HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/04/27 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 27, 1994
Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel,
John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Rick Fisher,
Planning Technician; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney;
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil
Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy,
Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission
Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Rex Gutierrez had accepted the
opportunity to serve with Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy on the Historic/
Cultural Resource Mitigation Program Task Force.
Mr. Buller reported that Associate Planner Anthea Hartig had accepted a
position with the City of Riverside and would be leaving in the middle of May.
Mr. Buller disclosed that some City residents attended the April 20, 1994,
City Council Meeting and discussed a May 10, 1994, Route 30 meeting. He
advised that the meeting will be held at Windrows Elementary School and the
public is invited.
Chairman Barker noted he had received a request from a resident requesting
that the Commission adjourn to that Route 30 meeting. He did not think the
Commission had such authority and stated it would be the prerogative of the
City Council to request a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, if the
Council so desired. He observed that the Commissioners could attend the
meeting as individuals so long as they do not participate.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13703 - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of the
detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded tract
consisting of 55 lots on 11 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Haven
Avenue, north of Banyan Street, across from Chaffey College -
APN: 201-563-38 through 92.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the
Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Be
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A public
hearing on a final EIR for the General Dynamics Rancho Cucamonga Subarea
Specific Plan 93-01, General Plan Amendment 93-02A, Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment 93-03, and Tentative Parcel Map 14647 for the
redevelopment of 380 acres of land that would include recreational,
commercial, and retail facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf course,
bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the
north by the A. T. & S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by
Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue - APN: 209-272-01, 04, 07, and 08;
210-081-22 and 23; 210-082-02, 11, 17, 37, 38, and 39; and 210-361-01
through 26.
Ce
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A plan for the redevelopment of
380 acres of land that would include recreational, commercial, and retail
facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf course, bounded on the south by 4th
Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. & S. F.
(Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue
- APN: 209-272-01, 04, 07, and 08; 210-081-22 and 23; 210-082-02, 11, 17,
37, 38, and 39; and 210-361-01 through 26.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-02A - GENERAL
DYNAMICS A proposed amendment to change the land use map from Industrial
Park and General Industrial to Mixed Use and Open Space and other related
amendments in conjunction with the Subarea 18 Specific Plan for 380 acres
of land generally located north of 4th Street and west of Milliken Avenue
- APN: 209-272-01, 04, 07, and 08; 210-081-22 and 23; 210-082-02, 11, 17,
37, 38, and 39; and 210-361-01 through 26.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 93-03
- GENERAL DYNAMICS - A proposed amendment to create a new Subarea 18,
bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the
north by the A. T. & S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by
Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue, and other related amendments to provide
consistency with the Subarea 18 Specific Plan - APN: 209-272-01, 04, 07,
and 08; 210-081-22 and 23; 210-082-02, 11, 17, 37, 38, and 39; and
210-361-01 through 26.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 27, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; VACATION OF CLEVELAND AVENUE BETWEEN 4TH AND 6TH
STREETS, THOMAS STREET, VINCENT AVENUE, AND 7TH STREET EAST OF CLEVELAND
AVENUE; AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14647 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A subdivision
of 380 acres of land into 15 parcels in the General Industrial designation
(Subareas 10 and 11) and the Industrial Park designation (Subarea 12) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on
the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. & S. F. (Metrolink)
Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue - APN:
209-272-01, 04, 07, and 08; 210-081-22 and 23; 210-082-02, 11, 17, 37, 38,
and 39; and 210-361-01 through 26.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested two
clarifications to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) resolution indicating
that full frontage and intersection improvements would be required.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, indicated the applicant had requested
several minor wording clarification revisions to the resolution for the Parcel
Map and she said staff was comfortable with the revised language.
Commissioner McNiel questioned the location and design of the retention basin.
Ms. Miller indicated the retention basin will be located at the south end of
the golf course just north of 4th Street. She said it will be incorporated
into the landscaping of the golf course.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be any spillways.
Ms. Miller replied there may be spillway needs within the detention basin
prior to connection to the the 4th Street storm drain when it is constructed.
Commissioner Melcher asked for an update on the timing of master plans and
design guidelines.
Mr. Coleman responded that the resolution of approval for the Specific Plan
includes a condition requiring that design guidelines be submitted prior to
the application for development of any planning area except the golf course.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the design guidelines would include landscaping.
Mr. Coleman replied that landscaping is separately addressed in the Specific
Plan.
Commissioner Melcher thought the principal street landscaping would be part of
the overall design continuity that would be expected of design guidelines.
Mr. Coleman said he felt the Commission had requested the design guidelines
because there was a feeling that certain items were not fully addressed in the
Specific Plan. He said there was extensive discussion in the plan regarding
landscaping, such as the type of plant materials to be used, and how and where
they should be used.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 27, 1994
Brad Bullet, City Planner, mentioned that the landscaping is consistent with
the master plans for the arterial streets.
Commissioner Melcher stated it was his understanding that if a master plan is
approved by the Commission, development review would be at the staff level;
but if a project proceeds without a master plan, then development review would
be at the Commission level.
Mr. Coleman responded that was correct.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the applicant would not necessarily be the
developer of the parcels. He expressed his concern that as time passes and
City staff changes, the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) might slip through
the cracks. He questioned if the MMP should be recorded with the Parcel Map
to be sure that future buyers become aware of the constraints it provides.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that almost anything can be
recorded and there could be a disclosure statement, but he noted that
monitoring responsibilities lie with staff rather than the developer.
Mr. Buller stated that the mitigations called out are similar to any project
in the City and a checkoff system is in place.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the project applicant is listed as the
implementor in many cases.
Mr. Coleman responded that the applicant is responsible for preparing more
detailed analysis in certain areas and staff must make sure that certain
things are accomplished. He noted that a Development Agreement is being
prepared and will be recorded against the property. He stated the agreement
refers to the EIR and the MMP, so future owners would be aware of their
existence and requirements.
Commissioner Melcher asked what CEQA procedures would be used for future
projects.
Mr. Coleman replied that staff would review information submitted with each
application to determine if all environmental concerns were addressed in the
EIR. He said that additional environmental review would be required if all
potential impacts had not been considered.
Chairman Barker asked if staff could develop an ongoing history auditing trail
so that each new applicant could see what had been conditioned and would not
have to re-invent the wheel.
Mr. Coleman said a paper trail will be created with the MMP because a report
is required for each mitigation to indicate how it is accomplished and what
documents fulfill each requirement.
Chairman Barker asked if the information would be available to a potential
buyer before they purchase a parcel.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 27, 1994
Mr. Coleman replied it will all be public record and would be available. He
said staff would also advise any potential purchasers to read the information
before consummation of the deal.
Chairman Barker noted that Commissioner Melcher had stated that there should
be some way to alert potential buyers because not everyone approaches the City
prior to purchase.
Mr. Coleman felt the recordation of the Development Agreement would suffice.
Commissioner Melcher remarked he was satisfied so long as Mr. Coleman felt the
Development Agreement would raise a flag to buyers.
Commissioner Lumpp asked why the Director of Community Development is listed
as the responsible monitoring party for some items in the MMP.
Mr. Coleman responded that some of the mitigations may be tied to grading,
building, or other permits which require approval of more than one division
and the Community Development Director is responsible for coordinating all
three divisions.
Commissioner Lumpp felt the conditions of approval and the MMP should be
attached to the Development Agreement.
Mr. Coleman replied that the Development Agreement references the resolutions
approving the Specific Plan, the EIR, etc., which contain the conditions. He
noted that the Development Agreement is for the entire 380 acres with almost a
dozen planning areas which may each have subdivisions with multiple developers
and will each have their own sets of conditions of approval.
Commissioner Melcher felt the review of the MMP will have heavy financial
impacts on staff time over a period of time. He asked if the fee system
provides for that requirement.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
fees will cover the costs.
He said the plan check fees and permit
Commissioner Melcher observed the draft EIR suggested the reduction of
stationary emissions of operation-related activities through a variety of
means, and when the applicant had taken exception to the requirement to
incorporate appropriate passive solar design and solar heaters, the EIR
consultant had deleted the requirement. He asked if that requirement does not
already appear in the Development Code.
Mr. Coleman replied that the requirement is not in the Development Code. He
noted the list under the air quality section is a generic list from the Air
Quality Management District and is not intended to be all-inclusive nor is it
intended that every suggestion would necessarily be feasible or appropriate.
He said it is up to the City's review process to be sure that appropriate
measures are applied.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 27, 1994
Jeff Kudlac, Kudlac Associates, 10900 East 4th Street, #601, Rancho Cucamonga,
thanked staff, in particular Dan Coleman and Brad Bullet, for their input and
assistance. He thought the plan will be able to respond to changes in the
industrial area. He said the latest draft of the Development Agreement has
the Mitigation Monitoring Plan as an exhibit. He stated he and his management
team were available to answer questions.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the retention basin will alter the golf course,
and if so, to what degree.
Mr. Kudlac showed an exhibit of the golf course. He commented that the only
drainage on the course will be from two of the planning areas and the course
itself. He noted that natural drainage will bring water to the southern end
of the golf course. He said 3 to 4 acres will be used as an interim facility
in the event of a 100-year storm. He said that once the 4th Street drain is
connected into the Ontario facility, there will be no need for the detention
basin.
Commissioner McNiel asked how the area will be treated.
Mr. Kudlac replied that their latest concept is a system of pearl lakes to
dissipate and slow down flows. He stated they will be creating slopes to move
drainage through the site. He said it will be a natural wash, perhaps
cobbles, or a riparian wash.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was any chance that water from Milliken
would enter the course.
Mr. Kudlac replied the hydrology study showed that would not happen.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McNiel felt things are in order.
project.
He was pleased with the
Commissioner Tolstoy felt staff did an excellent job.
Commissioner Melcher observed the project marks a landmark point in the City's
development with the Commission's agreeing to relinquish the highly detailed
level of project management they have exerted since the formation of the City
and trusting in the abilities of the development team and consultants to give
a unique and outstanding environment. He said he was pleased to see it
happen.
Commissioner Lumpp supported the project.
Chairman Barker agreed the project is a landmark point and he felt it to be
somewhat frightening, as the Commission has traditionally been heavily
involved in project review. He felt it should work. He stated the Commission
would be looking at the industrial area as a whole because changes have taken
place since the plan was first developed and this project will make an even
greater impact. He said he was pleased, hopeful, and tenuous.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 27, 1994
Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern there may not be an adequate level of
planning staff for review.
Chairman Barker felt the Commission could only express the concern and monitor
the process.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of the Environmental Impact Report with modifications
recommended by staff to clarify necessary improvements. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of Specific Plan 93-01. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 93-02A. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded
recommending approval of Industrial
Motion carried by the following vote:
by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution
Area Specific Plan Amendment 93-03.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution
approving Tentative Parcel Map 14647 with the wording clarification
modifications indicated by staff. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 7:50 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 27, 1994
VARIANCE 94-02 - ORTIZ - A request to construct a 6-foot high solid fence
within the front yard setback of an existing single family residential
parcel in the Very Low Residential designation (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre), located at 5333 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1074-231-08.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that a
response to the staff report from the applicant, as well as a letter from a
neighbor and a petition supporting the variance, were give to the
Commissioners this evening.
Commissioner Lumpp noted that the Development Code defines the front lot line
of a corner lot as the shorter lot line abutting the street or as designated
by a subdivision or parcel map. He asked if a front lot line had been
specified at the time the subdivision was processed.
Mr. Murphy replied that it had not been specified. He noted that the
Development Code therefore falls back on the definition that the shorter
frontage would be the lot front.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the address of the house would signify the front
of the house.
Mr. Murphy confirmed that the address would not necessarily signify the
front. He reiterated that the house had been built many years before Vista
Grove was in existence.
Brad Buller, City Planner, said a house address is typically on the street the
front door faces.
Commissioner Melcher observed that the house was built before the tract was
recorded and before Vista Grove was in existence and its front yard was
originally Hermosa and its front door faces Hermosa, but the property then
became the unwilling possessor of a side street front yard when the
subdivision map was recorded.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Donnasue Ortiz, 5333 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had first
taken out a permit in August 1991 and they felt the plan was not clear as to
which areas could have solid fencing. She said they brought the plan back to
the City within 10 days of when the plan was first approved and a different
staff planner indicated where the wooden fencing could be located and where
the open fencing would be required. She felt the Development Code is
ambiguous and may not be readily understandable to the average person as to
what is the front yard and what is the side yard. She reemphasized that the
house was built in 1950 prior to the Code. She said the back of their house
is only 15 feet away from their property line so their side yards are the only
areas where they can have privacy. She stated there is a lot of high speed
traffic on Hermosa and Hermosa and Vista Grove is a busy corner and they need
the solid fencing to help mitigate the noise. She said that all of their
surrounding neighbors are able to have privacy in their back yards. She felt
that granting the variance would not grant them a special privilege because
Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 27, 1994
their property is the only one in the neighborhood where their side yard is
considered their front yard. She stated the Traffic Engineer did not
specifically refer to their property but merely cited the Code in saying that
solid 6-foot fences should not be permitted in the front yard setback. She
felt there should be no safety hazard because the solid wall will .not be at
the corner of Hermosa and Vista Grove, but instead will be 40 feet back from
Hermosa. She felt the trees which the City had planted cause more of a visual
problem for her neighbor than the fence would cause. She said they had
support of the neighbors directly to the north and across the street to the
east. She stated the neighbor to the east who objects to the wall has to pull
out into the sidewalk area so they can see past the vehicles they have parked
in their driveway and once they are in the sidewalk area, they can see down
the street. She did not feel the fencing would cause any additional
visibility problem. She stated they had spent over $6,000 in building their
fencing. She requested approval of the variance.
Commissioner Lumpp asked what happened in 1993.
Mrs. Ortiz stated a new neighbor moved in on the east side before 1993. She
said when he moved in, they had shown the neighbor their plans. She reported
the neighbor had his own plans to build a 6-foot block wall around his
property and asked if they would be willing to jointly build a 6-foot solid
block wall along their common property line. She stated they agreed to put in
the block wall and paid a share of the cost. She said when the neighbor
applied to the City, he was told by the City that he could not build a 6-foot
fence out to the street because of the required front yard setback. She said
at that point they returned to the City with their pilaster and wood fence
plans and were told their plans were fine. She stated the neighbor again
complained to them and she went to the City and again was told their plans
were fine. She said one staff member stood at their neighbor's front door and
did not find any sight problems but she did not know which staff member it
waM.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the wood in-fill panels currently installed on
the east property line were typical of what they planned to do.
Mrs. Ortiz responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher stated he noticed the southerly two panels appear to be
several inches clear of the pilasters and have several inches between the
bottom of the wood and the top of the block. He noted that one of the
arguments had been that the fence was needed to block the noise from the
street and he stated that any openings would allow the noise to come through.
Mrs. Ortiz said they had left gaps because the neighbor had said he wanted to
put brick on his side so it would match the remainder of his fence. She said
they plan to put rock facing on their side of the fence and do not intend to
have any gaps.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if they had purchased all of the wood and rock.
Mrs. Ortiz responded they had purchased all of the rock and some of the wood
fencing.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 27, 1994
Mr. Buller stated that the staff report contains information that was
available following interviews with staff and staff had been unable to verify
Mrs. Ortiz's assertion that they had returned in 1991 for clarification that
closed fencing could be used.
James Tohey, 10139 Vista Grove, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the neighbor to
the east. He said his request to build a 6-foot fence along his property line
adjacent to the Ortiz property had been denied because it was considered his
front yard. He stated they had agreed to build a common 6-foot block wall
fence to the street, but the Ortizes backed out when the City stated it could
only be 3 feet high in his front yard setback area. He said Mrs. Ortiz had
stopped his contractor from building the 3-foot high block fence and then
proceeded to put up the 6-foot high wooden fence. He felt a 3-foot fence
would be safer and would look better. He asked that he be permitted to place
a 6-foot high block wall adjacent to the Ortiz's 6-foot wooden fence if the
wooden fence is approved because he felt the wooden fence is an eyesore. He
concurred that the traffic does travel fast on Vista Grove. He feared he
could have an accident if someone comes flying around the corner when he is
backing out of his driveway.
Commissioner McNiel asked if there is a problem with excessive speed on Vista
Grove.
Mr. Tohey felt there is.
Judith Marleau, 5344 Hermosa Avenue, stated she lives directly west of the
property. She felt the greatest traffic hazard is the speeding on Hermosa.
She commented that the Ortiz property is totally exposed and has no privacy.
She thought there should be no problem with putting up a 6-foot wooden fence
and noted the neighbor was willing to put up a 6-foot block wall. She felt
the wooden fence was not objectionable.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher observed that if the dimensions on the Ortiz property
were switched so that Hermosa would be their front yard, there would be no
setback requirement on their side yard fence to the east. He commented that
the Ortiz family was trapped by the physical dimensions of the property which
resulted from subdivision after the property was developed.
Chairman Barker observed there was agreement in 1991 of at least a see-through
wall along Vista Grove at the sidewalk level. He commented that there is no
audit trail about who talked to whom at that time.
Mr. Bullet replied that the staff member involved specifically recalled a
conversation saying a wood fence would not be allowed at that location and
only open fencing could be used.
Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the house was built in the 1950s on Hermosa
and in 1987 a developer subdivided the property, adding Vista Grove Street to
make this a corner lot; thereby changing the rules. He said that after
looking at the necessary findings, he returned to the site and went up in the
Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 27, 1994
constructed so far. He thought the eucalyptus tree in the public right-of-way
is the main obstruction to view. He felt the necessary findings could be made
and he supported the variance.
Commissioner McNiel stated he too had gone through the necessary findings and
stopped at the public safety one. He noted the applicant and the neighbor had
both indicated the traffic on both streets is fast, which would indicate that
staff was probably correct that the fence could pose a potential public safety
concern. He noted that Mr. Tohey opposed the 6-foot wooden fence, but had
requested that if the Ortiz's request for a 6-foot fence is approved, that he
be permitted to construct a 6-foot block wall. He asked Commissioner Tolstoy
if he felt drivers on Vista Grove would be able to see children playing in the
front yard.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought they could.
Commissioner McNiel thought Commissioner Melcher had made an excellent point
that if the configuration were slightly different, there would be no need for
a variance. He supported the variance.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed that the situation was created as the result of
subdivision after development of the property. He indicated he had driven the
area and he felt the wooden fence would not block visibility any more than
wrought iron fencing because of the pilasters and angle of view to the corner
of Hermosa and Vista Grove. He noted that vehicles must slow down to enter
Vista Grove from Hermosa. He supported granting the variance.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a way to get what Mr. Tohey wanted;
i.e., his block wall fence.
Mr. Buller responded that the item was advertised as a hearing for a fence on
the Ortiz property. He was not sure the fence is on a common property line.
He said Mr. Tohey would have to apply for his own variance for his property
and findings would have to be made separately for the Tohey property.
Chairman Barker felt Hermosa should be considered the front yard since that is
what it was at the time of construction. He felt the problem was exacerbated
by the lack of a dated and initialed paper trail and he suggested that staff
investigate the possibility of establishing a carbonized record. He said he
did not personally care for the wood material because of the maintenance
required. He agreed that if the Commission allows a 6-foot fence, Mr. Tohey
should be able to also have a 6-foot fence.
Mr. Buller remarked that if Mr. Tohey wished to construct a fence, he would
have to apply separately for a variance and that action would also require an
advertised public hearing.
Commissioner McNiel said that the Development Code and City policies do not
allow 6-foot walls to run up to the curb in front yards. He acknowledged that
allowing the Ortiz fence to run to the curb would result in the same
configuration, but noted it would be their rear and side yard fence, not a
front yard fence. He felt granting Mr. Tohey's request would lead to other
requests for 6-foot fences in front yard setbacks.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 27, 1994
Chairman Barker said that the Commission should not be inhibited by an
artificial technicality and should let common sense prevail.
Commissioner Melcher asked that the two families try to work together to
determine if that section of the wall could be block.
Mr. Buller said the Commission does not have to be a party to the type of
material, as the request is merely for a variance to construct a solid wall,
not for a specific material.
Commissioner Melcher said he understood, but he hoped they could work it
out. He agreed that Commissioner McNiel's point was well taken but he also
felt Mr. Tohey was entitled to consideration.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that granting the variance for the Ortiz property
would not set a precedent because it is a special set of circumstances and
those circumstances would probably not be present elsewhere.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a
resolution of approval for adoption on the May 11, 1994, Consent Calendar,
with the expressed hope that the property owners could come up with a creative
solution for Mr. Tohey's situation. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
Commissioner Melcher felt setbacks should be enforced and perhaps, in
subdivision situations, a condition should be added that requires an owner of
a reverse corner lot to give an easement to the neighbor so the neighbor could
maintain such areas.
Mr. Buller commented that almost 4 years ago, the Planning Commission
established a policy that all corner side yard walls be set back at least 5
feet off the property line with landscaping installed and that policy has been
enforced in all subdivision approvals since that time.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-11 - BHP STEEL U.
S. A. (SUPRACOTE) - A request to construct a 93,500 square foot addition
to connect two existing industrial buildings in the General Industrial
designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on
the north side of Arrow Route at Oakwood Place - APN: 208-961-18 and
19. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that
the facility will be in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) requirements when constructed. He said they plan to
purchase SCAQMD emission credits in case requirements are tightened in the
future.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 27, 1994
Commissioner McNiel believed some parking spaces had been eliminated along
Arrow Highway and replaced with landscaping.
Mr. Murphy replied that was correct and was stated in Planning Condition 3.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant had applied for SCAQMD permits.
Mr. Murphy responded that in discussions with SCAQMD, he was informed it is
believed the facility will be in compliance.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Pete Pitassi, Architect, 8439 White Oak Avenue, #105, Rancho Cucamonga, stated
that Plant Superintendent Gary Scharnagl and Environmental Manager John Konig
from Supracote were available to answer questions. He thanked staff for their
help and said they had been moving the application rapidly through the
process. He gave a brief history of the project. He said they were in
agreement with replacing the parking with landscaping between the existing
roll-up doors along the south elevation. He noted that they have now
determined that the height needs to be a minimum of 100 feet instead of the
98-foot maximum mentioned in Planning Condition 1. He said the engineering
specifications for the furnace required the increase in height. He asked that
the resolution be changed to allow a maximum height of 105 feet in case the
equipment specifications must be changed again. He noted that the engineering
on the furnace is quite far along in the process and said he did not really
feel their should be a need to increase the height, but he would like the
latitude so they would not have to return to the Commission to increase the
height if it should become necessary. He commented they were currently in the
process of obtaining necessary SCAQMD and Chino Basin Municipal Water District
(CBMWD) permits and he requested that Planning Conditions 4 and 5 be revised
so that those permits would be required prior to occupancy rather than prior
to issuance of building permits because of the time necessary to obtain the
permits. He noted that a lot of equipment will need to be installed and it
will be placed on the northern part of their site. He said the equipment
would be shielded from view from the street by the building. He asked that
Standard Condition B.10 be changed so that additional screening would not be
required. He noted that Standard Condition C.4 requires that all roof-mounted
equipment be shielded from view. He said they do not anticipate any roof-
mounted equipment, but they will have roof-top ventilators to allow the heat
to escape. He said the ventilators will be 8 to 10 inches high. He asked
that screening not be required for the ventilators. He said they were
comfortable with Engineering Conditions 1 through 6 and they had no objection
to Standard Condition M.4 so long as it did not impose further requirements.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the project is considered a Red Team project.
Mr. Pitassi responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher asked what that meant.
Mr. Pitassi replied it was his understanding that the Red Team was set up by
Governor Wilson to assist major employers in coming to the state or remaining
in the state.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 27, 1994
Mr. Murphy said the Red Team helps to coordinate agency responses.
Commissioner McNiel asked how comfortable the applicant was that 100 feet
would be the maximum height.
Mr. Pitassi replied they had been told that 100 feet would be adequate.
Commissioner McNiel asked what would happen to the building elevations if the
height is increased.
Mr. Pitassi indicated the entire building height would be increased.
Commissioner McNiel felt there would be a great potential for change.
Mr. Pitassi said they were not uncomfortable with setting a maximum height.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked the objection to Standard Condition M.4.
Mr. Pitassi said they just wanted it understood that the special Engineering
Conditions 1 through 6 would not be superseded by the Standard Condition.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that a maximum height of 105 feet be permitted
with City Planner approval if the additional height is necessary to meet
specifications for the furnace.
Commissioner McNiel noted that that area of the building is recessed in the
property and there is much in front of it. He did not think the added height
should be a problem.
Commissioner Melcher supported SCAQMD and CBMWD permits being tied to
occupancy rather than building permit issuance and he felt it would be
sufficient screening to have ground-mounted utility appurtenances shielded by
the building because it is an industrial project. He asked about the
configuration of the roof ventilators.
Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Pitassi said they are approximately 8 inches tall and 7 feet square with
two rows on either side of the barrel.
Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher supporting exempting the ventilators from the screening
requirement subject to approval of the City Planner. He felt the project is a
win/win situation because the company gets to stay in their current location
and the City gets the employment. He thought the building is good looking for
an industrial building.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-11 with
Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 27, 1994
modifications to allow a maximum height of 105 feet, tie SCAQMD and CBMWD
permits to building occupancy, permit unscreened roof ventilators, and permit
ground mounted equipment to be screened by the building. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
Commissioner McNiel left the meeting.
, , , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-09 - PETROSSI - A request to establish an indoor
soccer facility, including 2 soccer rinks, snack bar, pro-shop, and
arcade, within an existing industrial building in the General Industrial
designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at
11120 Tacoma Drive - APN: 209-471-05.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy noted that soccer is becoming more popular.
questioned if there would be parking problems caused by spectators.
Mr. Buller replied that in setting new types of parking standards, there is
the potential that a use could be more successful than expected. He noted the
building is located in an area with undeveloped parcels of land which could
provide room for additional parking. He thought the facility would be most
used during off-hours and perhaps a reciprocal parking agreement with
surrounding uses could be arranged. He noted that if parking becomes a
problem, the Commission would have the ability to revoke the permit because of
the impact on the surrounding uses.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be difficult to revoke a permit because a
business is too successful. He thought the applicant should be placed on
notice that parking may become a problem.
Mr. Buller stated that because the two playing areas take up so much room,
there was very little space left for spectator viewing.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Omid Namazi, Irvine, stated he would be operating as the General Manager of
the US Indoor Soccer Academy and also has a small financial interest in the
business.
Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Namazi had operated such facilities in the past.
Mr. Namazi replied he had operated a similar facility back east.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 27, 1994
Chairman Barker said he had only seen one indoor soccer arena and it did not
have a lot of room for spectators. He asked the applicant to address
Commissioner Tolstoy's concern.
Mr. Namazi said the facility he had operated is probably one of the most
successful ones in the country. He said there is not much room for
spectators. He thought they could possibly accommodate 10 to 15 people in the
cafeteria area.
Chairman Barker asked if he understood that there may be a parking problem if
the facility becomes extremely popular.
Mr. Namazi replied he understood and was willing to take that chance.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the Building and Safety and Fire Safety
Division comments indicate the building is not equipped to handle a large
number of people.
Chairman Barker asked what would be necessary to make the facility usable.
Mr. Namazi stated they will be installing dasher boards similar to an ice rink
with an astroturf playing surface. He said glass will be installed above the
dasher boards. He said the other investment would be a snack bar to serve
cold drinks and prepackaged snacks, two locker rooms, a soccer pro shop to
sell equipment, and an arcade for use while waiting for the fields. He said
the investment would be between $50,000 and $100,000.
Commissioner Lumpp asked how the operation functions financially without
spectators.
Mr. Namazi said they plan to have league play, soccer camps, and one-day
tournaments in addition to revenue from the pro shop, cafeteria, and arcade.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 94-09. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
MCNIEL -carried
, , , ,
NEW BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-03 - MATLOCK ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a
4,710 square foot multi-purpose building of a previously approved church
master plan in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), located at the west side of Jasper Street between Base Line Road
and Lomita Drive - APN: 202-026-13.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 27, 1994
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Clark Lewis, 856 Berkley Court, Ontario, stated he is Chairman of the Building
Committee. He said they have raised almost enough money and they are very
excited about building.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution
approving Development Review 94-03. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
MCNIEL -carried
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-02 - CRHO ARCHITECTS,
INC. - A request to construct an 8,540 square foot restaurant on a 2.2
acre parcel in the Office Park designation of the Terra Vista Planned
Community, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-58. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Melcher objected to proceeding because the applicant was not
present. He said he had received a telephone call from the property owner and
had been informed that Olive Garden had decided not to build and a revised and
enlarged plan was being submitted for an adjacent parcel.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, stated staff received a call from the project
architect who indicated Olive Garden had instructed him to withdraw the
application. He reported staff talked further with the architect and Lewis
Homes and the architect has not yet submitted a formal letter of withdrawal.
Me said the architect indicated that Olive Garden was very disappointed in the
amount of business generated at a new restaurant they recently opened in
Fontana and therefore felt the Rancho Cucamonga facility should not be
pursued. Me stated the architect was awaiting word from Olive Garden to see
if they wished to go ahead and finish processing the application so that
approval would be in place if they should decide.to build in the future. He
said staff had been informed that a representative from the property owner
would be at tonight's meeting but may be delayed.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff had expected the applicant to be at
the meeting. He believed Olive Garden may move forward if the community
conducts a letter-writing campaign. Me said staff would support a
continuance.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Review 94-02 to May 11, 1994. Motion carried by
the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 27, 1994
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER,. TOLSTOY
NONE
MCNIEL -carried
, , , , ,
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
L. 1994 DESIGN AWARDS
Brad Buller, City Planner, etated staff had received nominations from the
Commissioners for the Design Awards. Me indicated that Commissioner Melcher
had requested that the matter be placed on the agenda for discussion.
Chairman Barker read a memorandum from Commissioner Melcher which stated that
there should be more consideration than having the Commissioners vote based on
superficial judgments based on whether they like or do not like the
projects. He remarked that Commissioner Melcher had also included an
evaluation of the various nominees and Chairman Barker felt the evaluations
were a good example of the type of thought which should be going into the
program.
Commissioner Melcher noted that apparently only one project had gamered three
votes and he said he wished to withdraw his vote for that project, so that no
project would receive the necessary three votes for an award.
Chairman Barker felt the project should still be given an award.
Commissioner Melcher stated there was no indication that Commissioner McNiel
voted. He thought there currently appears to be no rational basis for giving
awards. He noted that in past years the Commission had reviewed the projects
via slides and had discussed the projects. He said that the program later
deteriorated to a tour, and then to a tour of only those projects which were
nominated by Commissioners, and now no tour was even offered.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in the past the Commissioners had looked at
all projects and discussed them to indicate what worked and what did not
work. He felt the Commission should go out as a group to look at each project
and discuss the projects. He thought such a tour is important to help in
furthering the ideals in the design review process.
Commissioner Melcher supported the idea.
Commissioner Barker felt there should be more structure to the program.
thought either slides or a tour could be used.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner stated that slides can give a distorted view
depending upon the skill and angles used by the photographer. He felt the
only way to judge the candidates is to walk the sites.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt slides are valuable only after the Commission tours
the sites.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 27, 1994
Chairman Barker asked if there had been any nominations from the private
sector.
Mr. Coleman responded that only the high school was nominated.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the school architect had created some nice student
gathering places.
It was agreed that the Commission would take a tour of the nominees starting
at 1:00 p.m. on May 11, 1994.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
There was no additional Commission Business.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to adjourn.
10:25 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 1:00 p.m. on May 11, 1994,
for a tour of the Design Review Award nominees.
Respectful ly submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 27, 1994