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