Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/10/25 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker 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 Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. RO!,T, CAT,T, COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, carried 3-0-0-2 with Lumpp and Melcher abstaining, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 6, 1995. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 23, 1995. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 23, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-24 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES - A request to construct a 50 foot high communications monopole generally located 800 feet south of Arrow Route and more than 900 feet east of 1-15 Freeway within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 12281 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-10. Commissioner Lumpp indicated a desire to abstain from hearing the matter because the company he works for is currently engaged in activity with the applicant. Chairman Barker excused Commissioner Lumpp from the meeting. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She suggested that a condition be added to require that on-site access be provided for construction and maintenance of the facility as it appears to be constricted. She stated the applicant had indicated that such access can be provided. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what color the pole will be. Ms. Bratt replied that staff had not specified a color. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Darrell Daugherty, Plancom, 2955 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, stated they prefer to leave the pole galvanized gray because they feel the color tends to fade out and pick up properties of the sky. He noted that large utilities normally keep all of their pole structures galvanized grey and they feel it is most compatible. He said painted poles require more maintenance but they would be willing to paint the pole if required. He thanked Ms. Bratt for her thoroughness. He noted that she had raised very good points, especially regarding the access issue. He felt they had worked out the arrangements. He said that Robin Lloyd from Parallel Products (the property owner) was in the audience and had assured them that the property owner is working with the Fire Department and staff to be sure that conditions are being met. Mr. Daugherty gave a brief background of the company and stated they are currently working on three additional sites within the City. Commissioner Melcher stated that it appears that spacing of the sites will be somewhat closer than other types of systems. He asked the approximate required spacing. Mr. Daugherty said the spacing in an urban area will be tighter because of capacity demands. He said the distance between sites is generally 2 to 3 miles. He noted that their system is more of a line of sight and does not have the ability to transmit as far as cellular or 800 megahertz systems. He said that typically their system will require more sites but they will be much lower. He said that two of the three sites they are working on within the City limits are rooftop sites where they are working to integrate facade improvements to screen their facilities. Chairman Barker asked if the system will work through walls. Mr. Daugherty said the 1.9 or 2 gig does not bounce as well as 800 megahertz. He indicated that when the initial system is turned on, there will probably be some insufficient building coverage. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the Commission had previously requested that poles be painted colors such as smog gray or off white. He thought that would be staff's direction. He said there are examples of the galvanized poles, but all monopoles have previously been painted. Commissioner Melcher supported the applicant's request to erect a galvanized steel pole to be left unpainted. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 25, 1995 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-24 with modification to require access on site for construction and maintenance of the facility. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE - carried MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-09 - KICKER'S GRII.L - A request to expand the cafe services within an existing indoor soccer facility in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 11120 Tacoma - APN: 209-471-05. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that a letter had been received from a business in the same industrial park opposing the sale of alcoholic beverages because of previous problems with the customers who frequent the business. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Cle Kooiman, 6156 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a professional soccer player who has played professionally for the last 12 years in the United States and Mexico. He said he had moved to the area because it is one of the greatest soccer areas in the United States. He stated the Planning Department signed them off on the zoning affidavit needed by the Alcohol, Beverage Control Board (ABC) and they proceeded to invest $13,000 in renovations to the cafeteria area. He said they would not have invested money in the renovations without the zoning affidavit. He acknowledged they had become aware of the parking issue and stated he wished to address that problem. He said the happiness of their neighbors is important to them and they are willing to do just about anything to solve any problems set before them. He said they understand the concerns raised by the neighbors. He indicated that he became involved with the business two months ago and he thought they had solved the parking issue since then. He felt the problem is not too many cars, but that their clients were parking in the wrong area. He said he had spoken with their adjacent neighbor and installed some parking signs and also now has a staff member checking the parking lot every 15 minutes. He said they have also decided to hire a parking attendant while their business is open. He reported that Mark Capellino, the developer, has also assured them they will have space in front of their property if they have too many cars. He referred to the letter from Prestige Mold and Die and said he thought they did not have up-to-date information. He felt they have taken care of all of the parking problems which had occurred in the past. He stated most cafeterias have beer and wine on their menus and he suggested their operation would be similar to the bowling alley. He observed that the Prestige Mold and Die letter referred to beer and wine breaks during a game and said that one of their rules prohibits drinking before or during games. He did not feel their patrons have been loitering in the parking lot. Mr. Kooiman referred to a letter from Rafco Products and he stated that the problems referred to in that letter had occurred prior to his joining the operation. He felt they have changed things and problems no longer occur. George Franov, 921 West 13th Street, Upland, stated that he would run the everyday aspects of the restaurant. He said he has been in the restaurant business for 15 years and in restaurant management for 10 years including Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 25, 1995 restaurant manager at Sneakers for the last 3 years. He commented they want to provide quality food and drinks in a healthy family atmosphere. He said the families and players drive from all over the area and they wish to provide an opportunity for them to enjoy a full evening of soccer. He observed that patrons have asked for a more extensive menu. He remarked he and the other owners of Kickers are actively involved in youth soccer. He stated their staff would be highly trained to prevent underage drinking and they have set up rules in cooperation with the US Indoor Soccer Academy to prevent drinking before a game and a team can be penalized as well as individual players for violating the rules. He stated that anyone fighting in the cafeteria would be expelled from league play and no alcohol could be removed from the cafe. He said they would try to prevent drinking and driving by providing questionable patrons with time or food to get them sober enough to drive or will arrange a taxi home. Commissioner Melcher asked if Kickers is a separate business from US Indoor Soccer Academy. Mr. Franov said they lease the space from the Soccer Academy but they work hand in hand with the Academy. Commissioner Melcher asked how many seats are in the restaurant. Mr. Franov replied they currently have 80. Commissioner Melcher asked if they would be advertising to bring in business from the community or catering only to those patrons at US Soccer Academy. Mr. Franov replied they are not currently planning to advertise; however, they are involved with soccer other than through the US Soccer Academy and he did not feel they would turn away patrons who are not playing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Franov would still manage Sneakers or if Kickers would be his only business. Mr. Franov stated he is still the general manager at Sneakers. He said he would ideally like to do both jobs until Kickers can be his sole source of income. Commissioner Lumpp asked if they would serve someone who walked in off the street to watch a game. Mr. Franov replied affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp asked if parents of those playing would be able to partake of beer and wine while their children played. Mr. Franov said that was correct but they are now thinking of scheduling the leagues so that all youth games are finished by a certain time and opening to serve alcohol after that time. Commissioner Lumpp asked if games will be ongoing when the bar is open. Mr. Franov responded that was correct. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Franov is currently operating the cafe. Mr. Franov said he is running it with his two partners. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 25, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the applicant is wanting to expand the cafeteria and offer hot food and beer and wine. Mr. Franov said that was correct. Noah Kooiman, 335 Inland Empire Boulevard, Apt. 15-H, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is one of the three partners. He reported he is one of two managers at US Indoor Soccer Academy and his duties are to bring in business. He said they have youth, adolescent, adult female, adult male, and co-ed groups. He stated they have a one-of-a-kind facility. He said they wish to enhance the facility with the restaurant. He reported he does all the scheduling and has been actively involved in youth soccer coaching in the community. He said they are currently open from 5:00 p.m. to midnight and the games for younger players are from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m. He noted that the surrounding businesses generally close at 5:00 p.m. He said he would like to schedule it so that no alcohol will be served during youth games. He observed the parents can video tape the games and then watch the videotapes on their big screens in the cafeteria area. He said they also want to have facilities to accommodate birthday parties. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicants had paid for and installed the chains and barriers to prohibit parking at the adjacent business. Cle Kooiman said the posts were already in place and they merely installed the chains. Commissioner Lumpp asked who had installed the posts. Cle Kooiman thought they were put there by the builder. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the adjacent business is Prestige Mold and Die. Cle Kooiman replied negatively and said that Prestige is further west. Commissioner Lumpp asked what business is located where the chain was installed. Cle Kooiman replied it is a frisbee company. Commissioner Lumpp asked if they had sent a letter opposing the project. Cle Kooiman replied the frisbee company has been very happy the last few months because the problems have been solved. He said that Prestige Mold and Die is not even in business as yet. Commissioner Lumpp asked where Rafco Products is located. Cle Kooiman stated it is the northeast corner of the site. He felt there have not been any problems during the last two months since they have started patrolling the parking lot and put up the chains. Mr. Murphy pointed out that Prestige Mold and Die is located in the third building to the west and Rafco is the adjacent building northeast of US Soccer Academy. Cle Kooiman stated they have 10-15 extra parking space. He felt that even if some families stay after their game to eat, there should not be a parking problem. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 25, 1995 David Davies, 8830 Somerset, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the application be approved because the Kooimans are involved with youth soccer and he felt the Kooimans would not do anything to harm the children. He commented that small businesses should be supported and he felt they had addressed all issues of concern. Mike Oshay, 912 Cleary, Claremont, stated he is one of the patrons. He thought the business had experienced growth problems and patrons did not initially know where to park. He commented that patrons cannot play if they are under the influence of alcohol. He felt parking should be permitted on the street. He commented he would like to be able to stay and relax with his teammates after games. He remarked that the Kooimans are good role models. Sandie Oerly, 5652 Emerald, Rancho Cucamonga remarked that she has known the Kooimans for a long time and they are very active in youth soccer in the community. She said she used to go to an indoor soccer academy in Mira Loma which had a cafeteria with beer and wine and watched videos of games. She stated that many adults now play soccer. Ms. Oerly commented that there is generally a lot of illegal parking near any facility with youth sports. She felt US Soccer Academy has done a good job of trying to address the parking problem. She thought alcohol consumption and the facility would be well monitored and there would be no problems. She stated she would like to use facility for birthday parties for youths. Mark Capellino, Cap Brothers Construction, 438 Amapola, Suite 210, Torrance, stated he is the developer of the property. He said he was encouraged by Mr. Kooiman's offer to have an employee in the parking lot as he felt it would help mitigate some of the problems which had been experienced by adjacent businesses. He commented that parking on some of the adjacent properties could be considered on a temporary basis until the other properties are developed but he wanted US Soccer to fully utilize its own lot prior to using other areas. Commissioner McNiel asked if Mr. Capellino had received complaint letters from any other businesses in the area. Mr. Capellino replied they had not received any other letters, but he thought there may be other businesses with comparable concerns. He said that he has visited the site on many occasions and there are cars parked on adjacent properties and in the street when there are still some unutilized parking spaces in the rear of the building. He knew the Academy had made attempts to encourage their patrons to use that parking but he felt that having someone in the parking lot to direct parking would be an important component in solving the problems. Commissioner McNiel asked if there is access to the building from the rear lot. Mr. Capellino said there is but he thought they have tried to encourage patrons to still enter from the front of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the approximate amount of parking in the.back. Mr. Capellino estimated that 25 to 30 percent of the parking is in the rear. Sam Izadi, 11120 Tacoma Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, said he has been involved in the project from the start. He noted that one of the complaints had been received from someone located three buildings away to the west but there was not a complaint from the business immediately adjacent to the west. He therefore thought the problems have been resolved. He said they have been working with the neighbors to have a good relationship. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 25, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp asked for an explanation of the business relationship. Mr. Izadi replied that he is one of the three owners of the facility; Noah Kooiman is the general manager of the facility and Cle Kooiman, Mr. Franov, and Noah have leased the cafeteria section of the building. He said US Indoor Soccer Academy will only be running the soccer activities but they will be working closely with Kickers Grill in enforcing the rules. Commissioner Lumpp asked which of the individuals work directly for Mr. Izadi. Mr. Izadi responded that Noah Kooiman works for him. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Kickers Grill currently subleases the facility. Mr. Izadi replied that Kickers Grill signed the lease agreement after the City had reviewed the zoning affidavit for submission to ABC. He thought the lease would not have been signed if the zoning affidavit had not been approved. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy reported that 37 spaces, just over 50 percent of the parking, are located in the rear of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he visited the facility on Tuesday. He observed that the building was built for an industrial use and he felt there are problems because it is now being used for a recreational use. He commented that the parking is adequate for an industrial use, but now there are problems because of the configuration of the parking with half of it being hidden from street view. He thought the Commission will be more cognizant of future parking problems the next time there is an application for a recreational business in an industrial building. He said he was impressed with the facility and thought it is well laid out. He felt there is adequate room for a restaurant and he did not object to expanding the food services with the provision that a parking lot attendant be located in the parking lot because he thought there will continue to be a parking problems otherwise. Commissioner McNiel questioned if Commissioner Tolstoy supported the sale of beer and wine. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he supports only the expansion of the restaurant. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the parking lot attendant be required to be uniformed and be there during all business hours. He did not object to the expansion of the restaurant and the addition of beer and wine; however, he thought they should be restricted to the on-site business as opposed to being open to the public. He acknowledged that the public cannot be excluded, but he did not think they should be permitted to advertise to the public until they have established a track record of a problem-free operation. He suggested the matter could be reviewed in a year. Commissioner McNiel did not oppose the expansion of the restaurant. He noted there is an ongoing problem with the parking which the applicant appears to be trying to resolve. He observed that Mr. Kooiman had indicated they plan to utilize a parking attendant, but he feared a parking attendant may not be there in the future. He felt there is no way to police the parking problem except by cordoning off the area. He said he has been involved in competitive sports for a long time and has observed that the spirit of competition can be very heated. He felt that the tension of running into other players sometimes does not go ~way Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 25, 1995 and he felt that the introduction of beer and wine could lead to problems. He observed that beer and wine are prohibited in public parks and he felt it might be for that reason. He did not support the sale of beer and wine. He was not sure how the City could control the parking situation and he felt the City could not control a ban on advertising. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had a serious problem with the land use issue. He felt the City may have been too flexible when allowing the sports use to locate in an industrial park. He said the applicant was now asking to expand the sports use by adding a restaurant and bar within an industrial building within an industrial park. He did not support the application. He observed that the fundamental use is a conditionally permitted use, not a permitted use. He said he was also confused over who controls the operation. He noted that Cle Kooiman mentioned that he had talked to the adjacent property owner but Mr. Kooiman is not the owner of the soccer facility, but only a concessionaire and would not have control of the sports operation. He thought Mr. Izadi should be the one talking to neighbors to work out the problems. He observed that a restaurant use has specific parking requirements and there is not sufficient parking to meet the restaurant criteria. He felt the complaints attest to the fact that there are barely enough parking spaces for the current use. He noted that the patrons seem to be enjoying the facility as it now exists and adding a bar/restaurant will compound the parking problems, not to mention cause a potential for nuisance, health, and safety concerns. He also thought expanding the restaurant use will lead to players staying after their games to socialize, which will compound the parking problem. He noted the games are scheduled on a rotational basis because there was originally a parking problem and if players stay after their game to socialize, they will be taking up the parking spaces needed for the next team. He felt having a parking attendant may not solve the problem because people will park where they want and the parking attendant would have no powers of enforcement. He stated that the addition of a bar/restaurant is not a good land use addition to a soccer facility. Chairman Barker stated that some points had been raised in the public testimony that are not issues. He felt that soccer and the reputations of the individuals concerned is not an issue, and noted that his family has been very active in soccer for years. He remarked that when the application for the soccer facility was first submitted, the thinking had been that it would fill an unused building and the activity is healthy. He observed that there is now a request to attach another use and open a bar in an area which was neither designed nor intended for that purpose. He said a number of the impacts have been addressed, but he felt it would be unwise to add a bar to the facility. He noted that the parking is not set up for either a restaurant or a bar. He did not support the use. Commissioner Melcher noted that the suggested resolution is a denial without prejudice. He thought that if the Commission determines the use is inappropriate, then the application should be denied, not denied without prejudice. Commissioner Lumpp thought the only purpose for denying a resolution without prejudice was to allow an applicant to refile a similar application within a year. He noted that certain issues had been presented and the Commission had expressed certain concerns and he did not think the applicant would refile a similar application. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated Commissioner Lumpp was correct, in that if an application is denied, a similar application cannot be refiled within a year, whereas a similar application could be refiled within a year if the application is denied without prejudice. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker suggested the resolution could be modified by removing the words "without prejudice" if the Commission felt that the opening of a bar in that industrial area would never be appropriate. He thought that if something could be done to make the use acceptable in that area, then "without prejudice" should be left in the resolution. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval to allow the expansion of the restaurant without a liquor license and with a requirement that a parking attendant be in the parking area at all times during their hours of operation. Commissioner McNiel noted that when the conditional use permit was approved, the original plans included a cafe. He stated that upon hearing Commissioner Lumpp's concerns, he felt the existing parking problem would become a bigger problem if the restaurant is expanded; therefore, he could not second Commissioner Tolstoy's motion. Commissioner Tolstoy's motion failed for lack of a second. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution denying the · modification to Conditional Use Permit 94-09 with a revision to delete the "without prejudice" verbiage. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:29 p.m. to 8:37 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 95-01 - PRAIRIE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS - A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Prairie Pacific Investments for the purpose of providing a senior housing project in accordance with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), including deviating from certain development standards, for 158 apartment units located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-031-75. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-22 - PRAIRIE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS - A request to construct a 158-unit, three story senior apartment project in the High Density Residential designation (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-031-75. Chairman Barker observed that the Commission could not act upon Item C and would therefore have to continue the matter to November 8. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that the project was before the Commission in an effort to move the project through the Planning Commission and the City Council in order to meet a December 11 deadline which the applicant was facing. He said as a result, the matter was pre-scheduled for the agenda even though the Development Agreement was not available. He said the Development Agreement i still not available; therefore, the Commission could not take action. He observ that in an effort to help the applicant in meeting the December 11 deadline, applicant had asked that any concerns regarding the design or development o Planning Commission Minutes -9- October ' project as it had been raised to Design Review be raised this evening, so there would be an opportunity to address those concerns by the November 8 meeting. He observed that staff had also been advised that the architect will not be able to attend on November 8. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the basis for the request for fewer laundry facilities and parking spaces than ordinarily required. Mr. Murphy responded that the project actually exceeds the parking requirements for senior projects within the SHOD. He noted they are providing one space per unit whereas the SHOD only requires .7 space per unit. He said the applicant indicated that in their experience, there is insufficient demand to warrant a ratio of 1 washer and dryer for every five units. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the minimum age for renters. Mr. Murphy replied it is 55. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the staff report implies that the project is acceptable because it is similar to the previous approvals and previous development agreement for the site. Mr. Murphy responded that the application is comparable in features and design to the 1988 approvals and staff felt that this project would be acceptable because of that past direction from the Commission. He noted that this Commission may not feel that the ratios for washers and dryers are appropriate and could recommend a higher number to the City Council. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if staff had contacted other communities who have SHODs to determine their laundry facility requirements. Mr. Murphy replied negatively. Commissioner Lumpp questioned further explanation on the amenities which will be duplicated. Mr. Murphy stated that the multi-family standards require five separate amenities but this project is instead proposing duplicate counting of gazebos and barbeques to be provided at both the north and south ends of the project. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter Pitassi, Architect, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Commission for allowing the opening of the public hearing despite the fact that the Development Agreement was not ready as yet. He introduced Linda Boone, Executive Director of the Orange Housing Development Corporation (OHDC, the non-profit entity involved in the project), Karen Mikuls of Prairie Pacific Investments, and Dan Guerra, the Civil Engineer for the project. He gave a brief background of the project and provided a handout with background information on Prairie Pacific Investments and OHDC as well as color renderings of elevations, floor plans, and.landscape plans. Mr. Pitassi stated that Prairie Pacific had recently developed a large senior housing project in Santa Paula and their experience in developing and managing that project had convinced them that the ratio for washers and dryers should be less for senior projects. He said the Development Code lists standards for multi-family units and does not address senior housing. He noted that the site plan and land plan is similar to the Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 25, 1995 previous project which had been approved in 1988. He observed that the property is currently owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency. He indicated that they support building the perimeter wall as soon as possible and he pointed out that the proposed resolution conditions building of the wall prior to commencement of building construction. He felt the architecture had been improved over the previously approved project and said they had also increased the patio balcony sizes. He believed they addressed the issues brought up in the neighborhood meetings. He remarked that the trash enclosures have not been moved on the plan but they intend to move them to the east side of the parking aisle so they will not be adjacent to the neighboring residences. He said they will use the proper tree materials to address the concerns raised by the neighbors regarding screening and leaf droppings. He observed that they placed a double loaded drive aisle on the west side of the property to increase the setback from adjacent residences. He said they have an 81-foot setback from the property line to the building and the building height at that point is 29 feet while the height allowed within the zone is 55 feet. He remarked that if they were developing single family homes on the property they could have a 20-foot setback with a two- story building up to 35 feet high. He said the adjacent residences will be buffered by 10 feet of landscaping, the double-loaded drive aisle, and a landscaped area between the drive aisle and the building. Mr. Pitassi commented that the City added a requirement for a minimum 20-foot setback from a drive aisle when the Development Code was modified in 1991. He stated there was no such minimum in 1988 when the previous project was approved. He asked that the proposed minimum of 9 feet be approved because of the narrowness of the site and the fact that they want to maximize the common area in the courtyard between the buildings. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the height of the building at the top of the parapet and the distance from the edge of the balconies to the property line of the adjacent residential units to the west. Mr. Pitassi responded it is 81 feet to the property line and the building height at the top of the parapet is approximately 35 feet but it is only 29 feet at the plate line. Commissioner Lumpp asked where the laundry facilities will be located. Mr. Pitassi indicated they will be located on each floor at each end of the "U" portion of the buildings. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the experience regarding laundry facilities. Mr. Pitassi replied that the Santa Paula project has been in operation for over a year and they have had no problems in terms of a higher demand for laundry facilities. He stated that a senior population does not generate as much soiled laundry as a home with children. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Pitassi had checked with any other communities to determine if they have any standards for laundry facilities for senior projects. Mr. Pitassi responded that he had not. Commissioner McNiel asked if there will be a common eating area. Mr. Pitassi replied that it is a senior apartment project with each apartme' having its own kitchen. Planning Commission Minutes -11- October Commissioner McNiel asked if there will be medical or other facilities, such as a beauty parlor. Mr. Pitassi stated that there will not be as the project is for people age 55 or older who are active and ambulatory. He noted it will have a recreation building. Commissioner McNiel felt that most residents will be age 65 or older and he thought security may be a concern to them. Mr. Pitassi confirmed that the average age in such a project is 66 to 67 and about 65 to 70 percent are women. He acknowledged that security is a main concern of the residents. He noted that there is a central corridor and each unit is interior loaded with controlled access lobbies on the north and south sides of the buildings. He stated that once inside the building, it is a secure, enclosed environment with security features, such as card access, for all access points. He said the courtyard is fenced and gated where it is not enclosed by the buildings. He remarked that the security issue drives the design in many ways. He noted that each of the units will also have a call box to allow them to reach management and the manager's apartment is located on the second floor of the recreational building. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that Mr. Pitassi had stated that the residents are active seniors, so he thought most residents would then have a car. He questioned if the parking ratio of .7 space per unit is adequate. Mr. Pitassi said it has been his experience that parking is not generally high in demand. He said they are providing 1 space per unit even though the code only requires .7 space per unit. Mr. Buller recalled that the parking ratio was discussed when the previous project was approved in 1988 and it was determined that a 1 to 1 ratio was sufficient. Mr. Pitassi thought the Rudolph Hendrickson apartments have a 1 to 1 ratio. He said he has driven through that project several times in the last two months and had never observed any parking problem. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had researched the parking requirements over the last several weeks and the industry standard is .5 to .7 space per unit. He said the standard is derived from a combination of facilities like this as well as Urban Land Institute standards. Chairman Barker stated that the .7 standard was adopted by the City and he suggested that the Commissioners could request a new study if they feel circumstances have changed since the standard was adopted. He thought it may be appropriate to take another look and see if .7 is still appropriate, but he noted that this project has exceeded the requirement and should not be a problem. Commissioner Tolstoy said it was just a question that he wanted to lay out on the table. Mr. Pitassi recalled that the 1988 project called for 50 percent affordable housing and 50 percent market rate senior apartments and he noted that now the proposal is for 100 percent affordable units, which he felt will be a huge benefit for the City. Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 25, 1995 Commissioner Tolstoy recalled a long discussion on porch sizes when the 1988 project was approved and he asked if the current proposal provides usable or merely decorative porches. Mr. Pitassi felt the current proposal is more than adequate with 100 square feet on the ground floor and 95 square feet on the upper level with the minimum dimension being 7 feet. Mr. Murphy noted that the previous approval called for patios of 65 to 80 square feet with minimum 5-foot widths. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposed patio sizes are sufficient. Linda Boone, Executive Director of Orange Housing Development Corporation, 217 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, stated they are a non-profit corporation and they will be the general partner in a limited partnership which is formed to own the project for 15 years. She said their only function is to develop, own, operate, and manage affordable housing for the long term. She indicated that she has been involved in the affordable housing area for over 20 years. She said that the standard for parking is .5 to .7 spaces per unit and that ratio is adequate based on her experience. She said many active seniors choose not to have a car; therefore, location is important. She noted that beauty shops and other services are not provided on-site, but they are very close. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there will be a walkway access to the City Library. Mr. Pitassi replied there will be pedestrian access to the library via a gate from the project. Ron Groslund, 7355 Klusman, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the sixth house down on the west side of the project. He was concerned about the loss of privacy because of the balconies. He said his property is elevated approximately 4 feet above the project site and his property starts to slope down behind his garage. He stated that he had been told that the wall which the project will be building is not a retaining wall and he requested that it be upgraded to a retaining wall, so that he could backfill his property to make his lot level. Commissioner McNiel asked how radical the slope is. Mr. Groslund replied it is approximately 1 to 12. Mr. Murphy said it is a fairly gradual slope. Commissioner McNiel asked the dimension from the garage to the property line. Mr. Groslund responded that it is approximately 5 to 9 feet. He thought it would require approximately 1 foot of fill. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Groslund was asking that the developer put in a wall so that he could backfill his property to get more use from his property. Mr. Groslund felt that would be the proper way to do it. He said that the predominant grade on his lot is from the back of the yard to the front of the street; however, the last few feet slope back the other way and therefore drain toward the new project. He stated he would like an 8-foot wall since there will be a three-story building. He said he had talked to his neighbors and most of them would also like a high wall. He thought the taller wall would also give him more privacy because he feared the trees will not always be there because the Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 25, 197 Santa Ana winds may destroy them. He noted that one tree had fallen from his back yard and hit his garage. Commissioner Lumpp felt the new buildings would significantly block the wind from blowing through. John R. Lewis, 7345 Klusman, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the back of his property is adjacent to the new development. He said he had similar concerns to Mr. Groslund. He noted that his bedroom windows will be in plain view of 15 to 20 of the new units. He feared that residents of the senior project would sit on their balconies and watch how he lives. He acknowledged that the trees will help block the view but noted he would have to clean up the leaves from the trees. He expressed concern that the traffic will exit onto Base Line Road and he stated that Base Line is a very heavily traveled road. He said there are many accidents at the corner of Base Line Road and Klusman Avenue. He thought that when the 1988 project was approved, there was an additional traffic exit to Archibald through the property that is now currently the Library. He feared seniors will have difficulty exiting onto Base Line Road because they will be entering from an incline. He was concerned that his property values will drop because of the project. Mr. Pitassi noted that on the previous application, the access through what is now the library site was for emergency only. He said that access is gated and will be equipped with a KNOX box for emergency use only. He remarked that the access point on Base Line Road was determined some time ago and it was installed by the City quite some time ago. He said the driveway placement was determined by the Traffic Engineering Division so that it would align with the Alpha Beta center across the street. He noted that the intensity of traffic from a senior housing project will be considerably less than what would be generated from any other type of housing. He said they are aware that some of the lots have drain onto their property and they have made allowances for that on the drainage plan, with the water entering through the wall and directed to surface drainage. He noted that the wall will be approximately 7 to 8 feet on their side while it would only be 6 feet on the adjacent property. He acknowledged that in most cases, the adjacent properties are at a higher elevation of up to 3-1/2 feet. He thought the 10 feet of landscaping will have a greater impact on providing privacy than the neighbors think. He said appropriate species and density will be used to provide a buffer. Commissioner Melcher asked how close houses could be to the property line if the project were to be developed as single family residential. Mr. Pitassi replied they could be 20 feet from the property line and could be up to 35 feet high. Commissioner McNiel noted that Mr. Pitassi had said that the wall will be 7 to 8 feet on the project side. He therefore thought there will be some retaining capabilities to the wall. Mr. Pitassi said that was correct and he thought it would be quite capable of retaining up to approximately 1 foot of backfill on the adjoining property. He said they could analyze each area of the wall so that it could be designed to allow for backfilling. Commissioner McNiel asked how big the drop is. Dan Guerra, Derbish, Guerra & Associates, 8331 Utica Avenue, Suite 150, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is the civil engineer for the project. He stated that the Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 25, 1995 difference is approximately 2 to 3 feet. He said they could easily accommodate 1 foot of fill, but it would require a 10 foot wall to provide a 4-foot retaining wall. He thought 10 feet would be too high. He also did not feel it would be a fair burden on this project to resolve a rear-lot drainage issue that was built many years ago. He said they want to be sensitive to the neighbor's concerns. Commissioner Lumpp questioned how the wall height would be affected if a condition were added that the developer would provide a minimum 6-foot high wall measured from the finished grade of the garage in the adjacent neighbor's back yard. Mr. Guerra said he could not answer without looking at the plan. He thought the garages tend to be high and said that not all of the garages are close to the property line, some are back 15 feet or so. Commissioner Lumpp said he was trying to prevent an appearance of a 2-foot high wall from the finished grade of the adjacent homes. He therefore was suggesting that the wall appear to be 6 feet from the existing homes to protect privacy on both sides of the fence. Mr. Guerra thought it would be doable, but could end up with a 10-foot high wall on the senior project side. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the landscaping buffer could soften the appearance of the wall. Commissioner Melcher asked if Commissioner Lumpp was suggesting that the wall be built as a 10-foot fence, or suggesting that the wall be built so that the adjacent homeowner could fill his yard to a level condition. Commissioner Lumpp replied that on one hand he agreed with Mr. Guerra that the condition existed previous to this project, but he felt that if the wall is 10-feet high it will have enough strength in the bottom 3 to 4 feet to allow backfilling to that point. Commissioner Melcher noted that the design of the 10-foot wall is affected by whether there will be a surcharge against the bottom portion. Mr. Pitassi said that if the wall is 10 feet high, it should be constructed so that it is capable of retaining because the homeowners will retain against it. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is reasonable to request that the wall be a 6-foot wall from the finished grade of the adjacent lots. Commissioner McNiel did not recall ever having made a like requirement in the past. Mr. Buller said that other in-fill projects have had more flexible conditions where the applicant and the adjacent property owners have to meet and try to reconcile the issues. He said the language had therefore been more flexible so the City Planner could work with the developer as they work with the homeowners to come to an agreeable solution. He did not feel that the proposal made by Commissioner Lumpp would pose a problem in the sense of too high of a wall from the single family residential side. He thought they would desire a 6-foot wall from their side. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should make sure that the existing neighbors are protected because the City is allowing a three-story building which Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 25, 1995 ordinarily would not be in a residential area. He supported Commissioner Lumpp's suggestion. Mr. Buller suggested that the wording require a minimum 6-foot high masonry wall starting at the finished floor elevation of the garage or the finished grade of the property within 15 feet of the property line. The Commissioners felt that was reasonable. Mr. Murphy observed that the items were to be continued to the November 8 meeting and he felt that the height of the walls should be known by then. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Ms. Boone knew of other areas where a senior housing project was adjacent to residential development, and if so, what had been the experience with regards to privacy for the adjacent residents. Ms. Boone replied the senior complexes are generally adjacent to single family residential areas. She said the complexes are so well kept up and quiet that without exception, the neighboring residents are happy, certainly more so than if they were next to multi-family projects. She said she had never had a complaint about a senior project because they don't play loud music and they don't generally use their balconies other than for plants and objects. Commissioner Melcher remarked there would probably be no one working on their cars in the parking lot either. Commissioner McNiel commented that seniors generally close their drapes because they feel more secure. Ms. Boone agreed that was correct. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it is important that the balconies be available even if they are not used. Ms. Boone agreed. She thought this project will cause less of an impact so far as noise and traffic than if the area were to be developed as single family units. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to continue Development Agreement 95-01 and Development Review 95-22 to November 8, 1995. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried Chairman Barker asked that the applicant and staff address the wall issue prior to November 8. , , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -16- October 25, 1995 COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that Griffin Homes and Lewis Development had provided a conceptual itinerary for a tour of small lot subdivisions. He said the itinerary will have to be posted with specifics so that the general public knows where the Commission will be should they want to be there. He questioned when would be a good time for the Commissioners to attend. The Commission discussed the location of the sites and noted that the developers had only listed sites in Orange County. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commissioners could suggest any sites they may want to visit. He said the developers had selected sites which they feel represent successful projects to address the comments made by the Commissioners. Commissioner Melcher was concerned that projects in Orange County probably sold for $175,00 to $225,000 because the land values in Orange County are much higher. He thought the same products would be marketed in the local area in the $125,000 to $150,000 range. He indicated he had forwarded copies of articles regarding problems with small lot subdivisions in San Bernardino and Long Beach. He acknowledged that the articles dealt with apartment buildings, but he felt the Commission should be careful. He noted that the developers' goal is to sell houses while the Commission's goal is the long range health of the community. He feared that if a lot of product comes on the market in the lower price range it will demographically be tough on the City. Chairman Barker observed that the Commission wants to look at where it doesn't work as well. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission may want to take two separate field trips. He said staff is aware of some small lot projects in San Bernardino County and Riverside and one in Los Angeles County. Commissioner Tolstoy felt those projects would be more relevant. Commissioner Melcher felt the developers' tour would not show the negatives and he thought the Commission needs to see the bad projects as well in order to be objective. Chairman Barker thought the tour should be split in half with some projects selected by the developer and some by the City. He wanted to know where the tour will be going before agreeing to go. He feared that if a project works in Orange County but will not sell in our area for the same price, then it will attract different people and will not be the same project. Commissioner McNiel stated that the cost of a house when sold is totally unrelated to the cost of a house when it is built. He said the objective is not to meet demand, but to increase yield. chairman Barker noted that Griffin Homes and Lewis had combined their presentation merely to address the small lot concept. He noted that Lewis already has townhouses and condominiums approved on small lots. He observed that Griffin is planning to request a change of use from industrial to residential. He said the Commission is to look at the sites to consider the product type and the implications and impacts of that type of product, remembering that there will be other decisions as well. Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 25, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp agreed that the type of buyer in Orange County is significantly different from that in Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner McNiel felt developments in Moreno Valley and Fontana should be visited. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that there is a project in Pomona below the restaurant on the hill by the freeway. He asked if that was the type of project the Commission would be viewing. Chairman Barker commented that those are manufactured houses. Mr. Buller said that is not what the Commission will be visiting, It was the consensus of the Commission that the tour destinations should be further defined before agreeing to a date. Mr. Buller said that the market study should be presented on November 8. He suggested the Commission may wish to briefly discuss the study and continue the matter to a later meeting. He said staff's goal is to still forward the market study to City Council at their first meeting in December. Commissioner Lumpp felt that the Commissioners will need time after a presentation by the consultant to mull over the study and then ask questions at a second meeting before forwarding comments to the City Council. He thought it most important that the Commission feel comfortable with the study. It was the consensus of the Commission that a meeting would be held on November 29 in lieu of the regularly scheduled November 22 date because of a lack of quorum on November 22. Mr. Buller observed that an adult day care center had been approved at the City Planner Hearing and a Commissioner had asked for a definition of adult day care. He said it is similar to child care except that it is for seniors or other adults. Commissioner Melcher said it was his concept that it is a place where someone can be taken while the care giver goes to work. Mr. Buller said that was correct. He said the applicant had walked door-to-door on the block to introduce themselves and answer any questions. Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the facility will be located. Mr. Buller replied that it is in the Reiter project near Haven and Seventh Avenue. Commissioner Melcher observed that when the McDonalds project was approved, he had quizzed the applicant in detail about the trees on the site. He said the trees are now gone and the berm is also gone. He recalled that the project had been conditioned to save the trees and the berm, and he asked what the City will do regarding the situation. He also commented that the trees are still in place Planning Commission Minutes -18- October 25, 1995 by the corner monument next to Applebee's and he asked that staff attempt to do something to be sure those trees are protected. Chairman Barker asked what clout the City has when trees are removed. Mr. Buller said that if the original plans show the trees are to remain and no permit has been granted to remove the trees, the applicant will have to replace them in kind and in size. Commissioner Melcher felt that the minute record of the meeting should be sufficient even if the trees are not shown on the plan. Commissioner Lumpp said one of his biggest concerns was the berm and he wanted to be sure it is put back. Commissioner Melcher felt McDonald's would say that the trees had all died by the time they started. He acknowledged the trees were not extremely healthy, but he felt they should have been retained. Commissioner McNiel recalled that McDonald's had shown a simulated photo overlay removing the bank building and placed McDonald's there with the existing landscaping and trees. Commissioner Lumpp asked for a status update on what is going on at the K-Mart Center. He observed that it looks terrible. Mr. Buller responded that the Building & Safety Department (through Code Enforcement) is working with representatives of K-Mart. He stated that K-Mart has been liquidating some of their locations, but City staff did not know if that location had been sold. He indicated that K-Mart's facility maintenance personnel have agreed to put the irrigation back on and have a gardener, but results have not been seen. He said the Ponderosa site is not under the same ownership, and staff is therefore dealing with two different owners with the same problem. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there is not a condition requiring that the property be maintained. He felt Haven Avenue is one of the premier boulevards in the community. Mr. Buller replied that was correct, but indicated enforcement is difficult. He said City staff can let an owner know they are in violation and if no action is taken, the City can use the limited nuisance abatement funds. He stated a lien can be placed on the property to recover the money when it is sold. He said that unfortunately, the nuisance abatement funds were used on the Backwaters's site. He stated the best the City can do is cut down the weeds and remove the graffiti, but it is too expensive to irrigate and replant. Chairman Barker felt the City should take action before the landscaping has died, so that it would not be so expensive. Mr. Buller said that Code Enforcement had contacted K-Mart even before the store closed. Commissioner Lumpp said the intent may be good, but the results are not there. Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker thought the City should do something earlier and attach a lien on the property while the landscaping is still alive. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 10:08 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -20- October 25, 1995