development and she did not feel the Commission should repeat past mistakes. She remarked that she was not convinced that masonite should be used on all four sides of a house, however, she agreed that the enhanced architectural detailing is for the benefit of neighbors, not just the streetscape. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Vallette asked if the item could be continued to ask the applicant to address the concerns. Mr. Buller commented that the item had already been continued from December 17, 1991, to allow the applicant to return to Design Review to address the concerns or generate enough justification as to why they could not introduce single story homes. He did not believe the introduction of a single story product would necessarily make the houses affordable. Commissioner Vallette expressed empathy for the applicant~ however, she felt the Commission should consider what will be built in the community. She suggested that the applicant try to work with the Commission to address the concerns regarding streetscape or setbacks. She thought that if the applicant felt single story would not work, possibly a different product type could be used to vary the streetscape. She suggested that if the applicant were not willing to make changes, the Co~mission may wish to deny the time extension. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant would agree to a continuance so that the matter could be returned to Design Review to address some of the concerns. Ms. Suttner agreed to a continuance. Mr. Bullet stated the matter would not need to be continued to..a specific date. He suggested that the Commission may wish to direct that the matter be deferred back to Design Review and be placed back on a Planning Commission agenda following completion of that process. He asked if the Commissioners felt the main issue was the intent to break up the streetscape by introduction of a single story product or product variety if single-story is not viable. He asked the Commission's direction on siding materials and 360 degree architecture. Commissioner Melcher felt that Commissioner Chitiea's concerns about utilizing the masonite material on all four sides were worth considering. He observed that the elevations for both Items A and B included both siding and stucco in a manner that appeared to make sense. He thought that the original intent of the policy requiring siding on all sides was probably to avoid placing all of the emphasis on the front of the house. He felt that a combination of materials and even changing the materials from one side to another could be designed appropriately. He did not feel it necessary to require that the siding be utilized on all four sides so long as the houses are well designed. Commissioner Chitiea felt an emphasis on the quality of materials is more important than on the quantity. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded to Vallette to continue Time Extension for Design Review for Tract 13280. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 8, 1992 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF TRACT 10035 Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant had done a good job of designing the tract. He thought there was an intelligent use of both building materials all around the houses. However, he observed that the west elevation appears to have a masonry chimney sitting on a shelf and he felt the masonry should be carried to the supporting surface of the earth. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the minutes could reflect the Commission's direction and staff would work with the applicant to address the matter. He felt the applicant would be willing to go with stucco. Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for the Design Review of Tract 10035. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: AB SENT: COMMI S S IONERS: , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE Ce NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from December 17, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from December 17, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 8, 1992 Ee ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardins National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from December 17, 1991.) Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that staff recommended that the matter be continued to January 22, 1992, to allow time for negotiations to be completed in the lawsuit. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. David DiIorio, Caryn, stated he would be able to return on January 22, 1992. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to January 22, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COM~4ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - A request to establish a gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.31 acre parcel in the Medium Residential designation, (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 13987. (Continued from December 17, 1991) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked how many other service station mini-markets in the City have the hours of operation limited, pay telephones prohibited, and video surveillance cameras required. Mr. Murphy responded this would be the first. Commissioner Melcher stated he understood the reasoning for the second and third conditions. He asked if staff had received any opposition from the applicant regarding the proposed conditions. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 8, 1992 Mr. Murphy replied that the applicant had only objected to the limitation of hours. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. George Theodorou, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, requested clarification on Condition 12 regarding video surveillance. He asked if Shell's standard set-up would be what staff was seeking. He observed that Shell operates many stations on a 24-hour basis with relatively little vandalism or crime. He conunented that Shell feels that having the station operate on a 24 hour basis is a deterrent to loitering and vandalism and provides better control. He felt that if the station were closed during the evening hours, there would be more opportunity for vandalism. He also indicated that Shell requires that the location be open 24 hours per day in order to achieve an acceptable profit. He observed that the site will be the largest Shell station site because of the additional required landscaping and the driveway requirements. He noted that as it will be their largest and most expensive station, they will not be able to operate it on a part time basis. He commented that the station is a neighborhood station, not a freeway location. He said Shell seeks to provide service to the community 24 hours per day, including serving coffee at 2:00 a.m. Chairman McNiel commented that the relocation of the vacuum stalls had been discussed. Mr. Murphy noted that Condition 10 required relocation of the vacuums to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Chairman McNiel suggested ~hey be relocated to the exit of the car wash by Base Line Road. Mr. Theodorou agreed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the surveillance cameras would still be in use if Shell should sell the station. Larry Ross, Shell Oil, 19 Quiet Hills Road, Pomona, stated the surveillance system would be sold to an incoming dealer. He stated the system works over telephone lines. Commissioner Melcher asked for the experience of the Sheriff's station regarding operations 24-hour-per-day mini-market facilities. Mr. Murphy responded that the Sheriff's department had provided information regarding calls to five locations. He said that the Mobil Oil station at Vineyard and Arrow had 48 total calls since October 1989 including 32 petty theft, 2 burglary, 3 drunk in public, 2 credit card offenses, 2 malicious mischief, 1 kidnapping, and I assault with a deadly weapon. He noted that the Stop-N-Go had 53 total calls since July 1988 including 25 petty theft, 3 burglary, 3 alcohol related, 3 assault/battery, 7 collision, 5 malicious mischief, and 7 miscellaneous. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher asked for comments regarding average number of calls. Mr. Murphy said there were an average of 13 calls per year of various degrees, with the majority being for petty theft and miscellaneous mischief types of offenses. He said there have been a total of 9 robberies at 5 locations over the last 3 to 4 years. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Sheriff's Department had given any comments. Mr. Murphy responded negatively. Commissioner Melcher observed that it did not sound like a problem. Commissioner Chitiea asked if statistics were obtained for the Mobil station on the corner of Lemon and Haven. Mr. Murphy responded that over the last four years there had been a total of 26 calls including i robbery, 2 assault with a deadly weapon, 2 burglary, 8 petty theft, 5 collision, 1 malicious mischief, and 7 miscellaneous including passing of a fictitious check and annoying telephone calls. Richard Mager, Lewis Homes Management Corporation, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, noted that the report did not indicate the time of day of the calls for service. He said it was totally conceivable that the majority of the calls were during daylight hours. Joseph Oleson, Lewis Homes Management Corporation, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, asked for relief from the conditions requiring off-site improvements for drainage and street improvements. He referenced his July 18, 1991, letter in which he had expressed the opinion that the Terra Vista Street and Drainage Improvement Implementation policies were originally adopted in the context of large residential developments. He remarked he understood it was not the purview of the Commission to drop the conditions, but he requested that the Commission make a recommendation that the City Council permit a variance from the policies because it is a small project. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that the buffering between the station and the future multi-family project to the south is extremely important. He suggested a condition be added to ensure that the landscaping is maintained and the shrubs are not severely pruned to allow more visibility to the station. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that standard condition E.16 be modified to require that shrub maintenance criteria be submitted for City Planner review and approval. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant would agree to the additional requirement. Mr. Theodorou remarked that Shell Oil would agree to the additional wording. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 8, 1992 Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitlea opposed the intensity of the use adjacent to residences. She stated that if the project were to be approved, she supported any mitigation measures including limiting the hours of the mini-market. Commissioner Vallette agreed. She remarked that the applicant had indicated they wished to be open 24 hours to service the needs of the community. She noted that there are several 24-hour grocery stores in the area which could service the community. Commissioner Melcher observed that the applicant would not have the power to ensure that landscape plans for the future residential property to the south include a minimum 25-foot landscape setback. Mr. Murphy stated the condition was added to put the developer on notice that the requirement will be included in the residential project. Commissioner Melcher noted that the conditions require trash bins to have counter-weighted lids. He asked if such bins are available from the rubbish company. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated it was his understanding that the City requires all trash franchisees to provide that type of container. He noted City Council policy requires counter-weighted lids. Mr. Murphy suggested adding the wording "if available." Commissioner Melcher remarked that the chain link over the trash bin enclosure should be under the trellis. He felt the hours of operation should not be restricted and the facility should be permitted to operate 24 hours per day. He suggested that the condition regarding video surveillance be clarified to indicate the equipment should be equal to the best installed in any other Shell stations. Commissioner Melcher observed that the conditions require an in-lieu fee for future undergrounding of overhead utilities on the opposite side of Rochester. He commented that the City had just completed parkway beautification in that area and the land is already developed. He asked if the lines would ever be undergrounded. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that it is improbable that the lines will be undergrounded but he thought they may be. Commissioner Melcher asked if a developer can request a refund after a period of time if the undergrounding has not taken place. Mr. Hanson responded that such a period has not been defined. Chairman McNiel observed that even though the possibility that the lines will be undergrounded may be remote, it does exist. He felt the City must prepare for that possibility. Commissioner Melcher thought perhaps at some point the City could make some choices where undergrounding is needed and utilize the funds in another area. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 8, 1992 Mr. Hanson stated the funds are earmarked by location. Commissioner Melcher stated that he was involved when the Terra Vista Street Improvement Implementation Policy was developed and he recalled that the City had developed the policy because of impatience with the developer's tract-by- tract approach. He thought the objective is worthwhile, but he felt the requirement was excessive for this small development and was not the intent of the policy when it was adopted. He suggested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that relief be given. He said that he was not involved with the adoption of the Drainage Improvement Implementation Policy, but he felt the intent was the same. He thought that since adoption of the policy, San Antonio Medical Facility was constructed with a detention basin which only serves it. He suggested that the City Council yield on the policy. He thought Engineering Condition 4 should be clarified to state which developer will maintain the entry monument - Lewis Homes or Shell. He felt it would be excessive to require that Shell Oil install the Base Line Road median landscaping from Milliken to Rochester Avenue. Commissioner Vallette thought the landscaping median is partially built for Milliken. Mr. Murphy responded that it is currently under construction and should be completed by the time Shell Oil is ready to pull permits. He remarked that the condition was included to ensure that the median will be completed. He noted that the intent of the condition regarding entry monument maintenance was to alert Shell Oil that the City-will not maintain the monument. He stated the monument is currently slated to be located on Shell Oil's property. He conjectured that Shell Oil and Lewis have a separate agreement regarding installation of the monument. He commented that if the City had to enforce maintenance of the landscaping, the City will be contacting the property owner. He said Lewis Homes has a sign location designated for the corner but they are under no obligation to construct the sign. Chairman McNiel suggested that the condition be reworded to require a monument sign. Commissioner Melcher stated that his original concern was that the condition includes the words "if constructed" which would seem to imply there is no certainty that the sign will be constructed. Chairman McNiel suggested deleting "if constructed" and indicating that maintenance would be the responsibility of the tenant instead of the developer. Mr. Hanson suggested that if the Commission wanted to be sure the sign is constructed, a condition should be placed under the Planning section. Commissioner Chitlea felt the street improvement and drainage conditions should remain. Chairman McNiel observed that Commissioner Melcher had suggested that relief be given regarding the relief of constructing Rochester Avenue and the storm drain so long as an unsafe condition is not created. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher remarked that he did not believe it was the intent of the original policies to create such an unequally weighted situation for such a small develoA~nent. He thought it was the intent of the original policies to get the developer to put in the infrastructure in a logical, orderly fashion. Con~nissioner Chitiea asked how that could be accomplished if the Commission keeps relieving individual parcels of property. Commissioner Melcher commented that Lewis should never be relieved. Commissioner Vallette commented that when the Lucky Center was originally built the policy did not require undergrounding. She recalled that recently two small parcels in the center were processed and they were not relieved of the requirement. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it should be a Council decision and the Commission should not make a recommendation. He said that in light of past problems with streets, the Commission should not deal with it but instead should allow the City Council to make their own interpretation of requirements. Commissioner Chitlea agreed. Chairman McNiel noted that Commissioner Melcher had suggested perhaps rewording the trash enclosure conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the City's standard drawing for trash enclosures would provide sufficient direction. Commissioner Melcher observed that the applicant had raised a question about the security system. Mr. Murphy noted that it was never staff's intent to require more than what Shell had proposed. Mr. Buller agreed and suggested that if the Commission wished to indicate the surveillance system would be subject to approval by the City Planner, staff would verify that the system would adequately address the entire site, not just the building. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing and asked why Shell Oil objected to pay telephones. Mr. Ross responded that Shell Oil feels that pay telephones encourage loitering. Chairman McNlel asked if they would be willing to include a pay telephone inside the mini-market. Mr. Ross responded negatively. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 8, 1992 Conunissioner Chitlea questioned if the City should prohibit pay telephones. She thought it should be the owners' prerogative. Chairman McNiel stated that salesmen use a lot of pay telephones and because the station is isolated it may make sense to have a pay phone in case someone has a breakdown. Commissioner Melcher supported the condition prohibiting pay telephones. He remarked that his Homeowners' Association had removed the pay telephone from the swimming pool area of their complex because it was being used at all hours by people who were not even residents to conduct all sorts of unlawful activities. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that he had talked to a service station operator who had his pay telephone removed because he said it was often used for drug deals. He felt the Commission should prohibit pay telephones. Regarding limiting the hours, Chairman McNiel commented that the applicant had proposed a 24 hour operation. He felt the activity at the service station would not be greatly increased by the mini-market in the late hours. He felt that if the station were open, the mini-market should also be left open. He thought that closing the mini-market would not affect potential crime. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about noise factors. He thought the entire station should be closed after 11:00' p.m. He asked if the pumps would be the type where a credit card could be inserted in the pumps. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Ross responded that the most advanced system which accepts credit cards at the pump. However, he said it would still be a manned operation for safety reasons. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he voted for a service station because he feels one is certainly needed in the area and is located on busy streets, Base Line and Rochester. He said it had been his understanding that there would be limits on the hours of operation. He did not feel that as a neighborhood station in a residential neighborhood it should need to be open 24 hours. Motion= Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitlea, to prepare a resolution of denial for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-20. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CHITlEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= MCNIEL, MELCHER ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be willing to change his vote if the applicant were willing to close both the station and the mini-market at 11:00 p.m. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would be willing to consider limiting the hours. Kathryn Lucien, Shell Oil, 511 North Brookhurst, Anaheim, observed that they had been working on the project for approximately 2-1/2 years. She said they could not be limited on the hours for a service station operation. She asked that the application be considered as presented. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that Shell had indicated the facility is to be a neighborhood station. He felt there was therefore no reason for the station to remain open 24 hours a day. He said there are other operators in the City which operate profitably without staying open 24 hours a day. He said he very much wanted a service station in this location and he hoped that the developer could find another company to operate a station there under the proposed conditions. He felt it is a needed service. Ms. Lucien remarked that she lives in the community and she agreed there is a dire need for service stations in the area. She commented however that many people do not have 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. jobs and said that Shell merely wants to respond to what consumers want, namely 24-hour service just like the grocery stores. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 1.31 acre parcel for the Development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN= 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 91-20. (Continued from December 17, 1991) Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested the applicant may not wish to proceed with the application unless related Conditional Use Permit 91-20 were successfully appealed to City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the developer may still wish to have the parcel for another company to operate a service station. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested the developer may wish to continue the item and the Conditional Use Permit could be appealed to City Council with the stipulation that if it were approved by City Council the approval would be contingent upon approval of the Parcel Map. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 8, 1992 Richard Mager, Lewis Homes Management Corporation, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they would like to see the parcel created for potential use by another operator. He thought that if a service station were not located there, it would be possible to amend the parcel map to include it with the surrounding residential. He noted that if the parcel map were approved with the proposed conditions, they would appeal the street and drainage improvement conditions to City Council. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes Management Corporation, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, asked what would be the most appropriate way to keep the parcel map and related conditional use permit together if they were to go forward to City Council. Ralph Hanson noted that if the Commission took action, the two items could be jointly appealed. However, he thought the map was not the issue because the street and drainage improvement issues could be discussed with Shell's appeal. He said Lewis could withdraw and reinstitute the map at a later time if they so desired. Mr. Oleeon stated they would prefer to receive approval for the parcel map this evening. Commissioner Melcher observed that the City generally does not create parcels without development proposals. He was reluctant to approve a parcel that was tailored specifically to a development proposal which had been denied. He thought it would be more appropriate to table the parcel map pending outcome of any appeal to the Council on the conditional use permit. Ralph Hanson noted that if the conditional use permit were appealed to City Council, there would be an opportunity for the Council to give guidance on the contested off-site improvement conditions. Mr. Oleson stated they would have no objection to that course of action. Barrye Hanson stated that staff had still not received a parcel map that agreed with the site plan. He said the only official parcel map did not have the southerly drive approach incorporated. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13987. 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 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 8, 1992 He VARIANCE 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD. - A request to construct a solid 6-foot decorative block wall within the required front yard setback along 19th Street for a proposed custom lot residence in the Low Medium Residential District (4 - 8 dwelling units per acre), located at the the southwest corner of 19th Street and Inyo Place - APN: 1076-381-17. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher observed that the concept plan indicated a small section of wall to be set back at the corner with the remainder of the wall to be on the property line. Mr. Hayes stated that the exhibit depicts the line of site area which would be a no-build area. He said there was a comment made during the plan check process of the tract that any walls over 3 feet would require a variance. Commissioner Melcher stated that it appeared this applicant would be giving more to the street than those property owners on the east side of the street. He wondered if the appearance of symmetry from the 19th Street entrance should be considered. Mr. Hayes responded that there is a key site line visibility issue on this lot because it is on the inside of a curb. - Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated there is a site line concern on the access from the driveway to Inyo Place. He said drivers turning the curve from 19th Street to Inyo Place must be able to see vehicles trying to exit the driveway. Commissioner Melcher asked who would maintain the landscaping. He was concerned because historically people do not maintain landscaping when it is located outside of their wall. He preferred a square corner transition to the existing precision block wall as opposed to the gradual angling transition depicted. He thought square cornering would reflect the square corners on the opposite side of the intersection and he felt plants would do better in the area. Mr. Hayes noted that the conditions require that the total wall design be approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing. Peter Bon, 7389 Fennel Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the owner and builder. He said when he purchased the lot he was assured that all of the issues had been taken care of. He co~unented that he had been working with the Planning Department to solve the problem. He noted that he had originally offered a 3-foot setback and staff requested 5 feet. He said staff had requested an angle on the wall but he had no problem with utilizing square detailing. He pointed out that he plans to reside there and he would be Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 8, 1992 willing to maintain the landscaping. He stated he would like a permanent structure in back of the house to buffer traffic noise and provide safety. Ne indicated he would not like to utilize wrought iron because of the lack of privacy. Ne said the remainder of 19th Street is block wall. He disclosed that he had requested an extension for his building permits in order to prepare the landscape plans. Nearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Ne noted that the applicant was in concurrence with Commissioner Melcher's suggestion that the wall utilize a square corner transition to the existing wall. Commissioner Chitlea remarked that a variance is necessary and appropriate. She agreed with Commissioner Melcher's comments and thought it would be satisfactory to proceed with City Planner approval. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 91-12. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of 51.8 acres of an industrial master plan consisting of 30 industrial buildings totaling 703,193 square feet in three phases in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-142-06. Related files: Parcel Map 12959 and Conditional Use Permit 91-26. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· Je ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 12959 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - A subdivision of 51.8 acres of land into 22 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-142-06· Related files: Development Review 91-08 and Conditional Use Permit 91-26· Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested addition of a condition to require streetscape landscaping along Arrow Route, White Oak Avenue, and Streets "A" and "B" to be completed with development of Phase I and to require that a minimum of 20 percent of the trees be specimen size trees 24-inch box or larger. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification on the type of an edge the landscaping would have along Arrow Route where the landscaping was to be Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 8, 1992 installed prior to the development of the lot. would be beyond the sidewalk. He asked if the landscaping Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the condition was not specific. He said an example would be the Bixby Ranch Development where the full streetscape landscaping was installed. He said generally a redwood header is installed to back the landscaping. Commissioner Melcher asked if Streets "A" and "B" would be constructed with all of the curb cuts. Ms. Hernandez affirmed that they would. Commissioner Melcher asked if the street would be capped when first constructed. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it had not been discussed, but it probably would be. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rick Capellino, 1815 West 213th Street, #225, Torrance, remarked that the architect, civil engineer, and landscape architect were available to answer questions. He stated he was in agreement with the conditions. He commented that he had discussed the roof drain and down spouts with staff and any roof drains that would be viewed from the street or public elevations would be concealed. He indicated they intended to direct the water to the rear of the building and utilize down spouts. He remarked that they had tried to build quality into the project by not crowding the site plan and using quality materials. He stated they planned to keep the property after building. Commissioner Melcher questioned the detailing of the brick veneer on the tilt- up concrete buildings. Mr. Capellino responded that they want the brick and sandblasted concrete to work together in the architectural appearance. He said panels will be recessed where necessary to make the brick veneer appear as full bricks. Barrye Hanson recommended that Standard Condition D3 be deleted from Parcel Map 12959. Chairman McNiel felt the street should be capped. Commissioner Chitlea concurred. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Capellino was-in agreement. Mr. Capellino responded affirmatfvely. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 8, 1992 Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to issue negative declarations and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 91-08 and Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 12959, with modifications to require streetscape landscaping in connection with Phase I development, construction of White Oak Avenue from the existing portion to the south, and a minimum of 20 percent of the trees to be 24-inch box or larger. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried , , , , Ke CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The request to establish two office use buildings (administrative, professional design services, finance, insurance and real estate services, medical services, and personal services) within a proposed industrial master plan on 51.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-142-06. Related files: · Development Review 91-08 and Parcel Map 12959. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher was not sure that office buildings were encouraged by the Industrial Area Specific Plan. He thought it may be premature to approve a master conditional use permit before seeing specific proposals for the buildings. Ms. Hernandez remarked that minimum impact heavy industrial industrial uses are located to the south and that the site itself has some general industrial uses. She stated that an industrial park is located to the north and staff felt office use would provide a good transition. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. for the applicant. He asked the timing implications Rick Capellino, 1815 West 213th Street, #225, Torrance, stated the original intent of the buildings was to provide a focal point to their park. He said that where office users come in to multi-tenant industrial parks, typically the park builds out to 100 percent office use if parking is available. He said they were trying to design a project that will accommodate office uses and be attractive to the Arrow Highway frontage as well as compatible with the surrounding uses. He stated they want to establish two parcels for office use and not have to process an individual conditional use permit application for every 1,000 foot tenant. He noted they were aware that the specific design of the buildings would have to be addressed in the Design Review process as the project progresses. He remarked that they may only build one-story buildings if that is what they deem to be appropriate, but they desire to build two- story buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -19- January 8, 1992 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He observed that staff recommended approval with exclusion of personal services. Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to see the application processed in association with a development proposal. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Chairman McNiel did not oppose the application. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was comfortable with the proposal with the restriction of floor space for medical/health care services and the requirement that any personal services would need a separate conditional use permit. She thought the design and size of the park would provide an appropriate transition. Chairman McNiel felt the uses would probably occur even if action were deferred until a development proposal is received. Commissioner Chitlea remarked that the design of the buildings would be carefully scrutinized. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that he would not normally support a blanket conditional use permit. However, because of the location of the buildings and their context within the neighborhood, he was willing to support the application. He commented that he would not want to see a rash of similar proposals. Commissioner Chitlea agreed that her reasoning for supporting the application was site specific. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-26. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS= MELCHER, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · · · , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-13 - HWANG - The development of a 148-room hotel totaling 92,351 square feet and a master plan proposing the development of two restaurants totaling 11,000 square feet, and two office buildings totaling 43,000 square feet on 8.32 acres of land in the Office District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN= 227-151-18 and 31. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 8, 1992 Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested addition of a condition requiring that the site plan and landscape plan be approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. He remarked that Mark Gutglueck had submitted a letter of concern signed by 11 neighboring residents. He also indicated that Richard Dahl, consultant for the project, had submitted letters of support from 35 neighboring residents. Commissioner Vallette asked the distance of the building from the residential property to the north. Mr. Grahn responded that it is 100 feet, which is the minimum building setback adjacent to residential property. Commissioner Melcher requested clarification on the phasing. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, noted that everything on the west half of the property excluding the restaurant at the southwest corner was included in Phase I. he said the access driveway at the southeast corner would also be included in Phase I. Mr. Grahn observed that the restaurants and office buildings may be divided into additional phases. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dick Dahl, Box 7198 XVL, Victorville, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their suggestions during the design review process. He stated the project will be a "high-end" hotel. He affirmed that they were in agreement with staff's recommendations including the fire district approval of plans. He introduced architect Steve Falk and owner Jung Hwang. He noted that he had submitted letters of support signed by 29 different families living north of the project, including 6 living on Chervil Street, the street immediately north of the project. He remarked he would like to address the concerns raised in the letter submitted by Mr. Gutglueck. He noted that there will be a large wall across the rear of the property in addition to heavy planting of trees and bushes to keep visibility of the project away from the residences. He stated that a comment was made at a neighborhood meeting that the wall would be an improvement. He disclosed that there would be no windows on the north side of the hotel facing the residences. He thought those mitigation measures should provide adequate buffering. He did not feel there will be an increased noise level from the property. He noted that there will be no alcoholic beverage service at the hotel but there would be a meeting room available. He said they were not contemplating an extension of Fennel Street onto the site and therefore there should be no additional traffic introduced into the residential neighborhood. He remarked that all development in the City is built to the high develo~nent standards of the City. He commented that one objection to the hotel was the loss of a southward panorama from the homes to the north. He pointed out that even if the hotel were not built, the land will eventually be developed with some type of structure. Planning Commission Minutes -21- January 8, 1992 John Lyons, 11924 Dorset, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives three streets north of the project. He indicated he had worked on the fire board and knew Dick Dahl. He said he liked the project and had gone out and talked with residents and they seemed to like the project overall. He said the big concerns he heard were with regard to the Cowgirl, which is now gone, and the traffic signal, which the City has taken care. He commented that the recently installed storm drain appeared to work well during the last storm. He thought the banquet room will be an asset to the City. Rachael Black, 11959 Hemlock, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives in the Rochester tract although not real close to the development. She remarked that no one had come to her house but she had received a notice in the mail regarding tonight's meeting. She stated she was opposed to a hotel adjacent to where she lives and asked if the Commissioners would like a hotel by their homes. She did not think a hotel is consistent with the family orientation of Rancho Cucamonga. She said it is a business and the driveway on Rochester is near a school bus stop. She did not oppose the proposed restaurants. She stated she was leery of the future office buildings and asked how tall they would be. She asked what clientele the hotel was trying to attract and said she feared it would become a truck stop. She suggested that the hotel be built on the other side of Foothill Boulevard or the freeway. Chairman McNiel commented that Foothill Boulevard is zoned for a variety of different uses, including co~nercial, office, restaurant, and some industrial. He said the value of Foothill Boulevard and the fact that it is a major thoroughfare with freeway access dictates that the parcel be a commercial venture. He thought it would be unwise and unsafe to plan residential uses along Foothill Boulevard. He said it had been zoned for commercial ever since the City incorporated. Ms. Black did not feel a hotel should be placed near homes. She felt restaurants and small shopping centers would be satisfactory but hotels should be placed down near the airport. Chairman McNiel con~nented that hotels are quite often placed adjacent to residential areas. He cited the Uplander and Griswold's as examples. Joe Augino, 7861 Hyssop Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he also lives in the Rochester tract. He was opposed to living near a hotel and was surprised that any neighbors had expressed support. He commented that Rochester is a fast- traveled street with bus stops located on it. He noted that the Commission had just denied a 24-hour service station because it was in a residential area and he thought they should deny the hotel because that would also be a 24-hour business in a residential area. He felt it would be preferable to have office buildings because they typically are not 24-hour operations. He suggested a mini-market with service station would do well on the site because it would be near the freeway, but commented that would be a 24-hour business. Vernon Black, 11959 Hemlock, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he also lives in the Rochester tract. He said he had lived in the tract for 15 years and had never had a hotel look down on him. He did not believe that any of the residents on Chervil Street had signed letters of support. He stated he did not want to Planning Commission Minutes -22- January 8, 1992 live next to a hotel. He thought that eventually there would be trucks parked along Foothill patronizing the hotel. He was not opposed to restaurants, a gas station, or business buildings. He said he would be opposed to business buildings if he lived adjacent to the property. He felt a hotel would drive down the price of homes in the area. He said it had been a vacant field for the last 15 years and he thought the Planning Commission should fezone the property. Mr. Dahl commented that the residents who had spoken were not adjacent to or immediately behind the proposed project. He said that the design includes a special bus turn-out lane along Rochester to allow safe ingress and egress for the bus. He said trucks would not be parked on Foothill Boulevard or Rochester and their parking lot design would preclude any trucks from staying in the parking lot. He remarked that the letter received with concerns did not ask for a denial of the project but only listed concerns. He felt the concerns had been adequately mitigated. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher thought that the type of operation is closer to a motel than a hotel because of the lack of amenities or services. He felt the concerns of the residents are very legitimate. He thought that if the Commission denied the project, the City may get a better project in the future in light of the value of Foothill Boulevard. He observed that the applicant had done a great deal to try to address the original concerns that were raised when the project first went to the Design Review Committee. He was not convinced that making a pretty shell would make it a good operation. Commissioner Vallette asked the height of trees along the northern boundary. She asked if it would include some more mature trees. Mr. Grahn stated that the height of the trees had not been established but could be conditioned. Chairman McNiel asked the depth of the landscape area. Mr. Grahn responded 20 feet. Commissioner Vallette asked if that would be sufficient for proper growth of larger variety of trees. Chairman McNiel responded it would be. Commissioner Vallette commented that she was originally very concerned about the compatibility of the project With the adjacent neighborhood. She felt that the architectural improvements and proper landscaping and visual buffering make it a good project. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the project had come a very long way. She pointed out that Griswold's in Claremont is a very dignified hotel/motel adjacent to a residential area and does not seem to attract an undesirable clientele. She did not think Griswold's has hurt surrounding property Planning Commission Minutes -23- January 8, 1992 values. She saw the hotel as a different operation and more desirable than a service station. She said that based on the design changes and the proposed future restaurants, she supported the project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if he had lived next to a field for 15 years, he would probably oppose any type of development. He thought that with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan hearings and other types of hearings in the City, the Rochester tract homeowners should have realized that some type of development would take place. He was not opposed to the type of development. He thought that the mass of a four-story hotel and three-story office buildings may be out of scale with the single family houses to the north. He felt that the Design Review Committee had considered that concern and the building was designed in such a way as to present minimal privacy problems. He was supportive of the project. Chairman McNiel asked if the landscaping area had been enhanced. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that there was sufficient space to obtain vegetation to soften and buffer the area. He thought the plan check process would assure that appropriate materials are provided. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to see the area to look like a forest. Mr. Buller remarked that seemed to be the intent of the Design Review Committee and the applicant. Commissioner Melcher commented that in other parts of Subarea 4 of the Foothill Specific Plan the height limit is 35 feet and 45 feet for towers. He thought the height limit for this section is 40 feet and he was not sure if there is a separate height limit for towers. He said the east and west ends of the building will be visible from some of the homes to the north. He thought the project should be conditioned so that the top of any signs on the east and west elevations should be limited to 30 feet above grade. Chairman McNiel asked if signage was addressed in Design Review. Mr. Grahn stated At was not. He co~nented the Sign Ordinance limits sign height to a maximum of 20 feet. Commissioner Melcher asked if that would be true of wall-mounted signs. Mr. Grahn said sign height could only exceed that height in an industrial area. Motion= Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a negative declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 89-13 with modifications to require that the site and landscape plan be approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and to include box-size trees in the landscaping along the north property line. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -24- January 8, 1992 AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS= MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher remarked that he voted no because he felt that the operation the building is designed to house is not of the caliber desired in the City. , , , , Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission would next consider Item N. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS N. TREE PLANTING DETAILS Commissioner Vallette commented that at previous Planning Commission meetings there had been discussion regarding tree plantings in the City. She asked for input from the Commissioners regarding some potential improvements. She observed that in some areas, specifically in the planned communities east of Haven, many of the trees being planted are not reaching maturity. She suggested that a deep root barrier system should be required to encourage deeper roots. She also thought moisture sensors could be required in the City right-of-way areas. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the tree planting details are a combination of efforts from Public Works, Engineering, and Planning. He remarked that the City Engineer has indicated a willingness and interest in meeting with some Commissioners for a field trip to review the issues. He said the Commission could direct the Community Development Director or City Engineer to pursue some specific changes. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, noted that a lot of the tree damage occurring in Terra Vista and Victoria is from the earlier phases which were planted without the deep root barriers. He said the standards have since been changed and 90 percent of all trees now fall into a category which requires deep root barriers. He said moisture sensors are now required in all publicly maintained landscape areas. Commissioner Vallette stated she was specifically talking about landscape projects within City rights-of-way and green belt areas within the last two years. She stated she did not know what the problem is but trees do not seem to be rooting properly. She said that trees planted two years ago are now uprooted. She asked if perhaps a different selection of trees should be considered. She observed that developers are putting in extensive and expensive landscaping and the. landscaping costs are passed along to the new homeowners. She commented that when the landscaping does not succeed, the landscape maintenance district fees are then used for replacement plants. She questioned if part of the problem may be in the maintenance, i.e. proper pruning, re-staking, etc. She asked that the matter be addressed as soon as Planning Commission Minutes -25- January 8, 1992 possible so that new development coming in would not perpetuate the same problems. She said a lot of the new residential projects are continuing with the same patterns and the same types of trees. Mr. Coleman felt a field trip with the maintenance staff would be beneficial to allow discussion of the problems. He said that in meeting with the maintenance staff in some areas he was concerned about, he was pleased to find out that the maintenance staff was already on top of the problems and beginning to put forth solutions. Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to be part of the field trip. Chairman McNiel volunteered. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, suggested that Commissioners Tolstoy and Melcher serve on the Tree Preservation Ordinance Subcommittee. He stated the Subcommittee had asked staff to look at specific planting details and standards to see how they could be improved. He suggested that if the Commissioners wanted to make any specific recommendations as a result of the field trip, perhaps the Tree Preservation Subcommittee could be used to forward the recommendations to City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy volunteered to go on the field trip. He suggested that each year before the windy season, maintenance should pay particular attention to the pruning of trees so that the wind could better flow through them. Me thought this is especially important during the first 4 to 5 years of growth until the root system and the trunk mature to the point where the trees can withstand the wind. He suggested this plan be carried out in the windy area east of Haven Avenue. It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy would take a field trip with the maintenance staff and report back to the Commission. , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 10:40 p.m. to 10:50 p.m. , , ~ ~ ~ Me ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 - U. S. HOME CORPORATION - A request to amend certain development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan as described below: 1) To allow single family detached residential development within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) utilizing Basic Development Standards; and 2) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,900 square feet within the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards; and 3) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. (Continued from December 17, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -26- January 8, 1992 Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and presented a map highlighting potential affected areas. He distributed a comparison chart of develo~nent standards under the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Development Code, Victoria Specific Plan, and Tetra Vista Specific Plan. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, gave a brief background on the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the reasoning for basic and optional development standards. He stated that the basic standards limit development densities and the plan was designed to encourage development under the optional standards to try to retain the open space character of Etiwanda. He stated that under the basic standards the lot sizes are significantly larger than required for development in other areas of the City. He indicated that staff supported the request to permit single family detached homes within the Medium Residential District in light of recent discussions regarding the mix of multi-family and single-family units. He felt there would be a net reduction in the total number of dwellings if development is allowed on smaller lot sizes than if development occurs under optional standards. He stated that if the Commission chose to reduce the minimum average lot sizes, they could also change setbacks or the maximum lot coverage in order to retain open space. Commissioner Melcher stated that the diagram helped in clarifying whether to allow single family development in the Medium zone. He commented that the Medium area is basically adjacent to the freeway and the Commission had felt that an attached product could deal more intelligently with freeway noise. He felt a change to permit single family development next to the freeway may not be wise. ~ Mr. Kroutil stated that under the basic standards, development could result in densities of approximately 8 units per acre as opposed to multi-family development of up to 14 per acre. Commissioner Vallette stated that typically the Commission would see 7,200 square foot lots with one larger lot to increase the average size of the total lots. She was not in favor of the proposed changes unless additional changes are made including lowering the percentage of lot coverage and not permitting one larger lot to increase the average lot size. Mr. Kroutil noted the proposed change to the Medium district would have very little impact. He said staff did not see a problem with retaining the current standards. He said the impact would be more significant in the Low Medium district. He noted the proposed change in the Low Medium standards would be necessary for the U. S. Home project to meet minimum lot size requirements. He said as the project is now designed, the lots are too small to meet the requirements. Commissioner Melcher felt that if single family development were permitted in the Medium area, it would not resemble traditional single family development. Mr. Kroutil stated the point of the existing standards was to provide as many choices as possible. He said the current basic standards limit the density significantly and the optional standards allow up to the maximum, provided it is a well designed project. Planning Commission Minutes -27- January 8, 1992 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Hyman, U. S. Home Corporation, 1400 East Southern, Suite 700, Tempe, Arizona, stated they had no comments. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt it would take much larger lots than even the currently required 10,000 square feet in order to preserve the historic character of Etiwanda. He suggested development standards could be modified to help preserve the character. He thought the Commission may consider establishing floor area limits and increasing building separations to perhaps 15-foot side yards for single-story houses, equating to a 30-foot separation, and 25-foot side yards for two-story houses, equating to a 50-foot separation. He felt the increased setbacks would tend to create a visual separation. He suggested consideration of establishing height limits and requiring a mix of one-and two-story houses or all one-story houses. He thought limiting roof pitch may be helpful. He said that currently there is a cookie-cutter look of small lots stuffed with big houses. Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Melcher felt the rural look could be attained on the requested lot sizes. Commissioner Melcher felt that the U. S. Home application is a traditional subdivision. He said there were a few references to historical architectural features but the character of the subdivision does not respect the character of Etiwanda. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission should further consider Commissioner Melcher's suggestions in an attempt to preserve the Etiwanda character. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that even the larger current standard lot size does not maintain the rural character. Chairman McNiel stated that if the current standards are maintained, the result will be multi-family housing in the Medium areas. Mr. Kroutil stated that the plan was set up to encourage innovative development under the optional standards by including density penalties for building conventional single family subdivisions. He said developers tend to propose development similar to subdivisions they have built elsewhere. He thought if the Co~unissioners wished to revise the basic develo~nent standards, they should look at not only Medium and Low Medium, but also at all other categories. He said the standards have been in place for six years and perhaps it was time for the Commission to review the standards to see if they achieve what was intended. He stated that U. S. Home requires a reduction of the minimum average lot size in the Low Medium Residential District in order to have their proposed develo~nent be consistent with the existing Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said the Commission had the option of taking action by approving the amendment as proposed, continuing the matter, or denying the amendment without prejudice and perhaps setting up a workshop to consider future modifications. Planning Commission Minutes -28- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Chitlea stated she was uncomfortable with decreasing lot sizes in Etiwanda but she wanted to encourage innovative clustering of buildings or consider Commissioner Melcher's suggestions so there would be an appearance of more openness. She said that even though the density numbers may be lower under the proposal, the effect would be a large house on a small lot. She supported an in-depth workshop to discuss improvement of current standards. Chairman McNiel stated it was his understanding that the associated tract is under appeal to City Council. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the proponents for the tract map have filed an appeal on the action of the Commission regarding their tract. He suggested that the Commission recommend denial of the amendment if the Commissioners did not feel comfortable with the proposed amendment and did not feel they would have an opportunity to workshop the matter to arrive at a recommendation in the very near future. Chairman McNiel did not feel the Commission would be able to reach a recommendation prior to processing of the appeal on the tentative tract. He asked what would happen to the appeal if the Planning Commission did not reach a decision. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the map was designed assuming the approval of Item 2 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. He said without approval of that portion of the amendment, the City Council would have to make the finding that the tentative tract is inconsistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the subdivision could not be approved. Mr. Buller asked if the applicant could appeal if the Planning Commission took no action but instead continued the matter. Mr. Hanson responded negatively. He suggested that the Commission make a decision on the application since it was initiated by the developer. He said the City could always initiate its own amendment to modify the plan if the Commissioners later felt it would be advantageous to do so. Commissioner Melcher asked the size of lots in the Rochester subdivision. Mr. Kroutil responded that they are 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Melcher felt that driving through the Rochester subdivision is a valuable experience because it has small lots that are not impacted by overwhelming houses. He said it has single-story homes with low sloped roofs and presents an uncrowded look. Mr. Buller agreed there may be a lot that could be done through design criteria. He stated the Commissioners could establish what they perceive to be appropriate building envelopes within a district. He said that in Claremont a district called "rural area" was established with zoning of minimum I acre lots. He commented that Claremont City staff feel it is debatable whether the lot sizes and the few street improvement standards create a rural atmosphere. He stated that unless building envelopes and Planning Commission Minutes -29- January 8, 1992 minimum or maximum unit sizes are required, the open space envisioned may not materialize. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the area in Claremont showed that design of infrastructure, such as no curbs or gutters, etc., did help to create a rural character. He did not feel the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan is being met. He suggested the Commission study ways to accomplish those goals, including looking at streets and infrastructure. Mr. Buller said that, because of the surrounding land use patterns and density ranges, the Etiwanda Specific Plan area south of the freeway will unlikely attain the Etiwanda rural look visioned for the upper Etiwanda area. Commissioner Melcher stated that Commissioner Tolstoy's perception was that the designers of the plan agreed that the area south of the freeway would not be able to retain its rural character. He said he had also heard that sentiment expressed by others. Chairman McNiel agreed. Mr. Kroutil stated there is also a significant amount of Low Medium land north of the freeway. He said the most sensitive area was the core area north of Base Line in the area where Etiwanda Avenue is not going to be widened and rock curbs and tree windrows are going to be maintained. He said the area south of Base Line will have project proposals similar in scope to the U. S. Home project and therefore the Commissioners should discuss what they feel the Low Medium area should look like. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend denial of Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that because it would be difficult to meet the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the area by the freeway, the Commission may wish to recommend removal of that area from the plan if the Commissioners felt it would be appropriate to have a conventional cookie- cutter subdivision in that area. He said the Commission should consider whether the goals and objectives are important, and if so, new standards should be formulated. Chairman McNiel suggested that Commissioner Tolstoy's and Melcher's suggestions be discussed at the Planning Commission workshop on January 16, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes -30- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Vallette agreed the items should be further discussed. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, reminded the Commissioners that there would be a field trip to the Commerce Center in Ontario from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 11, 1992. He said the field trip had been arranged by the Lusk Company to visit a site they had developed under a new concept of master planning with less specific site design planning and more language planning. He stated they would be meeting at the fountain in front of City Hall at 9:00 a.m. He commented that meeting would then adjourn to a workshop following Design Review on January 16 regarding the Foothill Marketplace Uniform Sign Program and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. , , , , Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, suggested that perhaps the Commission could give staff some direction as to what they would like studied regarding the Etiwanda Specific Plan. , , , · Mr. Bullet stated that Commissioner Vallette had approached City staff about a sign that had been inappropriately titled and placed on property at Milliken and Base Line. He said staff has been pursuing efforts with the existing property owner to get the sign changed, but has not been able to have the issue resolved. He remarked that staff has had a discussion with the potential new owner who has indicated they will remedy the problem as soon as they take possession of the property. · · , , , Mr. Buller commented that a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop had been tentatively scheduled for January 26, 1992. He said a meeting to discuss the work program and events for 1992 had been tentatively scheduled for February 27 at the Tolstoy residence. , · · · · Mr. Bullet mentioned that the Development Review Processing Subcommittee had approved the concept and form for processing pre-application reviews. He noted that he met with a member of the Building Industry Association and a member of the Chamber of Commerce, who both thought the program was acceptable. He said the City Council will be ratifying the process before it is instituted by the Planning Commission. He anticipated the process would be approved in February or March, following which the City would host workshops to explain the process. , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -31- January 8, 1992 Mr. Buller remarked that staff would try to set up a field trip in late February or early March to review the design award candidates. Commissioner Melcher commented that in order to avoid a popularity contest with some Commissioners' comments influencing the balance of the Co~unission, it may be a good idea for each Commissioner to individually visit the projects. He suggested that each Commissioner then indicate which projects were worthy of consideration, so that the Commission could concentrate only on those projecte during the field trip. Mr. Buller stated that it would help staff to have the group narrowed down so that the field trip would be less cumbersome. He said each Co~unissioner would then be able to present opinions on why the projects they like deserve recognition. Chairman McNiel agreed it would be better to initially look at the projects alone so that opinions would not be influenced by the others. Mr. Bullet asked if it would help if staff developed a worksheet for each project so that Commissioners could write down any notes. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like a map. Commissioner Tolstoy requested a map with a route. Commissioner Melcher said that last -year he had found it particularly difficult to identify residential tracts because in some cases other tracts had been built adjacent and it was difficult to tell where one tract stopped and another started. He suggested it may be necessary to provide house numbers in some cases. Mr. Coleman said a map could be provided and house numbers could also be p. rovided where necessary. · , , , , Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission could be updated on the status of the regional shopping center, specifically the schedule for the design review process and how it relates to the site development schedule when the City is committing money toward construction. , , , , , Con~nissioner Melcher .suggested that consideration be given to changing Planning Con~nission agendas to 11 x 17 inches because it would be easier to read the exhibits and maps. He said he finds grading plans particularly difficult to read because they contain so much information that the lines bleed together. He noted that the paper costs would be greater. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the numbers are often unreadable. Planning Commission Minutes -32- January 8, 1992 Mr. Coleman suggested that each Commissioner could be supplied with a full set of plans. He observed that 11 x 17 inch reproductions would not be totally readable for the maps. Commissioner Tolstoy said he did not want the full set of plans. , , , , Commissioner Melcher asked if a procedure could be set up so that ideas generated at Design Review could be forwarded to the Commission to determine if the idea should become policy. He remarked this would allow the idea to be applied uniformly to other developments. He said he was specifically thinking of two ideas suggested by Commissioner Vallette~ mixing house types in subdivisions to create more diversity and using dual glazed windows in small lot subdivisions to create more privacy. Mr. Bullet said there is currently no set format for formal consideration by the full Commission to determine if ideas generated at Design Review should become policy and whether they should be included or modified in existing policy booklets. Chairman McNiel commented that he felt Commissioner Melcher's suggestion was valid and he thanked him for recognizing Commissioner Vallette. He thought perhaps during regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings the ideas could be discussed under Commission Business to determine if they should be established as policy. Commissioner Melcher felt that the ideas should be folded into the standards quickly because everyone should be treated uniformly and it is easier for applicants to deal with written policies than merely hearing from staff that something is policy. He said it also would help prevent overlooking an item. , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. · · · , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: adjourn. Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to 12:00 midnight - Planning Commission adjourned to a field trip to tour California Commerce Center in Ontario departing Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center at 9=00 a.m. on January 11, 1992, and a workshop on January 16, 1992, in the Rains Room at 8:00 p.m. following Design Review to discuss the Foothill Marketplace Uniform Sign Program and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -33- January 8, 1992 Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -34- January 8, 1992