No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/03/23 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 23, 2011 • Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City or Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:23 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director • w x + ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Oaxaca noted a correction on page 4 in paragraph 7. The Secretary directed them to corrected language placed before them on the dais which now reads: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer said the study evaluated the traffic counts, it did cross the threshold, therefore, the signal is being required. He said the study did not evaluate the truck deliveries. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0,to approve the regular meeting minutes of March 9, 2011. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 5-0, to approve the adjourned meeting minutes of March 9, 2011. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00724-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to amend Section 17.08.90.C.16 (Single-Family Development) by adding a general design guideline for single-story homes in new single-family developments within the Residential Development Districts. The project qualifies under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed amendment is to add a design guideline and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said staff met with representatives of the Building Industry Association (BIA) and 3 developers on Monday of this week. They asked staff to work with them on the Code Amendment language. To that end, they asked for a 30-day continuance. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked which developers attended the meeting. Ms. Burnett said the BIA, Lewis, and Crestwood and she could not recall the remaining developer in attendance. Mr. Troyer noted that no other letters were received other than the one from the BIA placed before the Commissioners; these builders just attended the meeting. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if staff wished to address the comments from their letter. Ms. Burnett said the letter basically represents their discussion of the meeting; they presented options regarding the amendment with respect to lot sizes over 7200 square feet. She said staff has not had the opportunity to investigate the impacts of this aspect of the code amendment to those developers that may have that type of project proposal and those that developed under the prior standard of 20 percent. Commissioner Wimberly clarified that they want specific language about lot size and they are not comfortable leaving that to the discretion of the Commission. Ms. Burnett said that is correct and that was only one suggestion. Commissioner Fletcher asked if staff recommends continuing the item for 30 days. Ms. Burnett said staff is not specific about the date, but staff would recommend the continuance to allow time to investigate potential impacts. Commissioner Fletcher said such a discussion would be a good idea. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she also wanted to keep in mind the size of the home on the lot and not make the amendment specific to just the lot size. Commissioner Fletcher said staff might point out the flexibility in the language of the amendment for the Commission to wave the requirement if conditions warrant it. He said the Commission agreed on 25 percent because when the City had a policy of 20 percent the Commission saw projects of 80- 200 homes with very few single-story units and the policy was largely ignored and so it is somewhat of a game of catch up now. Chairman Munoz agreed and said the amendment is a guideline and not binding. He said he is surprised to see their objection. He then opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no further comment, he called for a motion. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Fletcher, to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of April 27, 2011. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 23, 2011 AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY . NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00906 - NONGSHIM HOLDINGS-A request to add 73,454 square feet to an existing 265,676 square foot industrial building within the General Industrial (GI) District(Subarea 14), located at 12155 Sixth Street. APN: 0229-283-48. Related file: Minor Exception DRC2010-00907. Staff has found the proposed project to be within the scope of a project covered by a previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2002, and an addendum approved by the City Planner on October 22, 2003. Staff has prepared an addendum prepared per CEQA Section 15164 which does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Initial Study. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He summarized the parking requirements and what is being provided by the applicant. He noted that a Minor Exception for a 25 percent reduction in parking stalls is also being considered because this particular manufacturing use requires far less spaces than what is really needed. He said a condition has been placed in the agreement that prevents this applicant from subleasing their space to another manufacturer that may require additional parking. He said as long as this type of business is there,they may have the reduced parking requirement. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Hoon Kenn Park stated that this is his first time to address the Commission. He said Nongshim manufactures noodles and because of higher volume/sales they are expanding. He said they will add more employees and contribute to the tax base. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said this is a straightforward application that involves expansion,growth, and development, all of which are positives. She said the applicant went to the DRC and now they are here. She congratulated them on their success. Commissioner Oaxaca said this is a good example of where a Minor Exception is justified and . logical. He expressed his support of the proposal. Commissioner Wimberly concurred and said this application reflects an increase in efficiency and potential employment. He offered his support of the project. Commissioner Fletcher said the application is simple and he did not see any big issues. He said it is great to have a manufacturer that is expanding in Rancho Cucamonga and he noted that it will bring more jobs to town. Chairman Munoz agreed with all the previous comments. He wished the applicant good luck. He noted that a condition is in the resolution regarding the unlikely event of a change of ownership. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review DRC2010-00905 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 23, 2011 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2009-00842 - FOOTHILL & EAST LLC - KAMRAN BENJI - A Request to construct a 61,800 square foot multi-tenant commercial center on 6.99 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Specific Plan approximately 65 feet west of the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue - APN: 1100-201-03 & 07. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2008-00284, Pre-Application DRC2008-00947, Conditional Use Permit DRC2009- 00843, Uniform Sign Program DRC2011-00043, Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00861 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00562. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2009-00843 - FOOTHILL&EAST LLC- KAMRAN BENJI-A request to construct a 61,800 square foot multi- tenant commercial center with a drive thru (Pad A) on 6.99 acres of land in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 4) of the Foothill Specific Plan approximately 65 feet west of the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue - APN: 1100-201-03 & 07. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2008-00284, Pre-Application DRC2008-00947, Development Review DRC2009-00842, Uniform Sign Program DRC2011-00043, Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00861 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00562. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00562 - FOOTHILL & EAST, LLC - KAMRAN BENJI - A request to amend the text in Development Code Section 17.32.080 (D)(6)(c)to allow for the removal and replacement of the grove of trees on 6.99 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4)of the Foothill Specific Plan approximately 65 feet west of the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue-APN: 1100-201-03& 07. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2008-00284, Pre-Application DRC2008-00947, Development Review DRC2009-00842, Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00843, Uniform Sign Program DRC2011-00043, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00861. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. F. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2011-00043 - FOOTHILL& EAST, LLC-KAMRAN BENJI- A request to establish a uniform sign program for a proposed shopping center within the Foothill Boulevard (Subarea 4) Community Commercial District approximately 65 feet west of the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2008-00284, Pre-Application DRC2008-00947, Development Review DRC2009-00842, Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00843, Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00861, and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00562. G. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2009-00861 - FOOTHILL & EAST LLC - KAMRAN BENJI -A request to remove 123 trees for the development of a 61,800 square foot commercial retail center approximately 65 feet west of the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Specific Plan Subarea 4 -APN: 1100-201-03 & 07. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2008-00284, Pre-Application DRC2008-00947, Development Review DRC2009-00842, Conditional Use Permit DRC2009- 00843, Uniform Sign Program DRC2011-00043, and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00562. Steve Fowler,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation(copy on file). He noted that staff encouraged the property owner to make a good faith effort to purchase the Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 23, 2011 property to the east as it would make a better project and had that occurred the street improvements and gain access along East Avenue would be put in along with the development. He added that if the property to the north is developed, the applicant has also 'master planned' to provide that property access to Foothill Boulevard as well. He summarized the project including the elevations, design elements and materials, and the site plan which indicates that if they ever can acquire the property to the east, they would have access there and off of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Fowler displayed a model of the arch that will span across Foothill Boulevard to meeting the Historic Route 66 VIP requirements. He said this applicant will not be installing the monument sign on the corner because he does not own that property. He listed several elements of the VIP plan that will be included with the project such as meandering sidewalks, double rows of Crape Myrtles and the entry sign. He said the existing elements namely stamped concrete and the post and cable, will remain. He reviewed the current wording of the Development Code regarding the grove of trees and summarized the intent of the proposed Code Amendment. He said they would be required to replant the 124 eucalyptus trees to help achieve a windrow look along with olive trees with a grove effect. He said amended resolutions are before the Commissioners on the dais. He noted that the resolutions have been amended for clarity purposes. He said it was a matter of placing the various approvals in the appropriate resolutions. He noted that discussions with the Parks and Recreation Department indicate that they never intended for a connection to the park through this project. . Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney said that the first resolution is for the Development Review only; the second resolution is for the CUP,tree removal and signs and the third resolution is for the recommendation of the Development Code Amendment. Commissioner Fletcher asked what the requirements will be for the gateway monument sign considering the strip of land along East Avenue and if the replacement trees will be spotted gum trees. Mr. Fowler noted that the gateway sign is supposed to be located at Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue. He said that gateway sign will be constructed on the corner if the easternmost strip of land is acquired or developed (the sign will be the responsibility of the property owner). He said the Eucalyptus on site will be removed and replaced with spotted gum in a grove like fashion and there are also fruitless olives planned for the site. Commissioner Oaxaca clarified where the archway will go. Mr. Fowler indicated on the map on the overhead the exact location which is further to the west. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney asked if the applicant was asked to make a good faith effort to acquire the easternmost strip of land and if he is aware of those efforts and if he could speak to them. Mr. Fowler said the applicant has shown staff documents evidencing that he made good faith efforts and tried to acquire it several times. Mr. Flower asked if he is satisfied with those efforts. Mr. Fowler responded, yes. Mr. Flower asked if staff ever spoke with the property owner of that parcel of land. Mr. Fowler said he did within the last week. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 23, 2011 Mr. Flower noted the letter delivered to the Commission with objections to the project. He asked Mr. Fowler what objections he was made aware of by the owner of that parcel. Mr. Fowler said that the property owner reported there was a partnership and a real estate agreement in 1992 at the time of the original land purchase (3 parcels)-this parcel, the one to the north and the strip of land to the east. Mr. Flower asked what the other owners objections that they presented at that time. Mr. Fowler said the owner that owns this strip of land believes these parcels should all be developed together, not individually, and if the City allows them to construct this, it would make his strip piece of property invaluable. He felt that it would be a safer project if developed together. He said staff agrees that it would be nicer with that additional strip of land but the applicant has met the requirements without it. Mr. Flower asked if anything was mentioned about the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)at the time of any of those discussions and if he submitted any comments during the comment period about the Negative Declaration. Mr. Fowler said no and no comments about the MND were received during the CEQA review period. Commissioner Fletcher asked if that strip could still be developed provided this project moves forward without acquiring that additional land. Mr. Fowler said it can still be developed and approximately 70 feet can be utilized for signage or landscaping. Mr. Flower said that there is a common ownership with the parcel to the north so the development of that strip could still tie in with the parcel to the north. Commissioner Oaxaca confirmed that this property is not landlocked or isolated. Mr. Flower said not at all; it could be developed with a multitude of uses by the same owner. He said the issue here is that this project would work better if it was done all together, but the parties could not reach an agreement. He asked staff if it was determined how this strip of land was created in the first place because it would not meet our current requirements. Mr. Fowler said staff investigated and it may have been a utility easement with the County. Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that originally there were 3 parcels and this strip to the east is one of those 3. Mr. Fowler said yes. He pointed out on the map the arrangement of the 3 parcels. Chairman Munoz said the DRC admonished the applicant several times to acquire the other property and he tried again and again but the two owners could not agree and that should not limit this property owner from developing his property. Commissioner Oaxaca confirmed that the environmental documents went through the regular comment process and circulation period required under CEQA. • Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 23, 2011 Mr. Flower said that it did and he confirmed with staff that no public comments were received, nor from the AQMD. Mr. Fowler said that Cal Trans asked for a copy of a traffic study and they were supplied that about a week and a half ago and they did not comment any further. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Kamran Benji, stated he is the applicant. He thanked staff for working with them. He noted that it has been a long process; about 3 years of review and modifications for a good cause. He said it is an important gateway to the City and it should beautiful and the City will be very proud. He said it has the "wow" factor with costly quality materials. He said he agreed to replace all the trees which should resolve the fire hazard and transient problems. He said they are building a quality center to serve the community. He said they are talking with national retailers. He said the City required him to try to get the strip of property. He said he knows it was in his best interest to own that property for the access to East Avenue. He said over the years, no less than 4 agreements have been drawn up with multiple owners; one such agreement charged $450 thousand dollars for.7 acre which is about 4 times the value of the property. He said they rejected our offers. He read from one such letter of rejection which indicated he must also buy the north parcel. He said the same owner is here tonight to attempt to stop the approval of the project. He said this same owner was approached by the water district for permission to install a pipe and after two years of negotiations, the water district was forced to give up and install their pipe around the property instead. .He said the Commission should consider their motives and that he would consider their actions to be blackmail. He said he is not in a position to buy the north parcel. He said he believes the opponents are misinformed. He said one of his objections in their letter is because of inadequate traffic circulation analysis. He said that he hired one of the best traffic analysis consultants. He said the opponents have also'said that they (the applicant) also have failed to engage in good faith discussions regarding the sale of the property and that is inaccurate. Commissioner Fletcher asked if he tried to purchase the property to the north. . Mr. Benji said he had no interest in purchasing that property. Glen Pierce, stated he is the architect for the project. He said the previous project design included the entire 11 acres which faced East Avenue and not Foothill Boulevard. He said at Kamran's direction they did numerous studies as to what could be done with the property to the north and there are several options open to them including a church, a school or a health club. He said the applicant could provide access if that remaining property is ever developed. He said the proposed landscape plan shows what they would have used that strip of land for had they been able to acquire the property. He said it would have provided a nice perimeter to the project and Mr. Benji would still be willing to do that. He said he has been impressed with Mr. Benji because regardless of the changes requested or additional costs, he readily complied. He said it is a pleasure to have a client like that. Michael Shonafelt, of Parker Milliken, Clark, O'Hara, Sameulian, 555 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, said he is the attorney representing the landowner to the north and the 70-foot strip to the east. He said there is a dispute over acquiring the strip to the east. He said the use of the word blackmail is pretty sharp. He said his client is willing to discuss this further and he is requesting a continuance to facilitate that. He said the project proposal as currently presented is less than the optimum configuration. He said it could be a fantastic gateway and it is not. He said he only sees part of a project. He said if this project is approved, the parcel would be useless for anything other than landscaping and because of the setback, it would also cut viability for the property to the north Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 23, 2011 considering pedestrian access. He said his client takes contention with phrases such as'blackmail' and he wants to continue with good faith negotiations. He said the letter is presented as a concern about the less than ideal site plan and they believe the MND is inadequate in the areas of traffic, air quality and cumulative impact analysis. He said if the Commission approves an inadequate MND, the result could be legally void approvals. Chairman Munoz said Mr. Shonafelt stated good reasons to gain an agreement with the other landowner. He said his client has had 3 years to come to an agreement and his client has been informed of this. He asked him why the Planning Commission should impact and delay the other landowner any longer. Mr. Shonafelt said the delay is necessary for the Commission to act upon and approve a more integrated site plan. He said he believes that should be the critical and overriding concern of the Planning Commission. He said he was not privy to those discussions that took place over the 3 years and the continuance would be for a limited duration of time which would facilitate more expedited discussions. He said over the course of the past 3 years these pressures were not present and there is clearly a dispute about if they were good faith discussions or not and those are not facts/evidence that the Commission can entertain or discuss at this time. Commissioner Fletcher said considering his comments, he asked if the only issue for negotiations for his client left is money. He said he has not heard any other development proposals. Mr. Shonafelt said it would be between the two parties. He said there are a number of considerations. He said one question is what kind of development would be viable as he has a common interest. Commissioner Fletcher said "for the right price." Mr. Shonafelt said that is for the parties to discuss. He said the1991 agreement is between these owners (and/or their predecessors) and requires them to incorporate all 3 parcels into their development scheme. He said this development violates that joint development agreement entered into by their parties' predecessors in 1991. He said this would result in a better project which would be in everyone's interest. Chairman Munoz asked if the Commissioners had any further questions and he received a negative response. He asked if any members of the public wished to speak. No one responded.' Mr. Flower said the public hearing is still open and suggested the applicant be allowed to rebut. Mr. Benji asked what is different now then when all the back and forth occurred over the last 3 years. He said he negotiated for 18 months and he has not heard from them in the past 1 and 1/2 years. He said that if their interest was to negotiate further about the property, you would think he would have heard from them. He said they closed the door and said unless I would buy the property to the north they would not negotiate. He asked what the delay would achieve. He said he has Major tenants that will not wait any longer and to delay will impact him in that tenants are very difficult to come by. He said the opposing counsel is misinformed staff regarding the prior agreement because the parties involved are three times removed that agreement is no longer in effect, and he has documents to evidence that. He said if it was, it would be a civil matter for the courts and not here. He said they are just trying to do everything they can to stop us from moving forward. Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 23, 2011 • Mr. Flower responded to the opponents counsel. He said they had interesting arguments. He said the 1991 agreement is a civil matter between these parties and not something the City can or should enforce. He said he reviewed the letter sent by the opponents counsel regarding the adequacy of the environmental review. He said the environmental documents were out for the full required statutory review period but Mr Shonafelt said nothing about the adequacy of the environmental review until this letter was hand delivered tonight just before the meeting. He said Mr. Shonafelt may not be aware the City recently updated the General Plan; it was a multi-year, thorough review and said it addressed what development would look like at buildout, it included a full update to the land use element and included a full EIR for that plan. He said it also identified traffic and unavoidable air quality impacts and the City Council subsequently adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which states the value of the development at buildout was worth those impacts. He said despite that this development does comply with that plan and the project incorporates mitigation measures to lower those impacts. He said this project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in that EIR. He said with that in mind, he said he would not have concerns about the Commission approving this application. He said although the counsel for the opponents raised their concern about environmental adequacy, it appears this is clearly a business interest issue and how this project values his land. He said it is not something the Commission can or should consider but it is probably at bottom what is driving his objections. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she has driven by the site; she knows the area very well. She said we have a landowner with considerable land and the owner took a great deal of time to meet the City's stringent standards. She said the DRC takes to heart what they favor and this is a gateway. She said it is a City gateway; we have identified what we want for that and for this reason we also made sure the San Sevaine project across the street also projected a higher standard. She said the architecture incorporates a theme around the City and is attractive along with the colors, landscaping, materials and other design elements. She said the trees there are sad, dead and dying and the project proposal provides a new vibrant landscape. She said she really favors this project. She said 3 years is a long time to work on a project and the applicant worked with staff and stepped up to the challenge. Commissioner Oaxaca concurred. He said he wanted to respond to some of the comments. He said this is an unusual arrangement of properties and he wanted to be sure there was an opportunity to acquire the project site. He said that if I was the owner of an unusually shaped property with a 70-foot strip, I would be looking for ways to maximize the value/use of that property but because that did not happen it is not a reason to delay a positive and well designed and thought out project on a significant parcel in the City. He said he concurs with counsel about the CEQA review. He said he is not in favor of using CEQA as a tool to delay or derail the approval of the project. He said CEQA should be a tool to make projects as acceptable and palatable as possible and to minimize impacts on the environment and surrounding land uses and he believes this project does that. He said he appreciates Mr. Benji for the time, expense and effort and level of quality of his project and it should be a significant gateway and addition to the City. He said he has also taken extra steps in his plans to show us how if there are future changes in the site he has designed alternative additional accesses and has left the door open for the ideal resolution; the City is getting a very good option as it is. Commissioner Wimberly concurred with all the comments. He said he worked with Mr. Benji and his staff, the DRC and staff, and with the obstructions to getting his project to this point; there were many issues and hurdles to get where we are now. He noted that the project is a gateway entry point to the City, they provided 360 degree architecture and they came back several times with modified designs. He said they made that effort and to stop them because they could not obtain the other property is something he could not support. He commended the applicant and staff for the project. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 23, 2011 Commissioner Fletcher said the applicant did do a very good job with the design; it is attractive and represents our local history and culture. He said he likes the murals and would like to see more as well as mosaics around the City. He said the project will provide restaurants,services and shops;all a benefit to this part of town. He said it provides many visual enhancements for Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue. He said he has no issue with the tree removal/replacement; the old ones are in bad shape. He said he did not believe they could be saved or worked into the development. He said the issue of deed restrictions is not a concern for the Commission. He said the project is consistent with the General Plan and he is disappointed that the applicant could not acquire the additional property along East Avenue. Chairman Munoz concurred and said the project is well designed and he also met with the applicant many times over the past 3 years. He said we got what we needed for our gateway and the design is entirely appropriate for this. He said the arguments and objections of the property owner to the north have little merit as they have had 3 years to work out an agreement and the issue is probably more about money than any of the other issues brought out tonight. He said the opponent's window may be closed now to get an agreement. He said this project mitigates a concern from some folks on the east side of town that complained that they believe they have been forgotten. He expressed his support of the project. Mr. Flower noted that draft Resolution 11-16 for the Development Code Amendment has been revised. He said the draft resolution included a typo in that mitigation measures and these should be removed. He directed the secretary to strike all of section 5 on Agenda Packet Page 164 after the word 'Ordinance' through page 170. He said these conditions are included elsewhere in the other approvals for the project. He noted that Resolution 11-14 is for the Development Review and 11-15 is for the CUP, Sign Program and Tree Removal Permit. He said Resolution 11-16 is for the recommendation to approve the Code Amendment and attached to it is a copy of the draft Ordinance for Council action. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review DRC2009-00842, Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00843, and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00562 (to be forwarded to the City Council for final action). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried • PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS Vice Chairman Howdyshell said it was a great meeting with good presentations. She thanked everyone for their support of the Library Telethon; they received $100,000. She said the Planning Team did well at the Telethon and Mr. Troyer was interviewed on TV. James Troyer, Planning Director, said he was interviewed regarding the partnership with the Library and their upcoming event to unveil the new Local History website. Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 23, 2011 Chairman Munoz offered his kudos to Vice Chairman Howdyshell on her"MC"skills and the musical talent of Mr. Troyer. Commissioner Wimberly noted the grand opening of the San Sevaine Villas and said it is beautiful with 180 of 225 units occupied. Commissioner Fletcher noted the opening of the 5 Guys Burgers and said the lines are still long. Commissioner Oaxaca suggested ordering on-line to avoid the line. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said there are many new eateries one being Oporto. She said Omaha Jacks was a great host for the American Cancer Society fundraiser. Chairman Munoz reported that Lewis Homes has broken ground on their Santa Barbara project. _ * * * * ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Wimberly seconded by Fletcher carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9 p.m. I9sr Re submitted, Re James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: April 13, 2011 I Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 23, 2011