No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/06/25 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 25, 2003 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: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Cristine McPhail, Larry McNiel ABSENT: Pam Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Kirt Coury, Associate Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Division Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, Rick Fisher, Contract Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were acted upon. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-01029-YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, LP-The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 26 single family lots on 6.85 acres of land in the in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive-APN: 0225-161-76 and 77. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16306 and Variance DRC2002-00592. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in June of 1991 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Initial Study/Addendum certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on October26, 1999, and August 1, 2001, respectively, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Initial Study/Addendum. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964-TOLL BROTHERS-The Development/Design Review of 79 single-family homes (for Tract 16279) on 57 acres in the Very Low Residential District(Up to 2 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north and south side of realigned Highland Avenue, between Etiwanda and East Avenues. APN: 0227- 051-01, 04, 05, 06, 09 and 28; and 0227-061-05. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16279, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323. C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00076-FUSCOE ENGINEERING-A proposed Wickes furniture store of 40,000 square feet on 4.87 acres of land in the Industrial Park(Subarea 12) District, located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Buffalo Avenue-APN: 0229-263-78 and 79. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by prior Negative Declarations of environmental impact adopted by the Planning Commission for Automation and Costco, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in those Negative Declarations. Chairman McNiel asked if anyone wished to pull any of the consent items off the Consent Calendar for discussion. Hearing no comment, he asked for a motion. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Macias to approve items A, B, and C. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00072 - LISA KELLY-A request to develop seven industrial buildings totaling 120,521 square feet,ranging in size from 5,586 square feet to 28,000 square feet on 10.5 acres in the General Industrial District (Subareas 4 and 5), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue between 6th Street and 4th Street,within the existing Crescent Business Center-APN: 0210-071-52, 54, and 55. Rick Fisher, Contract Planner, gave the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Peter Vanderburg, PPG Partners, indicated he has read and understands the conditions of approval. Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel commented that it is a straightforward infill project in a nice, park like setting. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Fletcher to approve DRC2003-00072 by adoption of the Resolution of Approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL ABSENT: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 25, 2003 Chairman McNiel observed that Items E and F would be considered together. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16432 - MANNING HOMES - A residential subdivision of 28 single-family lots on 7.4 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street - APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-00335, Variance DRC2003-00216, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965. F. VARIANCE DRC2003-00216 - MANNING HOMES-A request to increase the proposed wall heights from 6 feet to 12 feet along the southerly project boundary for property located in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), at the southwest comer of 19th Street and Amethyst Street - APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16432, Development Review DRC2003-00335,and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He made directed the Commissioner's attention to page E, F-83, Condition#4 which addresses the construction hours. He noted that the residents of the adjoining tract have requested a modification of the standard condition. He also commented that this is the first tract asked to comply with the new standard requiring perimeter block walls as well as walls between home lots. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant was present. Jim Manning, Manning Homes,20151 Birth Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach,stated that he agrees with the conditions as proposed. He commented that he met with members of the community to address their concerns regarding the construction hours and that a letter has been sent to Mr. Frank Petronzio responding to the work hour concerns and the concerns regarding the clearing of weeds. He indicated Mr. Al Bangle, who is recently deceased, owns the property. He explained that because of issues in contacting the trustees for his property, the property could not be cleared without the proper authorization before this time. He assured the Commissioners that he has contracted to have the property cleared by the end of next week. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Frank Petronzio,9424 Mignonette, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that the new proposed homes will be situated well above their backyards and will impact their privacy. He also asked that the construction hours be modified to lessen the noise impacts. Michael Scott, 9434 Mignonette, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern about the telephone poles that currently are placed at the back end of his lot and of those of his neighbors. He stated he contacted the Edison planner(David Jones) regarding the poles and Mr. Jones stated he could not make a determination about the poles without plans for the new development from the City. He stated he believes that the poles are actually in line with the proposed boundary wall of the new development that would create gaps in the fence line. He also expressed concern that if Edison chooses to dig up the old poles and go underground,then their current electrical service will have to be moved. Mr. Scott stated he is concerned about the coyotes living in the vacant field along with the other"critters"such as mice. He asked if the developer could clear the field starting at their back wall and clear the area moving towards 19th Street so that the animals living there would move away from their homes rather than flee into their yards. He also asked to be notified if there are any future changes in the plans so that they could have a voice prior to those changes taking place. Mr. Scott commented that he believes one of his neighbors' lot is 8 feet below the grade of the proposed home above it. He stated that he believes the new home will appear to be 3 stories tall considering the grade differential. He also complained that the proposed home is only 5 feet from the back fence Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 25, 2003 and he has not seen a resolution to this issue. He also stated he has a 95 year old mother in law, and that he is concerned about the noise. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if he knows the Lot number he is referring to. Mr. Scott stated he believes it is Lot 21. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, noted that on page E, F-69 of the agenda packet, several mitigations to the neighbors concerns are mentioned. The first requires the developer to build the block walls first to help mitigate the noise during construction. The second requires the developer to monitor the noise levels on a weekly basis during construction. It also requires the developer to notify the City if the maximum levels are exceeded and if that occurs then they must take whatever measures necessary to reduce the noise to an acceptable level. Commissioner Macias asked if the builder is required to monitor himself. Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Manning to return to the podium to address the concerns mentioned by Mr. Scott and Mr. Petronzio. Mr. Manning stated that on Lot 21, the grade differential is actually about 2 feet from the existing grade. Chairman McNiel asked if a single-story home could be built there. Mr. Manning stated no, the homes are all 2-story plans that have already been approved. He also noted that he has contacted Edison and that they confirmed they do have the plans but that they will not take action until the improvement plans are approved and the map is recorded. He added that the poles are not on their property and Edison will deal with that issue. He added that Edison might choose to replace the poles, move their cables underground or leave the old poles where they are. He commented that Lot 21 originally had a 5-foot setback but that it has been increased to a 10-foot setback. He added that they would be willing to plant trees along the back wall to lessen the visual impact of the new home. He noted that they would also be willing to disc the vacant site in the direction proposed by Mr. Scott so that the animals living there would be more likely to flee away from the existing homes rather than towards them. Chairman McNiel asked if Edison would underground the utilities. Mr. Manning stated Edison would determine the"health"of the poles and they would make their own decision about undergrounding the utilities. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the developer assumes responsibility/liability if damage is done or the poles are weakened during their construction. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if the developer causes injury to the abutting property owners' property, the developer assumes responsibility. He added that the construction crew would coordinate the efforts depending upon Edison's direction. Mr. Manning added that Edison would propose how it is to be done and work with us(the developer), as a cooperative effort and that Edison would do most of their own work. Commissioner Fletcher asked if construction would be begun on the south side of the site and move to the north. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 25, 2003 Mr. Manning replied that they would start where the homeowners suggested and move to the north from there and that it is not a big issues for them. Brad Buller, City Planner, interjected that the homeowner's have asked for a modification of the hours of construction. He noted that the developer is encouraged to keep open lines of communication with the neighbors and that the developer should post in a visible place the telephone numbers of their construction superintendents so that the neighbors can call if they are experiencing problems during construction. Mr. Manning responded to item#5 in the letter regarding construction noise by stating that he would try to restrict the construction to a start time of 7:00 a.m. but that if the weather is particularly hot, they typically like to start early so that they can be off the rooftops before it gets too hot. He added that there are only 8 or 9 homes along the shared property line and would be in everyone's best interest to allow them to get the project done as quickly as possible. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He then commented that in very hot areas such as Phoenix, the hours for construction are adjusted but that we do not do that here. He expressed sympathy to the homeowners but also mentioned that he questioned whether a half hour would really make that much of a difference. He then suggested a compromise whereby the homes being constructed that are closest to the property boundary adjacent to the existing homes would not begin construction until 7:00 a.m. and that for the homes beyond that the beginning time could be at 6:30 a.m. Commissioner Macias concurred and stated that he thought that was an excellent compromise. He asked rhetorically how the project could be finished the fastest. He noted that to delay the start of the workday could also slow down the overall project, thereby lengthening the time needed for the construction to be completed. He noted that he felt the compromise has a positive impact on those homes closest to the construction and therefore supports the suggestion. Chairman McNiel commented that with every home built, some noise is generated. Commissioner McPhail concurred and stated that she believes the compromise is reasonable. Commissioner Fletcher agreed the homes could not be built without noise. He commented that if the developer was willing to start with the homes on the south side of the project and build out, similarto the idea of clearing the vacant site in the direction away from the existing properties that they might get built faster and with less inconvenience to the existing homeowners. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by McPhail to approve Tentative Tract SUBTT16432 and Variance DRC2003-00216 by adoption of the Resolutions of Approval with a modification to condition #4, found on page E, F—68, restricting the start time of construction along the south tract boundary to 7:00 a.m. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried G. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-08- IFTIKHAR-A request to add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District-APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 25, 2003 Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report noting that because of the parking requirements, the"spec" retail building proposed for the north portion of the property will have to be limited to 1,800 square feet instead of 2,200 square feet as originally proposed. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that correspondence had been received from Paul and Diane Williams just prior to the meeting and that the commissioners were encouraged to take a few moments to read the letter. The letter dated June 25, 2003, was received and filed as part of the official record. The letter reflects concerns regarding landscaping, building design, lighting, delivery times, and weeds and trash on the vacant lot. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Sam Iftikhar, Baseline Bargain Center, 9456 Roberds Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he believes he is making progress on his improvements. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Iftikhar if he had seen the letter from the Williams'. He noted the letter requests no neon lights or lighted signs on the building or in the windows. Mr. Buller suggested that since Mr. Iftikhar had not seen the letter, that he take a few moments to read it before responding and in the meantime, the podium could be available to anyone in the audience for comment on the issue. Lila Wagers, 7235 Amethyst Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she spoke with staff and decided that she was unhappy with the answers she received. She stated she does not like the idea of having a driveway opening on Amethyst. She commented that she is concemed about the traffic and pedestrians and there should be an alternative idea for emergency access. She stated her concem about the road that is behind the bargain center as well. She noted that people "race"on Roberds already and she fears they will do the same at this location. She did not object to the idea of the parking lot but she has an issue with the plans being marked for the new building as a retail use. She commented that retail uses should be kept to the south where they should be. She added that she has no problem with the bargain center use. Mrs. Latokey, 7216 Amethyst Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has 7 children and she lives to the southwest of the project. She cited concerns about traffic on Amethyst because she has 7 children and they often ride their bikes to and from school. She also noted her concern about the parking area next to her home and the high weeds on the vacant property. She indicated she does not want to be a home surrounded by commercial units. She noted the traffic that screeches around the corner and that with the new development, she fears she may experience traffic issues totally surrounding her home. She added that she would prefer a professional building to retail units. She stated she would prefer a block wall around her property. She stated the Bargain Center has lights on all night long and that she is concerned that the new development will also have lights on all night. Mr. Iftikhar stated that the letter from Paul and Diane Williams indicates a problem with weeds. He noted that he has contacted the county regarding the weeds on the property. He stated that all of his deliveries are made with small trucks, not large"18-wheelers"and that he has no plans to start using semi-trailers. He noted that the lights have been on the property for years, even prior to his being there and he cannot move them. He said that the neighbor would have to put curtains in her windows. He indicated that the proposed 1,800 square foot building is not for retail but will be used for office/professional uses. He added that if the Commission does not like where the entrance is, that they are free to change it. Chairman McNiel confirmed this is a "spec building." Mr. Iftikhar indicated that it is. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 25, 2003 Commissioner Fletcher stated that Mr. lftikhar has not complied with the City's requirements for 4 years. He asked Mr. lftikhar when he intends to comply with what the City has previously asked for regarding the parking. Mr. Iftikhar stated that when the old building is demolished, he would provide the parking spaces as required. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he should balance his"rights"with the rights of others if his property abuts to the property of others. He noted that we should adhere to a timetable. Mr. Iftikhar said that as soon as he has approved permits from the City he would start the work. Mr. Buller commented that because of the historic nature of the project, Planning Condition#1 of the draft resolution has been modified requiring all onsite improvements to be completed within 6 months. He added that Engineering has a condition regarding the phasing of their improvements and the majority of those have to be completed in 6 months. He noted that Mr. Iftikhar has not met the Commission's time limits in the past. He asked Mr. Iftikhar his intentions in regard to meeting these time limits. He suggested his contractor or designer may have to help in answering this question. Mr. lftikhar stated that it depends on how long it takes to get his plans through the Building and Safety Department. Mr. Buller said we would get them through quickly. Mr. Iftikhar replied that he would try his best to get the money quick and start doing it. He explained that that is why he is buying property right and left so that he can provide the parking. He said if he does not have the parking, he does not have a business. Mr. Buller explained that all businesses are required to comply with the law and that considering the original date of this application, the City and the Commission has given a considerable amount of grace on this project. He clarified the modified condition for the record and added new language that adds an accountability section to the condition: All exterior modifications to 9456 Roberds Street and all other improvements on the three parcels required by these Planning Division conditions shall be completed per City standard within 6 months from the effective date of this approval. Failure to meet this time period will be grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. To ensure that progress is being made, the developer shall submit to the City Planner on the first of each month, beginning September 1, 2003, an update on development activity. If at the end of the 6-month period, said improvements have not been completed, the retail business shall cease operation until such time that all improvements have been completed. Chairman McNiel clarified that the closure would pertain to the retail operation on the entire site. Mr. Buller indicated that is correct. He added that this is the reason we are asking Mr. Iftikhar whether he thinks he can complete the project in that amount of time. He noted that staff believes it is reasonable and considering the grace given in the past,we want to know if Mr. lftikhar believes he can do this. Mr. Iftikhar asked if the entire project had to be completed within 6 months or just one side of the parking and then start the second phase in 6 months or a year, or whatever. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 25, 2003 Mr. Buller stated that all the improvements with the exception of the portion on the north of the property had to be completed. Abzar Kahn, architect, stated that as soon as the approval is done, the parking can be done in 6 months. He added plans are substantially finished. Commissioner Macias asked if he is a licensed architect. Mr. Kahn stated he is. Mr. Buller asked how soon could the improvement plans be done, actual plans that can be permitted. Mr. Kahn said his plans have already been submitted to Building and Safety. Chairman McNiel asked if the timeline begins from the approval of the plans or the approval given tonight. Mr. Buller responded that the timeline begins with the approval tonight. Mr. Buller noted that Mr. Iftikhar's hired professional has said that his plans are already done or substantially complete. Mr. Kahn reiterated that his plans are already in Building and Safety and that there are always some changes that have to be made and they will be done as early as possible. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Iftikhar if he understood the conditions and if they are acceptable. Mr. Iftikhar replied "yes." Mr. Buller then addressed the issues regarding the "spec. building"on the north portion of the site. Chairman McNiel said that since Mr. Iftikhar indicated that this building would not be used for retail, then the Commission could condition the use of the building as an office type use with no allowance for retail. He noted that this would reduce the use of the driveway. He added that he struggles with the idea of eliminating the driveway onto Amethyst because of emergency access. Commissioner Macias agreed that the site is a difficult one, he has sat in on repeated design reviews and that the building is an eyesore but that it is a commercial zone. He indicated he likes the idea of a timeline for the improvements and that the history of the project cannot be ignored. He agreed that there should be some compatibility with the neighborhood and the driveway issue should be addressed. He supported the idea of restricting the use of the spec building to office/professional. Commissioner McPhail agreed that the Commission needs to be able to backup their position. She noted that although the original request for the bargain center use was for a warehouse, it immediately became a retail use that was not permitted for a 4-year period. She commented that she would be agreeable to shutting down the business if the improvements are not completed or if the north building becomes retail. She also emphasized the importance of using licensed professionals on the project and asked that be verified. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with the modifications to the conditions. He liked the idea of a specific timeline. He noted that during a site visit he observed the chain ink fence on the north side of the property is locked, there are items stored there and the lot looks "trashy." He indicated he would like to add a condition that requires them to open the gate, keep the area clean and to not allow outside storage. He suggested that the back area be opened for temporary parking. Mr. Buller suggested that in regard to the 1,800 square foot building that the hours of operation, signage and lighting, and neighborhood compatibility will be addressed prior to the approval of the Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 25, 2003 use for the building. He added that he would support a condition that restricts the use to an office use and that the Commission could make any use of the building subject to a Conditional Use • Permit. He commented that the Commission could allow the building to be built, but then require that he come back to the City Planner with a Non Construction CUP or the Commission for approval of the use. This way they can consider signage, lighting, hours of operation, compatibility with the trail use and the residential neighborhood. Although Mr. Iftikhar indicated an office use that doses at 5:00 p.m., it could be the kind of office that operates on a 24-hour basis. He noted that the driveway on Amethyst is for fire access, but that he is willing to discuss the access with the Fire Department for possible options to mitigate the awkward parking lot. Chairman McNiel commented that for public safety regarding pedestrian use and we need the emergency access for fire. He stated he would be cautious about eliminating the driveway but if the Fire Department were willing to consider options then it would be acceptable to him. Mr. Buller noted that the project has parking areas flanking the north and south sides of the building. He commented that he could use some discretion on the parking and intensity of the use regarding the driveway when it comes time to review the use of the new building. Mr. Iftikhar asked if he could relocate the hair salon (Hair Safari) to the new building because they have limited hours and operate by appointment only, 4 days a week. Mr. Buller replied that if the condition remains as they modified it, then all uses would be reviewed. He added that the hair salon might be a reasonable use, but that the Conditional Use Permit review process gives the neighbors a chance to be notified of the review. Chairman McNiel voiced his approval of Mr. Buller's suggestions. Mr. Iftikhar stated he is working towards acquiring another building and he is slowly purchasing the properties around the retail business. He said it takes time and money to do this. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there would be a conflict with the warehouse in the main parking area. Mr. Buller explained that Mr. Iftikhar has had difficulty finding a balance with his improvements. Because the parking is split up, it has been difficult to pick the right place for the main entrance. He commented that staff felt the main entrance should be on the north or south side of the building and the parking should be near his main entrance. Mr., Iftikhar struggled with whether the main entrance should be on the north side or south side of the building. He commented that Mr. Iftikhar put the main entrance where he could make it work. He commented that there are not many altematives. Commissioner Fletcher stated he was specifically referring to whether there is a conflict in having parking in that location. He asked if the service entrance is on the north side of the building. Mr. Buller stated that is where he takes most of his deliveries. He explained that if it were a new center being built then that would not be considered and ideal configuration. He noted that he has to work hours of operations and he has to take deliveries in such a way that it does not conflict with his ability to get patrons in and out. He commented that he hopes that it would be somewhat "self- policing" but that one of the problems in that past has been that he uses the area outside that entrance as a "staging area," sometimes for days at a time and this limits his parking area. He added that he has been conditioned not to do that. He noted that if he continues to do that it could be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit and we will have to monitor that. He stated that this is probably the least detrimental configuration because he is surrounded by 360 degrees of issues on the site. Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 25, 2003 Ms.Wimer noted that Planning Condition#5 states that no outdoor storage or palettes are allowed in the parking area. Mr. Buller read into the record the recommended language an additional condition regarding the future approval of the use of the "spec. building" on the northern portion of the property. Because the location of the new 1,800 square foot building is so near the existing single-family neighborhood, all uses of that building shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. In considering future uses of this building, hours of operation, signs, lighting, compatibility with the trail use to the north and the adjacent residential neighborhood must be addressed. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by McPhail to approve the Modification of Conditional Use Permit 98-08 by adoption of the Resolution of Approval with a modification to Planning Condition #1, found on page G-20 of the agenda packet and with the addition of Planning Condition#10 as read into the record. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM15966 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT CORP.-The subdivision of 9.77 acres of land into 17 parcels,plus 1 lettered lot, in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Avenue - APN: 0208-352-36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 76. Related File: Development Review DRC2002-00845. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00845-H.P.A. INC.-The development of an industrial office park facility consisting of 13 office buildings and 4 industrial buildings totaling 133,474 square feet, with a central open space area, on 9.77 acres of land in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Street - APN: 0208-352-36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 76. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15966. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, gave the staff report noting that the developer made excellent progress through the design review process because they addressed the issues before they got to the committees. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Bruce McDonald, Master Development Corp., 1401 Quail Street, Suite #100, Newport Beach, expressed his thanks and appreciation to Nancy Fong, Senior Planner and Doug Fenn for their assistance during the processing of their application before they submitted. He noted that the changes that staff suggested actually improved their project and added value. He commented that they both did a fine job. He said he is glad to be building office space in the City, that there is enough industrial space, their development includes open space and is master planned and that he is pleased to be located next to the Mercury Insurance building where they are doing a quality job of development. He commented that he believes there project will be a development that the City will be proud of. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman commented that this project was good to review in Design Review and that they did a fine job. Commissioner Fletcher agreed that the plans were excellent and that staff did a great job. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 25, 2003 Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail to approve the Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15966 and Development Review DRC2002-00845 by adoption of the Resolutions of Approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried J. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME- A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 81 single family lots of a previously approved tentative tract map within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street.APN:227-161-44. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT15974. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and this project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that EIR. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Fenn reported that Commissioners Stewart and McPhail had some concerns with this project in Design Review, but that the developer addressed them resulting in a fine new product. He noted that stackstone treatments have been added to the rear and sides and continues up to the second story of the homes along with other design details. He commented that Commissioner Stewart was very pleased with what they did and it"raises the bar"for the standard that will be acceptable in the area. He noted that 2 new conditions have been added to the resolution found on page J-32 of the agenda packet. The new conditions read as follows: 11) The developer shall provide each prospective buyer of the affected lots along the north property boundary with written notice of the required 20-foot landscape buffer with a non- buildable deed restriction in perpetuity. The standard format for the written notice shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The developer shall submit the signed notice from the prospective buyer to the City for records. 12) Comer lots shall have parkway adjacent to curb. Also added was the following Engineering condition: 1) Provide a minimum of 3-inch conduit for future fiber optic use on all streets with connection through the parkway to each lot or parcel. Submit detail plans showing the size, placement, location and provider of the conduit for City Engineer review and approval,prior to issuance of grading permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Ryan Combe, U.S. Homes Project Manager, expressed his thanks to Doug Fenn and Nancy Fong and Commissioners Stewart and McPhail for their assistance. He stated that they look forward to producing a home product they can be proud of. He commented that they added more detail and they will be building block walls on all the property lines and project perimeter according to the new standards. He said they agree with the report and all of the conditions. Hearing no further comment, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel commented that Commissioner Stewart has thoroughly studied the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in detail and she does not miss a thing. He commented that she did an excellent job in Design Review Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 25, 2003 on this item. He added that this would be a very nice project, far better than what he originally imagined. Commissioner McPhail agreed that it will be a fine project and expressed her thanks to the developer. Chairman McNiel commented that this developer got caught in the middle of the change in our standards for block walls. He added that no wood fencing will be allowed and that the bar has been raised again for the community. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Fletcher to approve Development Review DRC2003-00124 by adoption of the Resolution of Approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried NEW BUSINESS K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRC2003-00564 - CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - Review of the proposed site acquisition of approximately 8 acres of land for expansion of the Etiwanda High School located in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan on the northeast corner of East Avenue and Victoria Avenue-APN: 0227-071-25. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the report detailing staffs recommendations to the school district for their proposed expansion of Etiwanda High School. Chairman McNiel asked if the district has submitted a site plan. Mr. Coleman stated their letter is not specific as to the use. Chairman McNiel noted that the letter indicates the expansion is primarily for parking. Mr. Coleman pointed out that quite often, parking areas are also used for space for portable classrooms, they have left their options open. Chairman McNiel asked if there are any dwellings on the property and if so, are they older. Mr. Coleman said there are two homes built in the 1960s or 1970$. He commented that there are vintage homes on the south side of Victoria across the street from the school property. He added that it would be the staff's preference for them to acquire all of the"out"parcels and merge them into one, but that the City does not have any means of requiring them to do that. Chairman McNiel concurred with the specific recommendation for them to purchase the 2 other parcels or selling off the 3 parcels that abut Victoria. Mr. Coleman noted that it really is just one parcel. He added that staff would prefer they acquire all of the out parcels and merge them into one to eliminate piecemeal development. He commented that they do not have plans to do this to our knowledge. The Commissioners indicated their concurrence with the recommendation and the report was received and filed for the record. Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 25, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENTS ' No additional comments were made. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bra Iler Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 25, 2003