No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/07/22 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 22, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jerry Grant, Building Official; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the Commission would be meeting on August 12, 1992, from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. to conduct a workshop on Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 - U. S. Home Corporation. He commented that the project had been appealed to City Council and the Council had continued the item to September 2, 1992, to allow the applicant to make some revisions to their proposed project. He reported the Council had directed that the Planning Commission review and comment on the revisions before the matter returned to the City Council. He remarked that the plans were to be submitted to the City by July 31. Mr. Buller announced that Commissioner John Melcher had passed his American Institute of Certified Planners test. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, passed 4-0-0-1 with Vallette abstaining, to adopt the minutes of June 24, 1992. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously passed, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of June 30, 1992. CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 12275 - (VAUGHN} BELYEU - A request for an extension of a previously approved subdivision of 1.04 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Pepper Street - APN: 208-162-30 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously passed, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE 92-02 - SILVA - A request to reduce the required interior side yard setback from 5 feet to 6 inches from the property line for a single family home in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 10077 Ironwood Street - APN: 1077-041-64. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be necessary to cut back the roof overhang if the applicant were to modify the carport by relocating the posts to be 5 feet clear of the property line. Jerry Grant, Building Official, responded that the Development Code requires a 2-1/2 foot clearance from the property line. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tamalyn Silva and Dave Silva, 10077 Ironwood Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had pulled permits. She said that when they first pulled the permits, they were informed they had to stay 5 feet off the property line. She said they went back to the Building & Safety department with the concrete contractor and got it approved to go to the property line; however, the City could not locate that paperwork. Dave Silva, 10077 Ironwood Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the plans showed three piers with three posts and when it was inspected, the Building & Safety inspector required a continuous footing across the back side and requested a stucco one-hour fire wall on the property line. He said the footings got passed off and they then went to the roof nailing inspection. Mrs. Silva stated they were required to hot mop the roof instead of using shingles. Mr. Silva remarked that at the time of the roof nailing inspection, the inspector wrote a reminder to be sure the outside wall was stucco, as per plan. He said they followed that plan. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 22, 1992 Mrs. Silva said the wall had to be a continuous wall up to the roof to preclude a fire from entering under the roof line. Mr. Silva commented that there is a light pole 7 feet off the driveway and a Southern California Edison meter at the end of his house. He said his boat is 27 feet, 6 inches long and his truck is 21 feet long and there would be no possible way to back the boat in if the 5-foot setback were enforced. He also noted that his boat trailer is 8 feet, 6 inches wide and the carport area would only be 9 feet, 6 inches wide with the 5-foot setback. He said they had run out of money at one time and not finished the project. Mrs. Silva said that her brother-in-law is a professional driver of semi- tractor trailers and he said he might be able to back the boat in if he tried for an hour. Chairman McNiel noted that Building & Safety did not have the authority to approve the change in setback. He commented that the applicant had a very large boat and it appeared they were trying to fit a large boat in an area that may not be large enough. He did not feel the Commission could make the appropriate findings to justify the variance just because the boat is large. Mr. Silva stated that there is a 12-foot separation to his neighbor's house even if his carport goes to 6 inches from the property line. Chairman McNiel noted that the purpose of the side yard setbacks is to protect neighbors from building up to the property line. Mrs. Silva stated they wanted to stucco a wall between the existing posts and install a wrought iron gate in the front. She remarked that they had requested permits because they knew permits would be required. Chairman McNiel questioned if the permit had not expired. Mr. Silva stated they had requested an extension on the original permit, but then did not finish. The Silvas showed a video of backing in the boat. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked if the light pole could be moved by the applicant. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated a light pole can normally be moved up to 10 feet without damage to the spacing of other street lights, but it would be necessary to move this particular pole more than 10 feet because of other utilities in the way. Commissioner Melcher noted that the Commission must make certain legal findings in order to grant a variance. He did not feel any of the findings could be made. He thought the City's side yard regulations are prudent and the Commission had an obligation to the community to uphold the regulations. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Vallette noted that the light pole is an unusual condition and that placement could perhaps justify the finding of a hardship. She observed that the applicant had gone to the expense of putting up the structure and she felt there was a need to address the additional width needed to accommodate the boat. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked there were very good reasons for having side yard rules and one of those reasons is the danger of fire spreading from one building to another when structures are too close together. He also believed there should be room between structures so that fire equipment could have access if necessary. He noted that with the 12-foot separation from the neighbor's house there could be access for fire equipment. Commissioner Melcher noted that if the variance were granted on the basis of the distance to the neighbor's house, the neighbor would be precluded from building up to his legal 5-foot setback line. Commissioner Chitiea felt the light post appeared to be set back in the yard further from the street than in most instances. She respected Commissioner Tolstoy's arguments for fire safety, but noted there are other places with only 5 feet between structures. She observed that the applicant was trying to store the boat in the side yard, as the City prefers. She felt that even though the structure had been built inconsistent with standards, the location of the light pole could be used to justify the granting of a variance. Mr. Buller noted that the 5-foot setback is required for a variety of reasons including privacy and separation of structures within a neighborhood as well as public safety. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that the structure which had been erected is highly flammable. Mr. Buller stated the applicants had apparently made some revisions to the carport while it was being constructed to reduce the fire hazard at the direction of the Building & Safety department. Commissioner Vallette asked if the applicant could be directed to bring the structure into compliance with fire regulations. Mr. Buller said the applicant would have to pull the proper permits and pay the appropriate fees if the variance were granted. Chairman McNiel felt the Commission was being asked to grant a variance when the conditions which existed prior to the purchase of the boat dictated that such a large boat would not fit properly. He noted that the light pole and mouth of the driveway had been in existence before purchase of the boat. He did not feel there were sufficient grounds for granting a variance just because the applicant bought a large boat. He did not feel the City should redesign ordinances or grant variances when to do so would infringe on the rights of the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff ever heard from the adjacent property owner. Ms. Fong responded that no calls had been received from any neighbors. Commissioner Melcher stated that the motion he was about to make was not intended to be vindictive toward the applicant, but he felt the Commission had certain responsibilities to the community as a whole. He thought that if the variance were granted, it would set a precedent for negating side yard setbacks for every side yard in the City or at the very least every side yard where there is a light pole in the front yard. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution denying Variance 92-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY CHITIEA, VALLETTE NONE -carried , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-19 - ATCO STRUCTURES, INC. - The request to establish a Heavy Equipment Sales and Rentals operation on 10.37 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial district (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-143-08. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Rod Page, District Manager, Atco Structures, Inc., P. O. Box 50-150, Ontario, thanked the staff members for their assistance in putting the package together. He indicated he was surprised to see a requirement for an 8-foot block wall along the back since they had been led to believe that a wrought iron fence on top of a 3-foot block wall would be an acceptable alternative. He noted that the block wall was being requested to screen the site, and he felt the four rows of trees along the area would provide sufficient screening in combination with the wrought iron/block wall fence. He said they were improving the property because it suits their image and they felt the wrought iron fencing would be more aesthetically pleasing. He thought a wrought iron fence would be less vulnerable from a security standpoint. He requested approval of the project with a modification to permit a 3-foot block wall topped by a 5-foot wrought iron fence. Chairman McNiel questioned the adequacy of the lighting in the lot behind the fence. Mr. Page said there is security lighting around the perimeter of the lot and a wrought iron fence would permit light to enter the fenced area. Thomas Webb, landscape architect, 24 West Big Springs, Riverside, asked for clarification rega=ding the street lights would have to be installed along Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 22, 1992 Jersey Boulevard. He said it was his understanding they would not have to underground utilities. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated they would be responsible for full underground improvements along the parkway, including installation of the marbelite street lights standards. Mr. Webb asked if that would mean underground utilities. Mr. James responded the service to the lights is underground. Mr. Webb stated there is existing overhead lines in the area. Mr. James said they would have to be undergrounded. Chairman McNiel stated that was a standard condition. Mr. Webb stated he understood, but the applicant had questioned if those improvements were necessary because there would be no new buildings, merely utilization of an existing building. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked about the change in the wall specifications. Mr. Ross responded that staff had initially indicated the wrought iron fence on top of the 3-foot block wall would be acceptable because the fence is located at least 120 feet from the street and the proposed fence would meet the minimum requirements for the subarea. He noted the purpose of the wall is to screen the storage area from the street and the requirement for a solid wall had been added at the time the staff report was reviewed. He said the change had been made in accordance with general planning policy encouraging solid walls for screening of storage areas. Chairman McNiel questioned the density of the landscaping. Mr. Ross said the current landscaping is not the final landscaping. He noted shrubs would probably be included. Commissioner Chitiea felt there is a visible difference between the projects developed prior to City standards and what is being constructed today. She said more recent developments have greater screening and more attractive landscaping and those items enhance the boulevard. She noted that where it is possible to see the various items stored, it detracts from the street. She supported the 8-foot high block wall because it would provide better screening. She thought perhaps a compromise could be offered of a 5-foot high block wall with 3 feet of wrought iron on top. Commissioner Vallette stated it is typical policy not to have landscaping mitigate some of the visual impacts. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the issue is screening. He said that in the past there have been occasions where a developer was permitted to use landscaping material to screen. He felt that many times those people responsible for maintaining the landscaping do not understand the landscaping was intended to screen, and the landscaping is severely pruned with unfortunate visual impacts. He acknowledged that 120 feet is a long way, but he felt screening is important and he thought the block wall would be appropriate. Chairman McNiel agreed. He noted that a wrought iron fence with properly maintained landscaping ~ay be more aesthetically pleasing, but he noted that trailers will be stored in the yard and he felt the solid block wall would be better. Commissioner Tolstoy felt adequate screening is especially important because there is a change of use on the other side of Jersey Boulevard. Commissioner Vallette agreed with the block wall. Commissioner Melcher felt the use is very worthwhile and he commented he was glad to see the property will be improved. He stated he supported the Commission's desire to screen such uses but he suggested that the policy be written to avoid misleading a developer during the planning process. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a negative declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-19. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried , , , , MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-04 - ETIWANDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to construct a 2,500 square foot barn on the Chaffey-Garcia site to be used as a museum and caretaker's residence on a 1 acre site in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Base Line Road - APN: 227-513-05. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there had been a barn near the Chaffey Garcia house at its original location. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the plans were similar to the original barn. Mr. Murphy stated the plans were as close as possible according to the details available. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 22, 1992 Jim Banks, 10788 Civic Center Drive, #108, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was speaking on behalf of the Etiwanda Historical Society as Jim Clark could not be at the meeting. Mr. Banks said the Historical Society agreed with the report and conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy asked who would build the barn. Mr. Banks stated the job would have to go out to bid because it is considered a public works project. He said that although the Society members do small jobs all the .ime, the barn will be built by a contractor. Commissioner Melcher asked when the parking lot will be built. Mr. Banks stated they have wanted to build the parking lot for a long time and it would be a logical flow for it to be constructed right after the barn. He said the reconstruction of the inside of the house is on track and they are about to publish a notice to invite reconstruction. He said they have planted some of the trees but held off on the shrubs and lawn until after construction is finished. Commissioner Melcher hoped adequate parking facilities will be available before any significant opening of the buildings to the public. Mr. Banks agreed that would be best, but he noted that much of their work is done by volunteers. Commissioner Melcher commented that the house looks better now than it did before it was moved. Commissioner Chitiea remarked that she had been on the Design Review Committee when the project was reviewed and she was amazed at the planning involved in terms of historical aspects and the carefully thought out plans for the future. She felt it will be a wonderful addition to the community that may be utilized by a lot of people in the future. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Modification to Conditional Use Permit 85-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-37 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC. - A request to construct a 3,275 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-151-21 Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 22, 1992 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette asked if the matter would be returned to the Design Review Committee if the conceptual site plan were approved. Mr. Murphy felt that if the Commission supported the use, staff could prepare a resolution addressing the concerns that had been raised at previous meetings on other drive-thrus. He said if the Commission desired, the project could be returned to Design Review. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tom Oley, Carl Karcher Enterprises, 1200 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, stated a master plan had been approved in 1990 with a fast food restaurant on the pad in question. He said the building orientation shown on the master plan was the same as what they were proposing. He noted that the short side of the drive-thru lane is along Milliken and said he felt the proposed lattice will provide adequate screening. He remarked that the drive-thru lane would probably only be full during about 1-1/2 hours per day. He felt there had been definite implied approval when the master plan was approved. He said when they submitted a second set of drawings to the Design Review Committee, they were told the use may not be appropriate. He felt they had acted in good faith to address all the issues which had been raised. He requested the Planning Commission approve the concept with any additional changes to be made at an administrative level. Commissioner Chitiea noted that the Design Review Committee had requested a revised color palette. She asked if one had been submitted. Mr. Murphy responded that the revised color board was hanging on the wall. Commissioner Chitiea did not feel the awning colors were appropriate. Commissioner Melcher noted the screen wall on the site plan extended almost to the end of the building whereas on the elevation it did not extend that far. Mr. Oley responded that the intent was for the wall to extend to almost the end of the building, as depicted on the site plan. Commissioner Vallette asked the location of the designated loading area. Mr. Murphy replied there is none and the applicant had indicated they can specify smaller trucks for deliveries. Commissioner Vallette asked through which entry the goods would be delivered. Mr. Oley replied deliveries would be made at the Milliken entry. He noted that smaller trucks could easily make the turn and they would typically have deliveries only during off hours. Commissioner Tolstoy observed there are several of their restaurants in the City. He felt they would be more apt to use larger trucks to service all of the facilities. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 22, 1992 Mr. Oley said the service facility is located in Anaheim and it would not be a problem to utilize smaller trucks with more frequent deliveries. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the delivery trucks would not be taking up parking spaces. Mr. Oley replied they could hatchmark the area as no parking. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they had considered the winds coming from the north when planning the outside eating area. Mr. Oley said they feel the outdoor eating area will primarily be used only in summer and fall, so they were not too concerned about the winds. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if they had thought about providing shade for the outdoor seating. Mr. Oley replied they had considered providing shade but felt that most people who eat outside want sun. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he personally tries to sit outside, but he does not wish to sit in full sun. He asked if the applicant would be willing to provide some type of a shade structure. Mr. Oley responded they would prefer not to, but would be willing to research the matter. He noted that the building had been significantly enhanced since it was first submitted. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt that recent Commission action with regard to the fast food restaurant to be located near Milliken and Highland would negate the Commission's objections with regard to the drive-thru so long as the screen wall is extended. He was concerned about deliveries and noted that the applicant's off-hour deliveries would have to coincide with off-hours for the other businesses in the area. He felt the conditions should include a provision that if any of the main drive aisles or parking areas used by other tenants are obstructed, that would constituted grounds for revocation of the permit. He felt the site plan is workable. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Melcher's comments regarding deliveries. She was concerned about the choice of colors shown on the revised color palette. She objected to the shade of red in the awnings and the trim and felt the colors need to be more consistent with the balance of the center. She agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy's comments regarding shade. She felt shade should be provided for a portion of the area with perhaps a combination of landscaping and/or trellis. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission was acting too quickly on the project. She thought site plan issues other than the drive aisle should be addressed. She was concerned with the proximity of the play area to the main drive aisle (5 fee~). She thought the plans should return to the Design Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 22, 1992 Review Committee for more detail on the landscaping and outdoor play/eating area. She also asked how significant the landscaping would be on the east side of the building, as she commented that would be one of the main views as the center is exited. Mr. Murphy noted that there is a 5-foot sidewalk with 5 feet of landscaping between the curb and the building. Commissioner Vallette said the drive-thru and the mitigation measures regarding visibility from Milliken are fine, but she felt the site is too small and the building is pushed too close to the main drive aisle. Commissioner Tolstoy said he had already voiced his comments regarding shade. He felt the Commission should re-evaluate the drive-thru criteria. He said he was willing to accept the applicant's plans regarding deliveries for this site, but he felt the Commission needs to further study how deliveries can be made and how drive-thru lanes can be better integrated into such projects. He thought the Commission should perhaps consider larger lots for future projects to allow more landscaping between the buildings and parking lots. He felt that pads designated for a drive-thru should be more carefully studied with regard to configuration when new site plans for any shopping center are reviewed. He said the Commission had already approved the concept of a fast food restaurant in this location. He supported the project so long as shade is considered and a better color palette is presented. Commissioner Vallette noted that the policy requires a minimum 2,500 square foot facility and the proposed facility is 3,275 square feet. She stated her concerns with the site plan have to do with how far it impacts the drive aisle and how close the restaurant and play area come to the main drive aisle. She did not support the project unless it returned to the Design Review Committee to address those issues. Chairman McNiel felt Commissioner Tolstoy had made some excellent comments with respect to the Commission's approach to drive-thrus. He agreed the restaurant was being built on a minimum lot size, but he felt it met the criteria and would be an asset to the community. He supported the project. He reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-37 to August 12, 1992, to allow staff to prepare a resolution of approval with appropriate conditions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE NONE -carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:40 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 22, 1992 ENVIRONMEN-TAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-21 - L. A. CELLULAR - The development of a cellular telecommunications facility consisting of a 10-foot by 10-foot equipment building and a 60-foot monopole antenna located on a fully developed industrial site in the General Industrial district (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9320 Hyssop Drive - APN: 229-321-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked the height of the adjacent existing building. Ms. Nissen replied it is approximately 22-25 feet. Commissioner Vallette asked if the monopole is to be a single color. Ms. Nissen responded that the Design Review Committee felt it would be less obtrusive if it were painted a single color to match the building. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Linda Paul, L. A. Cellular, Box 6028, Cerritos, indicated they had chosen the site because of its proximity to the freeway. She stated they service the freeway call box system. Chairman McNiel asked if all of their poles are 60 feet tall. Ms. Paul stated the height of the pole varies depending upon the topography of the land. She stated their radio frequency department had determined the height for this location should be 60 feet in order to provide adequate service. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible for a shorter pole. Ms. Paul responded that the Public Utilities Commission requires them to provide optimum service and it was determined a 60-foot pole would be necessary. Chairman McNiel asked how the area is currently functioning without the antenna. Ms. Paul indicated there is currently extremely poor service. She said there is an increasing need for the service by public service agencies such as police, fire, ambulance services, etc. She said an example is the Riverside County Fire Department which currently utilizes 200 phones. She said there are several gaps within the system which need to be filled to avoid dropped calls, interference, and cross talk. Chairman McNiel asked if the antenna top will be enclosed with cowling. Ms. Paul responded that L. A. Cellular feels that those sites with cowling around the top of the antenna become more obvious because the cowling creates more surface area. Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 22, 1992 Chairman McNiel asked if the same antenna could be shared by various companies. Ms. Paul replied they do not because their technologies are different. Chairman McNiel asked if the City would then receive applications from PacTel and other operators. Ms. Paul indicated there are currently only two competitors in the four counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino. She described the antenna. She recommended the antenna not be covered. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how many more installations the City could expect to receive. Ms. Paul stated they will not proliferate in great numbers. She said the technology has evolved to increase the number of calls each site can handle. She said as the technology progresses, the height may be reduced. She felt there would probably be 10 miles between sites. She said another cell site is being proposed in Riverside County near the intersection of I-lO and 1-15. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was on the Design Review Committee and he felt the project had been sited with utmost care. Chairman McNiel felt the antennae are ugly but he recognized the need. He thought the antenna should be painted smog gray rather than pastel blue. He suggested the item be returned as a Consent Calendar item to determine if the antenna should be encased with cowling. Commissioner Chitiea felt that would be appropriate. Commissioner Melcher indicated that he and Commissioner Tolstoy had felt during Design Review that what was presented was acceptable. Mr. Buller noted there are large utility lines as a backdrop to the site. Chairman McNiel said he was agreeable to not having the item return to the Commission. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a negative declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-21. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 22, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of 32 buildings totaling approximately 268,907 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park district (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. Associated with the project is Parcel Map 13845. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13845 - MASI - A subdivision of 30.2 acres of land into 31 parcels in the Industrial Park district (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229- 011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. Associated with this project is Conditional Use Permit 91-24. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Vintner's Walk would be in Phase I. Ms. Nissen replied that staff proposed it be included with the Foothill Boulevard improvements, which would be part of Phase I. Commissioner Vallette asked if the designs had been through Planning Commission Design Review or through the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Nissen replied they had been reviewed by a subcommittee of Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission members and the subcommittee's recommendations were forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission, which granted conceptual approval with staff to do further review of the details of the project. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Masi family would be depicted in the Vintner's Walk. Ms. Nissen responded one end of the Vintner's Walk will have a story board of the Masi family. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was a condition requiring that grass or ground cover be planted on all the parcels along Foothill Boulevard which will not be developed with Phase I. Ms. Nissen responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City will be exercising any control over the preparation of the graphics, artwork, and text of the interpretive exhibits. He felt that a specialist in the field should provide those items. Ms. Nissen replied that the Historic Preservation Commission felt comfortable in allowing staff to review the details of how the historical displays will be put together and what they will contain. Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Metchef felt there are many technfcal and artfstfc aspects to be considered; such as how it will endure in weather including rafn, sun, and air gualfty; etc. He did not want a dfsplay that would become useless in a matter of a few years. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Mannerino, 9333 Base Line Road, #110, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced project owners and developers, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Masi; project comptroller Michael Scandiffio; project architects Byron Pinckert and John De Frenza; engineer Todd Bremner; landscape architect Ray Diesell; and Broker Doug Nye from Bishop Hawk. Jack Masi, 5416 Electric Avenue, San Bernardino, stated he was anxious to get the project started. He indicated he had a lender and several tenants. He showed a wax sculpture of a figure he planned to include in Vintner's Walk. Mr. Mannerino noted that the development of the infrastructure and the development of Vintner's Walk in Phase I would significantly impact the economics of the project. Michael Scandiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, discussed the proposed phasing plan. He said Phase I would include the auto court area, Jack In The Box, and a 4,000 square foot restaurant on the northwest corner of the site. He estimated they would start their second phase within three to four months of Phase I and Phase II would be the northeast corner of the site. He said the Vintner's Walk would be located between Phases I and II. He remarked the third phase would be the center of the site and Phase IV would be the entire southern area. He said they intended to construct "B" Street (Masi Drive) in connection with Phase I. He said the conditions also require that all of the improvements along Foothill Boulevard be installed with Phase I. He noted that Rochester Avenue has been substantially improved in connection with the sports park with the exception of sidewalk, irrigation, and landscaping. He discussed the Vintner's Walk concept. He acknowledged Commissioner Melcher's concerns about weathering and indicated they are experimenting with a few processes including a photographic process whereby a print is made on a wall. He noted Planning Condition 7 requires installation of the public art with Phase I. He said the statues along Vintner's Walk will be somewhat delicate and he feared they may be vandalized prior to construction of the adjacent buildings or damaged during construction of the second phase. He requested they be able to construct Vintner's Walk in connection with Phase II. He said the total construction cost of buildings for the first phase as they propose it will be $2.4 million and the entire project's construction cost is approximately $13 million. He said the total development fee costs are $1.4 million and Phase I development fees are approximately $434 thousand, while the total Phase I costs including development fees, plan check costs, Foothill Boulevard median, Foothill Boulevard improvements, additional Rochester work, and Masi Drive work total $928 thousand against construction costs of $1.4 million. He felt lenders would be very reluctant to include such heavy infrastructure costs in connection with the Phase I development. He objected to the requirement to construct the median in Foothill Boulevard. He said the conditions were written so that if CalTrans permits Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 22, 1992 construction, the median and 32 feet of pavement on the opposite side of the median will be constructed at a cost of approximately $162 thousand. He said if CalTrans will not permit them to build the median, they are then required to pay an in-lieu fee toward half the cost of the median, or $78 thousand. He said the median strains the first phase and the costs may be higher because CalTrans may require them to reconstruct the entire street because of a low point in the current street. He felt it is a small segment and would be better built by Lewis. He said it would be better if they could pay the in- lieu fee for the median and improve their half of the street and have Lewis Homes build the median when the median is extended down to Rochester. He said the City could give their in-lieu fees to Lewis. He felt if they constructed the Foothill Boulevard median, Lewis may change the design after doing their grading. He said they planned to petition CalTrans for a median at Foothill Boulevard where it intersects with Masi Drive and they would have to add 12 feet on the north side of Foothill Boulevard (the Lewis side) in order to create more road bed, so they could install a painted median. He requested that Engineering Conditions 2b and 2c requiring the median between Rochester Avenue and Masi Drive and the 32 feet of pavement on the north side of the median, be deleted and Condition 3, permitting the in-lieu fee, remain. He objected to Engineering Condition 9 requiring an in-lieu fee for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Masi Drive and Foothill Boulevard. He said they would be pursuing a traffic signal. He said it was not clear if the light is in the City's Master Plan. He thought the other signals in the area are in the City's Special Assessment District so that developers receive a credit. He said it seemed to be a light that only Lewis and Masi want with the support of staff. He questioned why they would have to pay an in-lieu fee of $50,000 when it is not in the City's Special Assessment District and perhaps not in the City's General Plan. He felt the burden is on them to obtain the light because they need the signal to make the project work properly. Chairman McNiel noted that was why they had ._ae accompanying burden. Mr. Scandiffio noted that Engineering Condition 4 requires that all of Rochester Avenue be constructed with Phase I. He remarked that a good part of Rochester has a delicate, decorative streetscape going up to the buildings, so he requested they be permitted to install the sidewalk, landscaping, street trees, and irrigation at the time of Phase II. Otherwise, he feared they would be damaged during construction of Phase II. He objected to Planning Condition 9 requiring that landscaping from the sidewalk to the curb face along the entirety of Masi Drive be completed prior to occupancy of the last building of Phase I. He requested they be permitted to construct the street but delay installation of the sidewalks and landscaping until construction of the adjacent phases because he feared it would be subject to being damaged during construction. Mr. Mannerino requested approval of the project with their recommended changes. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy noted that one of his great concerns has been with parking lots becoming more prominent along Foothill Boulevard. He did not see anything on the submitted drawings that would mitigate that concern. He said there were many areas that do not appear to be finalized in the design. Commissioner Vallette recalled during the workshop there had been discussion regarding the streetscape along Foothill Boulevard and whether it should be parking or buildings. She thought it had been determined it should be parking, but it should be heavily bermed. Chairman McNiel agreed the first presentation had been for buildings and plazas along Foothill Boulevard, but there were questions about the functionality of the project. He said the project was redesigned to incorporate parking between the buildings. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled those discussions and said he agreed parking would be necessary in those locations, but he wanted the parking to be somewhat shielded from the traffic on Foothill Boulevard. Chairman McNiel asked the berm height along Foothill Boulevard. Ms. Nissen said it is approximately 3 feet adjacent to Jack In The Box and the Texaco station. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what it would be adjacent to Phase II. Ms. Nissen noted it would have Vintner's Walk and the seat wall. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Byron Pinckert, Hill, Pinckert Architects, 16969 Von Karman Avenue, #105, Irvine, said that a berm occurs between Foothill Boulevard and the Vintner's Walk and a low wall will sit against the berm. He noted trellis work will go over the walk with vines on the trellis. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there are users for the other buildings. John De Frenza, Hill, Pinckert Architects, 16969 Von Karman Avenue, #105, Irvine, said they are in negotiations. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea remarked she had the privilege of being involved in the various sessions and the subcommittee meeting with Historic Preservation Commissioners had been very enlightening as to how the project will work. She remarked that the phasing plan had been presented at the previous week's Design Review Committee meeting. She felt it is imperative that public improvements be installed with Phase I. She had mixed feelings about whether the Vintner's Walk should be built with Phase I because she understood the the argument for postponing it. She compared the project to Terra Vista Town Center, noting that trellis work and public art have been installed with grass behind, presenting-an attractive streetscape while awaiting construction of Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 22, 1992 the adjacent buildings. She feared that some of the buildings in Phase II would not be built for some time and observed that the sports park and hotel will be built. She thought it important to have the public connections to the project from the other facilities. She realized it may create a large burden on Phase I and thought perhaps Phase I should be enlarged to incorporate more buildings. She thought an in-lieu fee for the median may be an option. Commissioner Vallette asked if the subcommittee had reviewed the artwork for the Vintner's Walk. Commissioner Chitiea stated they had reviewed examples of work by the artists being suggested and the suggested locations were reviewed. She said they had come to mutual agreement with regard to the type, location, and appropriateness, as well as the design of the archways and the planrings. Commissioner Vallette noted she had been impressed with the grapes in the original proposal. Commissioner Chitiea noted that would be incorporated within the walkway with various items along the walk and at the terminus. Chairman McNiel again opened the public hearing. Mr. De Frenza said they are still working with the graphic designer to design the logo for the complex and finalize the name for the complex. Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be incorporated on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. De Frenza said they have prepared a project identity sign with a circular form as logo in the signage. He said they would be showing that as part of the Uniform Sign Program application. Chairman McNiel recalled that the Historic Preservation asked to be involved in the content of the interpretive signage along Vintner°s Walk to ensure the text is valid. Commissioner Chitiea proposed that the landscaping should be included up to the sidewalk with Phase I while the landscaping behind the sidewalk could wait until Phase II, so long as the area is hydroseeded and irrigated. Mr. De Frenza felt it was the Historic Preservation Commission's opinion that it was their decision to review the text of information being presented on the boards. He concurred with Mr. Scandiffio that it would be better to construct the Vintner's Walk with Phase II. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette stated she was comfortable with the proposed phasing and was willing to consider some of the concerns of the applicant. She said she was pleased with the architecture and expressed appreciation for the architect's willingness to work with the Commission. She thought the Historic Planning Commission Minutes -18- July 22, 1992 Preservation Commission should work with the applicant so far as the walls along the Vintner's Walk but felt the Planning Commission should be involved with some of the artwork and agreed with Commissioner Melcher that it is important to be sure that the artwork is of the appropriate materials so it will age well. Commissioner Melcher noted that the technical aspects are important, art is the purview of the artist, and the material presented would be the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. However, he felt a professional should be involved to be sure that everything is put together properly or the message will be meaningless. He said he had done some museum work and is aware of what it takes to interpret things successfully. He felt the attention span of most pedestrians in the area would not be conducive to reading long blocks of text. He therefore felt it is important to employ an expert to be sure it is done properly. Chairman McNiel noted that Mr. Scandiffio had discussed the median in Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission's responsibility is to see to proper planning. He supported staff's recommendations and felt the applicant's objection should be addressed by the City Council. Chairman Vallette noted the condition is typical with requirements of other developers in the City and she supported staff's recommendation. Chairman McNiel commented that the applicant had questioned the need for the in-lieu fee for the traffic signal at Masi Drive and Foothill Boulevard. He felt that if Masi Drive were not being constructed and the applicant did not wish to stop traffic to provide better access to their project, there would be no need for a traffic signal. He thought the signal serves only as a function of the project. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, noted the applicant is conditioned to pay the in-lieu fee prior to the recordation of the map but if they pursue the signal and have it approved by CalTrans, that would meet the intent of the condition and an improvement agreement would guarantee installation of the signal. He felt Engineering staff would have the authority to negate the requirement to pay the in-lieu fee because the intent would be met. Shintu Bose, Deputy Engineer, stated the condition was written to require the in-lieu fee because staff feels CalTrans will not approve the signal until the northerly leg of the street is built and the median is completed to the end of the block. Chairman McNiel observed that experience has shown that phases do not necessarily get constructed in the order originally planned. He noted that the applicant had requested that the sidewalk and landscaping along Rochester Avenue be incorporated with Phase II. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Chitiea's point that pedestrian connections to other developments in the area are important and he felt the improvements should remain in Phase I. Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 22, 1992 The remaining Commissioners concurred. Chairman McNiel noted the applicant had requested that Vintner's Walk be constructed in conjunction with Phase II. Commissioner Chitiea felt it should be with Phase I. Commissioner Melcher felt it could go with Phase II. He agreed that a suitable level of development be placed at the corner but he felt the Vintner's Walk will be well off the corner and out of the public right-of- way. He thought it could wait until the development of the contiguous phase. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that the building pad sites could be parceled off and the burden would be too great to be placed on a small project with the result that the Vintner's Walk may not be built. She felt the Vintner's Walk is part of the mitigation agreement to build the entire project and she feared changing economic times may preclude it from being constructed. She agreed construction would not need to reach up to the proposed buildings until they are built. She noted there are no surrounding buildings to the sculpture and trellis work at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and she felt that site has been an improvement. Commissioner Vallette concurred with Commissioner Chitiea. Commissioner Tolstoy felt Vintner's Walk and the statues should not be constructed until the surrounding buildings are built. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to combine Parcels 25, 26, and 27 to preclude the selling off and individual development of the parcels. He noted that Commissioner Chitiea had raised a valid point that the parcels may be sold and developed separately with the argument that the cost of constructing Vintner's Walk is too great for an individual parcel. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that was a valid concern. However, he felt there may be vandalism if there is no building in proximity to the improvements. He felt that installing statues without the adjacent buildings would invite vandalism. He also wanted to be sure Vintner's Walk is constructed. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the Commission may wish to have the walkway and public improvements completed with Phase I. He felt the area where the statue will be installed could be constructed with the walkway but the commissioned art could be put in storage and not installed until the adjacent buildings are constructed. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there had been any vandalism to the large sculpture at Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller responded that he had not heard of any. Chairman McNiel noted that the parcel identified as Phase II is a separate entity. He wondered if the walk would ever be built if not included with Phase I. He was not sure there would be a problem with vandalism. Planning Commission Minutes -20- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy felt there would be vandalism in that location, especially with people going to and from the sports complex. Chairman McNiel felt there will be adequate parking at the complex. He indicated he would like to delay the installation of the walk but was concerned it may not be built. Commissioner Chitiea felt the area will be a gateway to the sports complex. She felt it will make a statement that more development is planned instead of leaving an empty appearance. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue is an important intersection, but he did not feel it can be compared to Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. Chairman McNiel recapped that Commissioners Tolstoy and Melcher favored delaying the construction while Commissioner Vallette, Chitiea, and he favored the installation with Phase I. He noted the applicant had requested that the landscaping and sidewalk along Masi Drive be deferred until construction of the contiguous phases. Commissioner Melcher noted that the proposed phasing plan had included a temporary cul-de-sac south of Phase I, but the conditions now require that all of Masi Drive be built, including the east-west section. Mr. Buller agreed that was correct. Commissioner Vallette indicated that she did not oppose deferring the landscaping on the east-west section. Commissioner Chitiea felt it should be left as conditioned. Commissioner Melcher favored installing the landscape and sidewalks with Phase I. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Vallette requested that Planning Condition 7 be revised to require that the commissioned public art and interpretive public displays be reviewed by the Planning Commission instead of the City Planner. She wanted to see that some of the original art proposals are incorporated into the final design. Mr. Buller stated that if any aspect of what was presented were to change, he would not approve the plans without returning to the Historic Preservation and Planning Commissions. Commissioner Chitiea felt the condition should incorporate the concerns of both Commissioners Vallette and Melcher, which would require the Commission to see the entire package before final approval. Planning Commission Minutes -21- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Melcher noted he did not feel the applicant should employ a consultant to review what had already been prepared, but rather to assist in the preparation of the material. He thought the concern was that the Commission should see the public art in its total concept. He felt perhaps it could be as simple as a working session with the applicant to review what had already been presented. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the Uniform Sign Program had been presented to the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel stated it had not. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the full Commission should review the Uniform Sign Program. He noted that when reviewing building elevations he likes to know what the sign program will be to determine if signs can be tastefully applied to the buildings. He said he was uncomfortable with approving the project, in that he did not feel that all of the issues have been raised let alone been solved. Chairman McNiel indicated the Commission could review the sign program. Commissioner Vallette asked if there were other items that Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel comfortable with other than the sign program. Commissioner Tolstoy said he saw a lot of items that will be approved by the City Planner and he felt those issues should have been resolved and presented to the Commission as a finished package. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-24 with modifications to require the submission of a revised concept plan for the public art, the retention of the services of a professional to assist in developing the plan, and approval of the Uniform Sign Program by the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE TOLSTOY NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 13845. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -22- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Vallette requested that Commissioners Tolstoy and Melcher present a status report on the possible revision of the Hillside Development Ordinance at the August 26, 1992, meeting. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the Commission may wish to meet on Wednesday, July 29, 1992, to conduct a Pre-Application Workshop on a McDonald's near Haven and Highland avenues. It was decided to meet at 5:00 p.m. on July 29, 1992. , , , , , Commissioner Melcher distributed two newspaper articles; one discussing a proposed Etiwanda foothills nature preserve and the other regarding a survey of City Planners' opinions on regional government. Commissioner Melcher asked that the articles be discussed at a future Commission meeting. He also felt a second workshop on Planning Commission goals and priorities should be rescheduled. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Chairman McNiel suggested the Commission meet at 5:30 p.m. on July 29, 1992, following the Pre-Application workshop. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that several drive-thru facilities had recently been proposed. He felt the current drive-thru facilities policy should be revised. Chairman McNiel thought the Commission may wish to tour existing drive-thru facilities. Commissioner Chitiea asked about the panel of judges for the Design Completion for the Redevelopment Agency's multi-family housing project. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that the City Council had selected Commissioner Melcher to serve on the panel along with a member of the City Council and a resident of Victoria. Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Melcher would be serving as a member of the Planning Commission or as an individual. Commissioner Melcher commented that he had been appointed as a member of the Planning Commission. He remarked that, as a member of the American Institute of Architects, he had been working with the consultant on the development of the proposal to go out to Architects. He said Mayor Stout would be serving as the City Council member. He stated that A.C.T.I.V.E. will submit a listing of Planning Commission Minutes -23- July 22, 1992 Victoria residents for consideration by the City Council subcommittee composed of Council Members Alexander and Williams. He said the Council subcommittee would then forward their recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency Board for final appointment. Chairman McNiel felt the question had been raised because the appointment of Commissioner Melcher did not follow the typical route of the Council directing the Planning Commission to select a member. Commissioner Melcher stated he did not know how it happened. He said that at the Redevelopment Agency meeting, staff had pointed out the need to identify the local jury members. He noted that Mayor Stout had volunteered to serve on the jury and then Council Member Buquet had submitted his (Commissioner Melcher's) name. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commissioners could forward their comments to Commissioner Melcher for relaying to the consultant. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to share ideas in a workshop setting. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the Commission meet at 4:00 p.m. on August 12 to review the consultant's first submittal. He noted that the final program goes to the Redevelopment Agency for final approval on September 2, 1992. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman McNiel introduced Jeff Cohan, representative of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:05 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 5:00 p.m. on July 29, 1992, to conduct a workshop on a Pre-Application Review for McDonald's and on Planning Commission Goals and Priorities. That workshop will adjourn to a workshop at 4:00 p.m. on August 12, 1992, to discuss the Design Completion Program and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -24- July 22, 1992