Loading...
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