Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/03/23 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 23, 2005 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:12 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Candyce Burnett, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Associate Planner; Shirr'I Griffin, Office Specialist II; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Department Secretary; Mike Smith, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of March 9, 2005. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16776 - VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 59 lots within the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the • north side of Base Line Road,approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 0227- 131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004- 00052, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from March 9, 2005) B. VARIANCE DRC2004-01 002-VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-A request for an increase in wall height related to 59 single-family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low- Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road,approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 0227-131-29, 34,35, 36,52, • 53, and 55 thru 58. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Development Review DRC2004-00052,and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. (Continued from March 9,2005) H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00052-VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - The review of site plan and elevations for 59 single-family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road,approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from March 9, 2005) Vice Chairman McNiel, suggested items A, B, and H be heard together because the same applicant submitted them and relate to the same property. He stated the public hearing on the items was continued from March 9, 2005 and the hearing was open. Vance Pomeroy,Contract Planner, presented the staff report. He noted had received a letter from Charles Joseph Associates indicating their clients,the Mora family(property owners to the west of the project site), reported the steps taken to date to resolve the issues between the property owners. Vice Chairman McNiel said it appears the concerns voiced at the previous meetings have been resolved. Mr. Pomeroy indicated they have. Commissioner McPhail noted that she recalled reading a statement in the staff report that would require any future developers to replace the proposed woodcrete wall with a block wall. She asked that be confirmed. Mr. Pomeroy apologized and stated the staff report was in error and that originally it was suggested any new development along that boundary would be required to replace the woodcrete material with a block wall, but that the requirement was changed. He said that requirement is no longer in the conditions within the resolution (Page A, B, H Page 128, condition #1). Commissioner McPhail asked if the condition could be put back in the resolution. She added that she would not be in favor of a permanent woodcrete fence as the permanent fence material for this development particularly if the trees along that fence were ever to be replaced. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that staff was met with a difficult quandary on this issue because these properties will eventually be individually owned. He said to condition a new developer with replacing the woodcrete product with block wall would be too burdensome and complicated, and then any new purchasers of the adjoining property would essentially be conditioned to individually replace these walls. Mr. Pomeroy noted that they are not trying to set a precedent and the goal was to create a solution to preserve the health of the windrows along that property line. Commissioner McPhail commented that the windrow is Blue Gum Eucalyptus and that because of their age and condition, they are likely to be replaced at some time anyway. She emphasized that they have to decide if they want to eventually have a block wall or end up with the woodcrete product forever. Commissioner Fletcher clarified that the condition now allows woodcrete fencing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 23, 2005 Mr. Pomeroy said yes. Vice Chairman McNiel noted the public hearing remains open from the meeting of March 9, 2005. Stephen King, Van Daele Development Corporation, 2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25, Riverside, stated he agrees with the staff report and the conditions as they are reflected in the agenda packet. He asked for clarification regarding the outbuilding that is currently straddling the west property line. He remarked that they currently do not plan to demo the building; they are working with the adjacent owners to process a Lot Line Adjustment so that the building can remain in place. Vice Chairman McNiel remarked that the staff report indicates plans for demolition and yet the applicant is saying that they will process a Lot Line Adjustment to solve the problem. Mr. Pomeroy noted that although the condition indicates demolition, a Lot Line Adjustment would suffice and would accomplish the same thing in that it would meet the code and satisfy the Building Official. He noted that Page A, B, H-97, Condition#7 of the agenda packet,reflects this condition. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if it is an"either/or"condition. He stated that there is a building on the property line and that this issue must be resolved before anything else on the project can happen. Mr. Pomeroy stated that if the Lot Line Adjustment is processed,that in effect moves the building to where it no longer encroaches the Van Daele property. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner also noted Page A, B, H-128, Condition#9 of the agenda packet that also reflects the same condition. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney,suggested altemate language for the condition to allow either the demolition of the building or the approval of a Lot Line Adjustment to the satisfaction of the Building Official and in accordance with the Building Code. Mr. Ennis also noted that Condition#2 under Biological Resources needed to be clarified. He remarked that the Blue Atlas Cedar would be preserved through relocation and now we are saying it will be preserved in place. Mr. Pomeroy addressed the concern about the Blue Atlas Cedar tree. He noted that the tree would now be preserved in place. He indicated that on Pages A, B, H-102, Condition #2, and 133, Condition#2 of the agenda packet indicates the tree would be preserved by relocation. He asked that the conditions be changed to state that it is to be preserved in place. Commissioner McPhail asked if we are going to plant a new windrow as noted on Page A, B, H-71 of the agenda packet. Mr. Pomeroy explained that there are other windrows being replaced on the property and it actually is not even on the property; it is a boundary line situation. Mr. King asked for clarification regarding the woodcrete fence along the west side of the property line. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the replacement of the woodcrete product would fall on the individual property owners. Mr. Buller explained that the intent was that staff did not ultimately want the woodcrete product to remain on the property forever (in accordance with the Commissioners' comments from the last public hearing)and that staff preferred that if the windrow be removed,and a solid wall would then be erected, however,the logistics involved were prohibitive. He remarked that staff worked to find a good way to remove the woodcrete wall and have it replaced with a solid masonry wall, but that Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 23, 2005 there was no good process to accomplish this. He said the best thing they could do in keeping with the preservation of the Eucalyptus trees, would be to live with the woodcrete product. He noted that it is possible the project to the east(Van Daele property)could work with the project to the west and agree to replace the wall in the future, but it would be burdensome to require it. He commented that in this case, he suggested that we should live with the woodcrete product. Vice Chairman commented that it could also result in a policing nightmare in the future. Commissioner Fletcher thought there was an agreement regarding the outbuilding that straddles the property line. Vice Chairman McNiel commented that the condition will be "either/or" language, and either way, the problem is resolved with a Lot Line Adjustment or demolition of the building. Mr. King noted that if the building remains, the family understands that a Lot Line Adjustment around the building will be processed. Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail commented that it is not a perfect solution but as George Patton said,"A good plan violently executed is better than a perfect plan that you come up with next week". She said it does seem to work for the preservation of the trees and it does seem to meet the agreement with the neighbors. She stated she could live with the woodcrete. She said the project seems ok. Commissioner Stewart replied that she concurs with Commissioner McPhail and said the project is acceptable with the revisions noted. Commissioner Fletcher commented that most of the issues have been worked out. He added that there is still some concern about the woodcrete fence and that it may be a problem in the future for the property owners to the west, but that the project is acceptable. Vice Chairman McNiel commented that he is delighted to see how far this project has come given the problems they faced 3 months ago, and now the issues seem to all be resolved. He said,"well done!" Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts, to adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Development Review DRC2004-00052, and Variance DRC2004-01002 with the revisions to preserve the Blue Atlas Cedar in place,and to allow a Lot Line Adjustment for the building currently straddling the property line of the project and to accept the woodcrete fencing product. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried • C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16971 - AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES - A request to subdivide 3.2 net acres of land into 18 single- family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue,south of 6th Street-APN: 0210-062-39. Related Files: Variance DRC2004-01163, Minor Exception 2005-00189, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00885. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. • Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 23, 2005 D. VARIANCE DRC2004-01 1 63-AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES, INC.—A request to allow the lot depth for Lots 6 and 8 for SUBTT16971 to be less than the minimum 90 feet in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, south of 6th Street - APN: 0210-062-39. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16971, Minor Exception DRC2005-00189,and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00885. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested Items C and D be heard concurrently as they were submitted by the same applicant and apply to the same property. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if there is a trail that runs along the creek bed. Mr. Pomeroy stated that the General Plan indicates a future trail there. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the lots provide access to the future trail. Mr. Pomeroy indicated they do. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ken Werden, American Pacific Homes,4959 Palo Verde Street, B-110, Montclair,stated he is the applicant and he is in concurrence with the staff report and conditions of approval as presented by staff. Vice Chairman McNiel, explained to the students in the audience that this project has been in the development review process for about 1 year and that process included review by several committees and it was thoroughly gone over by staff from every department and that every potential problem was addressed. He noted that when a project finally arrives at the Planning Commission level, most of the problems have been solved. Seeing and hearing no further questions or comments, he then closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart commented that one of the meetings held was a neighborhood meeting. She remarked that very few people appeared at that meeting. She added that we now require this type of forum so that the property owners that are neighbors to a project site can have a voice about what goes in their immediate neighborhood. She noted that this was a difficult piece of property to work with. She added that one of the issues that was resolved at the committee level was that originally, this project was two different pieces of land and that they finally merged 2 lots into 1 because of how it was configured. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16971 and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: • AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-01176-T-MOBILE,WEST END COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY AND CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT — A request to replace an existing 100-foot high lattice antenna with a 106-foot high monopine wireless facility in the Very Low Residential District(.1-2 dwelling units per acre)within the Etiwanda Specific Plan,located Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 23, 2005 at 5765 Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 0225-122-12. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). Donald Granger,Associate Planner,gave the staff report. He noted that no calls or correspondence had been received in regard to the project. He reported that all the surrounding property owners were notified with a letter including digital mock-up photographs of the proposed monopine facility. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pete Shubin, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc, 22521 Avenida Empressa,#122, Rancho Santa Margarita, stated he concurs with the staff report and accepts the conditions of approval. He asked for clarification of a condition and referred to Page E-14 of the agenda packet, Condition #1 and Page E-15, Condition #6. He commented that the Condition on Page E-14 should indicate the installation of the monopine as well as the removal of the old structure. He also reported that the FCC might require some signage, specifically a plaque bearing a registration number as well as a trouble sign. Vice Chairman McNiel asked for Mr. Buller to respond to the request. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested Condition #1 on Page E-14 be modified to reflect the installation of a 106-foot monopine and the removal of the existing 100-foot high antenna structure. He added that Condition#6 on Page E-15 could also be modified to allow signage only required by regulatory agencies and that all those required signs shall be pedestrian orientated and for safety and identification purposes only. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if these poles could be built in a way to satisfy the requirements of any cellular provider. Mr. Shubin indicated that that they already do exist and that his organization is very open to being co-located with other providers. He added that Nextel has already contacted them for co-location at this facility and his organization has already directed them to the City for necessary permits. Vice Chairman McNiel said he would like to reduce the total number of facilities needed and that co- location may be a way to accomplish that. Mr. Shubin said this is a good example of those types of facilities and will reduce the number of facilities needed. Commissioner Stewart agreed that the language on Page E-14, Condition #1 be modified to read the installation of the 106-foot monopine and to remove the existing lattice structure. Mr. Ennis agreed that the language would include the removal of the old structure and the installation of the new. Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart stated the project is straightforward, a win-win for everyone to increase communication around town and moved to approve the project. Commissioner Fletcher agreed that it is a routine request and the facility is visually appealing. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 23, 2005 Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail,to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit with the revised conditions as noted and to issue a Notice of Exemption. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16908 - PINEWAVE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING-A proposed subdivision of 41 units for residential condominium purposes on 3.74 acres of land in the Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Arrow Highway, approximately 300 feet west of Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-591-22, 25, 26, 28, 31, and 32. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-00449, Minor Exception DRC2004-00233,Tree Removal Permit DRC2004- 00232, and Preliminary Review DRC2003-00089. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00449 — PINEWAVE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING — The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 41 condominium units on 3.74 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Arrow Highway, approximately 300 feet west of Baker Avenue—APN: 0207-591-22, 25, 26, 28, 31, and 32. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16908, Minor Exception DRC2004-00233, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00232, and Preliminary Review DRC2003-00089. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested items F and I be heard concurrently. Donald Granger, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. • Vice Chairman McNiel asked if there was a discussion of curb and gutter on these 2 lots. He asked who objected to the street improvements, the homeowners or the developer? Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that the City had made Capitol Improvements about 2 years ago to improve Arrow Highway. He noted that the homeowners were contacted at that time and they were given the opportunity to dedicate the right-of-way to the City for the improvements. He said the homeowners were unwilling to do that;therefore,the improvements were not completed. He said the City was unwilling to go through condemnation proceedings. Mr. Granger clarified that these two homeowners were contacted by the Engineering Department and they were unwilling to dedicate the right-of-way. He added that the other residents in the vicinity were in favor of the dedication and these two homeowners were not. Commissioner Stewart asked how long it has been since the homeowners were contacted by engineering. Mr. James replied about 2 years ago. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 23, 2005 Eric Au, Pinewave Design and Engineering, 21017 Commerce Pointe Drive, Walnut, stated he agrees with the conditions of approval. He thanked staff for their help and that they also have been in process for about 1 year. John Hubbs, 8432 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns one of the parcels to the west of the project site. He requested a written copy of the staff report and draft Resolution of Approval for his review because he is hard of hearing and felt that would assist him in understanding the project proposal. Mr. Hubbs asked when the applicant would be allowed to build their project if the project was approved tonight. Vice Chairman McNiel stated that following their approval at this meeting, they could begin their grading operations. He noted they have been in process for about a year. Mr. Hubbs stated he is located to the west of the project and does not want the Eucalyptus windrow removed and he wanted to know if this project affects the windrow. He stated they are his trees. He also noted that there are Elm trees that border his driveway and he wanted an assurance they would not be removed as well. Mr. Hubbs also expressed concern about the starting time of construction in the morning. He said although he is hard of hearing, he is concemed about the noise for his neighbors and requested the construction start time be modified. Mr. Buller suggested the site plan be displayed on the overhead projector so that Mr. Hubbs could more clearly see the project area in relation to his property. Vice Chairman McNiel commented that he believes the start time is at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Hubbs asked if it could be changed to 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Stewart pointed out that the Resolution of Approval states the time commitments for construction and it includes hauling, grading, and construction noise levels. Vice Chairman McNiel confirmed the location of Mr. Hubb's property on Arrow Route. He asserted that the windrow would not be affected by the construction. Mr. Granger pointed out all the trees on Mr. Hubbs' property and stated they would be left alone and they were considered by the site plan. Mr. Hubbs asked about the timing of the construction of the block wall. He requested the wall be constructed before any other work occurs. Vice Chairman McNiel commented that grading would have to be done to direct water flow before the wall could be constructed. Mr. Hubbs wanted to know where the water from the project would drain if there is to be underground parking. Vice Chairman McNiel said the water would drain to the interior streets. Mr. James reported that there is a drainage system on site. John King, 8353 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, said he lives on the "calming island" and asked if the street would be widened 1 block to the west of the project where he lives. He commented that this project is no benefit to him, and that it would only result in more noise. He said he couldn't hear the television as it is. He wanted to know why this development is permitted when the rest of the neighborhood is single-family residential. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 23, 2005 Phylis Ledesma, 8420 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a neighbor Oust west)of Mr. Hubbs. She commented that the traffic from the signal to her home moves very fast, well beyond the 45mph speed limit. She reported that there is not sufficient drainage where she lives and there are only 2 drains on Baker Street. She wanted to know where all the rainwater would go. She stated there were curbs and gutter in front of her property a few years ago, but that was then removed with the road construction and never replaced. She stated that she had dedicated her right-of-way 25 years ago. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the asphalt was removed at that time. Mrs. Ledesma stated that is was. She said the curb and gutter ran from Comet Street to Baker Street and that it was all removed and never replaced. She added that the speed limit needs to be reduced because the cars are traveling too fast and that it is difficult for anyone to back out of their driveway because of the traffic. She said that when she pulls into her driveway, cars following behind her are too close and they often swerve into the lane on the opposite side of the road to • pass her. She reported that there is a bus stop on the other side of Comet Street. She said when the bus stops there to pick up school children,there is traffic backed up all the way to Baker Street. Bill Foshett, 8336 Comet Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said he shares the same concerns as Ms. Ledesma and added there is limited parking proposed for the new project. He asked where visitors would park. He noted that their schools are already overcrowded, and with 3 new projects in the area, he expects 80 more cars to add to their traffic. He mentioned there is no place for people to sit while they wait for the bus. Hearing and seeing no further comment,Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He then asked Mr. James to comment on the concern regarding the widening of the street and traffic. Mr. James noted that there is heavy traffic on Arrow Route and he reported that they had tried to widen the street 2 years ago and the residents said no. He confirmed that the documents for the project create a single-lane condition and that the City did the best they could with what they had. Vice Chairman McNiel commented that it is a typical situation in that when a property is developed, then the improvements occur. He noted that to the east of Baker it is 2 lanes and it was done piecemeal as the property was developed. He added that we did not force eminent domain. Mr.James added that it is also done as the property owners are willing to dedicate the right-of-way allowing street improvements to occur. Mr. Buller asked Mr. Granger if the Eucalyptus and the Elms belonging to Mr. Hubbs were noted in the arborist report. • Mr. Granger proceeded to check the arborist report. Mr. Buller noted that the construction time is per City Ordinance and is subject to citywide standards and this project is subject to those standards. He said that the perimeter wall would be constructed as early as possible in Phase 1 per the Resolution of Approval, but that the Commission could choose to amend the condition. He remarked that in regard to the zoning for the project, the property has been designated for this density by the General Plan for over 20 years. He said the homes that remain in the perimeter area are considered existing, legal, non- conforming homes. He commented that in regard to the traffic, engineering looked at the zoning and the density and the size of the existing street and determined that the street could handle the projected level of traffic. He added that the number of units is consistent with the number of vehicle trips for that level of street construction and that it would not significantly alter the noise levels. He added that school population is a concern but that this body (the City of Rancho Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 23, 2005 Cucamonga) does not control school impacts. He stated that the Planning Commission cannot legally say no to a development and that the most they could do would be to require a school fee to lessen the impact. He commented that at one time, the City did have the authority to turn away a • development because of the impact on the schools if the school district said they could not service the students, but the State has since removed that authority from the City;it is managed completely through the State. He noted that the parking for visitors of the new development exceeds the standard by a total of 3 spaces. He remarked that they meet and exceed the Code standard, but that if the Commission feels parking is a concern, they can require more spaces. Mr. Granger confirmed that the guest parking exceeds the standard by 3 spaces. He also noted that on Page F, 1-12 of the agenda packet, the tree location plan does reflect the trees on Mr. Hubbs property only as being referenced that they exist. He added that they were not evaluated in the arborist report and are not noted for removal. Mr. Buller asked how close the trees are to the property line and if the construction of the footings for the wall will impact those trees. Mr. King asked if the City is planning to widen Arrow Route from the Baker Street intersection to the west. Vice Chairman McNiel responded that would only happen as development occurs. He remarked that we do not force"eminent domain"on people. He commented that if he wants curb and gutter in front of his property that can be arranged. Mr. King noted that it is a concern to him because he did not want to lose his property through eminent domain. He stated that others agreed, but they only fixed the street and did not put in the storm drains. He said he has a septic tank. Mr.James said he is not specifically familiar with the property he is referring to but he said there is a storm drain on Arrow Route and the project site drainage intersects with that through a pipe. Mr. King said that they merge together at his property and with 40 more units;there would likely be 100 more cars. Vice Chairman McNiel stated the residents of the new development will park on the development site. He added that if property owners are not willing to give up their property for a right-of-way, then the appropriate street improvements can't be done. He then closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher clarified that there is a storm drain along Arrow Route and the project development will drain to that. He asked if there is no street drainage to Baker Street. He asked if we could make the developer to put in the needed improvements down the street. Mr. Buller explained that this falls into the category of a"nexus,"meaning can we substantiate that this project is requiring the need for those improvements, i.e.,can the City require this developer to make improvements down the street/off of his project site. He stated that we couldn't require that. He reported that it was determined that the generation of traffic is only site specific and therefore we could not condition them to do the improvements down the street and off the site. He commented that the trees referred to on Page F, I — 12 are actually shown on the plans as Birch trees rather than Elms as reported by the property owner(along the east side of his driveway). He noted that the arborist notes these trees are not to be removed. He added that he would give Mr. Hubbs a copy of the plan and report so that he can study it, and if he has any further questions, staff would address them. Vice Chairman McNiel also assured Mr. Hubbs that the wall would be built east of the Birch trees. Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 23, 2005 Commissioner Fletcher remarked that he would like to see the wall built as soon as possible following the grading to accommodate the adjoining property owner. Commissioner Stewart commented that she recognizes the problem with the street improvements, but that this body did what we could do in Design Review and Engineering did what they could and there are still problems with the street. She added that we couldn't force the property owners to give up their property. She said the neighbors are not willing to do that and therefore we are left with the problem that they have already reported to the Commission; heavy traffic that flows into one lane. She noted that the property has been zoned for this density for over 20 years. She said they have done what they could to develop this project in a favorable fashion and now it will be up to these other property owners as they develop their property to clear up the other problems. Commissioner McPhail commented that the applicant worked with the Design Review Committee to get an attractive product that will be an asset to the community. She echoed Ms Stewart's comments regarding the traffic issues and moved approval. Commissioner Fletcher asked to amend the motion to include language requiring the construction of the wall as early in the process as possible. Mr. Coleman clarified that rough grading must occur before the wall can be constructed and therefore dirt will be moved around. Mr. Buller confirmed that the Code allows construction to begin at 6:30 a.m. in the morning until 8:00 p.m. at night. Vice Chairman McNiel concurred that we did what we could and we run into this type of problem ' with infill projects and it will continue to happen until all the infill properties are developed. He commented that he would also like to amend the starting time for construction to begin at 7:00a.m. instead of 6:30 a.m. Commissioner Fletcher concurred that we have amended the construction of the wall and time in other project areas that are more dense than it is in this case. He said he did not know if it would make that much difference except to the construction company. Commissioner McPhail said that it was her motion and she suggested they amend the motion to starting construction at 7:00 a.m. • Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher,to amend the conditions of approval to adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16908, Development Review DRC2003-00449 and to require the perimeter wall to be built as early as possible following rough grading and to amend the construction time to begin at 7:00 a.m.,and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS -carried The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 pm. • Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 23, 2005 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445-MARK CAPELLINO-A request to subdivide a 7.27 acre parcel into 11 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-01185 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00804. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185-MARK CAPELLINO-A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 126,843 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street-APN: 0209-211-19. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00804. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mark Capellino, Cap Brothers Construction,2020 Del Amo Boulevard,Suite 105,Torrance,asked to clarify an issue with on the tentative map. He admitted that there was an error on his part and reported that when he had made his original submittal, the map indicated the development was for industrial condominiums and that somewhere within the process, the word "condominium" was dropped from the map. He noted that it was their mistake and that the project will really be 10 lots instead of 11 because he would like to merge parcels 2 and 4,thereby reducing the lot count from 11 to 10. He said they would end up with one lot instead of two there and it would be developed as condominium units. He reported that it is shown on page G,J —9 of the agenda packet. He remarked that they still plan to develop the project site as shown with this minor change. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented that what he wants to do is not really a problem except that the item was not advertised as a condominium map and as 11 parcels, not 10. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney remarked that the map would have to be continued and re- advertised. He said it is not what was advertised and the map would have to be revised accordingly Mr. Capellino asked if the Development Review portion of the project could be acted upon apart from the map. Mr. Ennis said he would be uncomfortable proceeding with this if the building design is dependent upon the lot configuration. Commissioner Stewart asked when the error was discovered. Mr. Capellino reported that he was not sure except that he was certain the original map submitted was submitted as a condominium map and the engineer did not point it out until after the Design Review. He agreed it was not ideal to bring this up now. He asked if the Commission could allow the project to go forward as it is being presented and then to revisit the issue of those two lots later and do a separate action later to amend the map. Mr. Ennis said that was possible but it would be a separate map. Commissioner McPhail asked why they should not just continue it. Mr. Buller said that it would be a 30-day continuance. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 23, 2005 Mr. Ennis said the Commission could approve the development review and continue the map to a later meeting to allow time to re-advertise the map with the proper description and modification. Mr. Capellino said that would be doable for them, and then they can get their revisions in and in the meantime get their design review approved so they can be working on those plans while they wait for the map approval. Mr. Coleman suggested they approve the development review and continue the hearing for the map to a later date to allow it to be re-advertised. Mr. Buller confirmed that could be done. Mr. Capellino asked if they could delete the requirement for the water fountain shown on Page G, J - 112, Condition#11. He recalled that at design review they agreed to do the benches and creative landscaping, but they did not agree to the water fountain because of maintenance and liability concerns. Commissioner Stewart noted that they did agree to eliminate the water fountain. Commissioner Fletcher concurred. Vice Chairman McNiel dosed the public hearing. Mr. Capellino thanked Mike Smith and the rest of the staff for their help on the project. Commissioner Stewart commented that this is troubling that this project proceeded through two Design Review Committee meetings with 11 buildings and that this change was never brought up. 111 She said they would move forward on the approval but that she is not very happy with how this came about. She said she is expecting great things on this project and moved for approval. Commissioner McPhail concurred with Commissioner Stewart and agreed to move forward. Commissioner Fletcher said he is fine with the project and remarked that the final product is better than what they started with in the beginning. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to continue the public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445 to April 27, 2005, and to adopt the resolution approving Development Review DRC2003-01185 with the amended condition deleting the water fountain, and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00052 - VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION—This item was discussed in conjunction with Items A and B. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00449 — PINEWAVE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING—This item was discussed in conjunction with Item F. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 23, 2005 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185-MARK CAPELLINO—This item was discussed in conjunction with Item G. PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments were made at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Mr. Buller thanked Shirr! Griffin for sitting in for Gail Sanchez and assisting with running the new system. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i 1yy41 / Bra•r er V Secretary Approved: April 13, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 23, 2005