Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/01/09 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 9, 2008 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:35 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, Pam Stewart; Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Rina Leung, Senior Planner; Cathy Morris, Planning Specialist; Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Denise Sink, Office Specialist II; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director * * * * ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS A. PRESENTATION BY THE ROBERT GROUP AND GRUEN ASSOCIATES FOR THE COMPASS BLUEPRINT PROGRAM James Troyer, Planning Director, announced that the presentation has been postponed at the request of Gruen Associates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 4-0-1 (Fletcher abstain), to approve the minutes of December 12, 2007. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2007-00810 - F/S MOTORSPORTS, INC. (GEORGE REYNOSO) -A request to amend the Development Code, Section 17.30 to allow auto sales and leasing, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 1. This action will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of the Public Hearing before City Council will be separately noticed. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. George Reynoso stated he is the applicant and he had no comment other than his request for approval of the project. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz commented that the project is consistent with the General Plan by fostering the economic development in the area that already has similar uses. He said the City is protected by the related Conditional Use Permit because it can be reviewed if there are any problems with the use. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00810 as presented by staff to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried * * * * C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00580 - MARK SATER-A request to construct a commercial center consisting of an auto service court (2,900 square foot gas station with convenience store and carwash) and a fast food restaurant of 1,800 square feet on 2.07 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 8 at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Etiwanda Avenue;APN: 0229-141-10 and -11. This application includes a Type 20 alcohol license to allow the sale of packaged beer and wine for off-site consumption. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 12, 2007. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He commented that staff is recommending a condition to limit the number of cabinets for the specific sale of alcohol to four(4). He added that there is also a restriction of the sale of alcohol from 2:00 a.m. -7:00 a.m. He noted that alcohol also may not be sold from the floor. He mentioned that there would be a 6 month review of the business operation (after the business has been open and operational for 6 months). He noted that the applicant has read and accepts these conditions. He remarked that ARCO has even more stringent conditions than these that the applicant must follow. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Alex Cuevas stated he represents the applicant. He asked if his project must come back to the Commission in 6 months. James Troyer, Planning Director, said it is just for a review. Mr. Cuevas asked if he would still need to come back if there are no violations. Mr. Troyer remarked that there would be an inspection and a review and just a report would come back to the Commission stating the business is in compliance with the conditions of approval. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz said this report tonight is just to complete the requirements of the project. He said they did a good job and that the City has its required protections in place. He moved for approval. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 9, 2008 Chairman Stewart concurred. She said the project had been to Design Review Committee a couple of times and that it was continued so that the alcohol portion of the project could be analyzed. She said this project sets the bar for this corner because it is nicely designed and sets the standard. She said with the Conditional Use Permit in place, the business operation could be brought back to the Commission for review if needed. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that this project has gone through many hours of design review and he concurred with Chairman Stewart in that it does set a new standard for design in that area. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to approve DRC2006-00580 as presented by staff with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried ♦ ¢ 4 fe 4 D. ORDINANCE REGARDING TEMPORARY SIGNS - DRC2007-00495 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A review of a draft ordinance amending Sections 14.08.350, 14.16.010(P)and 14.16.020 and adding Chapter 14.25 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code concerning temporary signs. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Rina Leung, Senior Planner, gave a power point presentation highlighting the history of the request for a new Temporary Sign Ordinance as well as an overview of the standards covered in the Ordinance. Vice Chairman asked if a right of way includes the medians from the street curb in, then how would the public know where the right of way begins and ends. Kurt Keating, Code Enforcement Supervisor reported that if the ordinance is approved then there would be a pubic outreach period to help educate the public and business owners. He noted that as a rule of thumb,they will be looking at the parkway areas, specifically in the commercial districts,the areas behind the sidewalks. He said they are not looking to take precise measurements to determine the easements, setbacks, etc. Commissioner Howdyshell, asked for clarification regarding temporary signs,specifically real estate signs. She asked if for example signs are up for over a week, what type of partnership Code Enforcement will engage in with the real estate community to notify the owners of the signs that they in violation. Mr. Keating referred to the public outreach-period and the fact that Code Enforcement has been occurring on weekends and outreach is already occurring;they are already letting people know that signs in the public right of way are in violation. He said that typically they will attempt to contact the owners and explain the ordinance and ask them to voluntarily remove the sign. He said there would be an education period over time and he did not see any reason for that policy to change. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that he believed this amendment originated to help control the proliferation of political signs. He said the new ordinance extends the period of time for political signs. James Troyer, Planning Director commented that because of the popularity of early absentee voting, candidates are putting up signs earlier. He remarked that during the last election we had 4 or 5 Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 9, 2008 signs for one candidate on one corner. He said the one sign per candidate per parcel restriction would still greatly reduce the number of signs, even considering the extended time to post them. Vice Chairman Fletcher expressed concern if the one-sign per parcel could restrict a person's individual rights to promote his/her candidate(s). He commented that it could also restrict a commercial property owner's rights. He said the intent of many candidates is for one candidate to bury the other with his signs. He asked if the one sign per parcel restriction is enforceable Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, commented that cities may impose a time, place, and manner restriction and that the number of signs can be limited. He said if you granted a more lenient standard to someone with a corner property over someone else then that might pose a problem. He said the committee recommended one per parcel but that the Commission could recommend something else. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked about the size of signs and bill boards. He asked if they would be included in the 32 square foot size restriction. Mr. Troyer responded that bill boards are not defined as temporary signs and therefore do not fall into that restriction. Commissioner Howdyshell commented that although billboards are more permanent,they are used for political reasons. She asked for clarification. Mr. Troyer stated that the City cannot restrict the advertising for approved billboards. Mr. Ennis said that because bill boards are permanent sign structures, the content cannot be regulated. He said that standard could not be upheld by the courts. He said a billboard could be used for a message differently than on a temporary sign. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there was any reason a City could not have guidelines for political candidates. Mr. Ennis replied that the Council could consider that approach but what the City is looking to accomplish is a minimum standard for all temporary sign speech to be in place so that something can be enforced if needed. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Delores Feheen, 11785 Mt. Wilson, said one sign per parcel is too restrictive for the real estate market. She said if she is selling her house and her highschool age son wants to have his football team sign displayed and if she supports candidates, it would be 3 different signs. She asked about an open house sign as well. Mr. Troyer commented that would be okay. He said that because they are all different in content, and if the real estate sign is not date specific, it would not have the time restriction as would a political sign or a yard sale sign. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that if one supported 6 separate candidates than one could put up 6 separate signs. Ryan Orr, 7245 Gainsborough Ct. objected to the idea of puffing real estate signs in the same category as garage sale signs and political signs. He added that because real estate signs are typically confiscated without a phone call. He said it is difficult to give direction to some properties and directional signs are often needed. He said the real estate business helps the economy. He Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 9, 2008 added that there are some properties that border two streets and more than one sign would be appropriate(such as for properties that back up to Day Creek Boulevard). He said there needs to be an exception made. Mr. Ennis commented on the rationale why all these temporary signs are lumped into one category. He reported that the courts have interpreted the First Amendment to the US Constitution and similar provisions of the California Constitution, as limiting the type of regulations the government can impose when they seek to regulate expressive types of activity including the content on signs. He said the courts have said that if governments want to get into the regulation of signs, they must do so in a content neutral time, place and manner method. He said if we start making distinctions of one type of sign over another, and then have a more restrictive base for one over another; that those value based decisions on what is the most appropriate speech to allow on the public right of way or temporarily on private property, is not permitted without a compelling governmental interest. He said the legitimate issue for governments is aesthetics and traffic safety. He said the courts have decided that political signs are not different aesthetically or more of a safety issue than a real estate sign and therefore their regulation must be content neutral. He said the way to do this is to limit the time limit, the size, etc. but not play favorites. He said there is the issue of staff time, ability and resources to enforce this and most likely they will not have the ability to do this. He said with this in mind it would be natural to think that Code Enforcement would have to prioritize their handling of violations. Mr. Keating commented that real estate signs are not the primary complaint, that more often it is signs on trees and poles such as advertisements for clubs, fairs, etc. He remarked their efforts are on signs that create traffic hazards and the most blight before they have the resources to deal with real estate signs. He said all the factors are considered. Helen Moreno, 5514 Wither, Fontana, commented that she pays $110 per A-frame sign for open house signs. She said kids destroy,them and steal the flags and they should not be compared to political signs,fair events or garage sale signs. She asked that a separate'sub-code'for real estate signs be considered. She said she is careful about where she places her signs so that they are not a hazard. Mike Rebay, 5771 Johnson, said we have to have real estate signs everyday, political signs every 4 years. He said the signs are put up because people ask them to. He said 80% of property is sold by signs and most agents take them down at the end of the day. He opposed lumping all the signs together. Diana Margala, 9382 Orange Street, stated they need directional signs and hoped for an exception for realtors. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked Ms. Margala how many signs she typically puts out for an open house, how far apart are they and the times they go up, and when they are removed. Ms. Margala said 12-14, depending on where the home is, about 1-2 blocks apart, and that they go up about 6-7 a.m. and are removed 5-6 p.m. the same day. • Norm MacKenzie, President of Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, expressed displeasure that the same ordinance was brought back for consideration after everyone had spoken about it at the previous meetings and workshop. He took exception that everyone's time was taken for those meetings and nothing was changed. He mentioned that no explanation was given for right of way as requested within the language of the ordinance. He said we need to keep revenues coming to the City and that he believes the types of signs can be separated. He asked the Commission to reconsider the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 9, 2008 Nayra Zeto, 10707 Town Center Drive, #110, said she is concerned with the one sign per parcel restriction. She said as a real estate agent, she is not asking to be excluded from the rules but political signs and real estate signs should not be considered the same. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if she was allowed a sign at the rear of the property(such as in a Day Creek property) and another at the front, would that solve the problem. Ms. Zeto said that it would. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. She then asked Mr. Ennis to comment on content neutrality. She asked if there are provisions placed in the ordinance, would it violate or negate the neutrality of the ordinance and its enforcement. Mr. Ennis said that if you regulate the real estate signs the same way you regulate political signs and yard sale signs (all temporary signs), then something is in place that can be used to enforce the problems, but if an exception is made for real estate signs then if we try to enforce the ordinance then it would invalidate the ordinance. Vice Chairman Fletcher said he understands what the Chairman is asking and what the public is asking for. He asked how this is different for businesses that want to hang special strings of lights, etc. Mr. Ennis said there is more discretion when the type of material does not contain a message, meaning that a light strand does not convey words, and therefore there is more ability to restrict • them on the basis of aesthetics. Commissioner Wimberly commented that it sounds like we are trying to limit endorsement types of signs versus advertisements. Mr. Ennis said that we do not want to get into the situation of making government decisions that validate and prioritize speech based upon the words. He added that all we can do is come up with size, number, and location restrictions and do not get into what is ok and not ok with the wording. Commissioner Munoz commented that the word"political"has been added to the ordinance and that now it appears that people realized that there were no political signs mentioned in the previous ordinance and therefore they believed there were no regulations for them. He said now we are taking a step back and adding that in to make all regulations for temporary signs content neutral. He said the question is now how do we regulate all this and will it be done any differently than before. Mr. Ennis said, no, it would not be done any differently, but that now we have a tool so we can go after the signs that are a real problem and a tool that is enforceable in court. Mr. Keating said we tend to look at signs based on complaints primarily and that real estate signs are not typically considered a source of complaint. Commissioner Munoz asked if when Code Enforcement is "cruising" are they responding to complaints or looking for violations'. Mr. Keating said that both occur to a point. He said they often receive calls about signs on poles and trees, center medians, signs that obstruct traffic or are blocking ADA ramps or create blight. He said staff is encouraged to be proactive on those types of signs when they see them but they do not proactively look for real estate signs that may pose a violation or two signs on one residential parcel. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 9, 2008 Commissioner Munoz asked what is the policy if they find a sign in violation for example a real estate sign or if you receive a complaint on it. He asked if they always return the signs to realtors. Mr. Keating said staff looks for sign placement(hazards), signs in the parkway(these they review for hazards and may choose to relocate it, and then make a call to the owner), open house signs (take into consideration how long they may be placed there): He said typically a call is made so that if the sign is removed the realtor could come pick it up, but sometimes the call is made and the sign is abandoned and not picked up. He said he did not guarantee a call is always made and that it should be known that sometimes people other than Code Enforcement sometimes remove their • signs. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that he observed Code Enforcement removing signs from a telephone pole this morning. He said he appreciates that for the aesthetic value of the City. He said this is a difficult ordinance to draft with all the legal issues and first amendment rights. He remarked that Code Enforcement is understaffed, so he knows they are not arbitrarily spending time removing signs and they typically do things on a complaint basis. He noted that the ordinance is not really changing with respect to real estate signs. He said restricting size, number and location is a better way to go about it. He reflected that this ordinance is too restrictive in the one-per parcel stipulation. He suggested we allow two signs per parcel and two signs per linear block. He also suggested the City Council develop a policy for political campaigns and their signs and hope for voluntary compliance with that. . . . . Mr. Troyer said the existing ordinance regulating political signs is distributed to every candidate at the time of their candidacy filing. He said that when this is adopted, the candidates would be given the new standards at the time of their filing. ' • Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that if there were other restrictions they wanted to impose on candidates then they could put that in a policy that is not included in the ordinance itself. . . Commissioner Munoz commented that although he does not have a strong negative feeling about the regulating of political signs, and he supports making all temporary signs content neutral, and he supports the Council in what they are trying to accomplish with the ordinance, and he supports the efforts of Code Enforcement to enforce the regulations, but he is concerned that with all the meetings, we still have not found a way to satisfy the concerns of the real estate industry. He said he is concerned with them being able to do business on a day to day basis. Commissioner Howdyshell concurred with Commissioner Munoz in that there were many meetings and concerns were voiced and questions asked to get clarity on the Ordinance. She said the ordinance does address the issue of clutter because the City has become one with little signs everywhere. She said this does set guidelines. She said there are many realtors that do spend money on their signs and remove them promptly. She reported that she has personal friends that had their signs picked up and never received a call or had them returned. She said she recommends a partnership with Code Enforcement where if a sign is picked up, a phone call is made giving them 24 hours to pick up their signs. • Commissioner Wimberly concurred with his colleagues and that he believes the ordinance is somewhat restrictive particularly in the way in which it deals with real estate signage. He commented that we have politicized the ordinance by adding the political signs to it. Chairman Stewart expressed disappointment to see that the exact same ordinance was given to the Commission after the Commission had sent it back requesting revision. She said it concerns her because it has not addressed the real estate sign concerns. She commented that she also understands the comments from counsel related to the neutrality issue. She said that if special considerations are given to real estate signs then we could end up with an ordinance that is invalid. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 9, 2008 She remarked that Code Enforcement says they are using common sense approaches, however, she is concerned about the over zealous officer performing his duties. She said Vice Chairman Fletcher made some suggestions to alter the ordinance. She asked if there would be a policy with Code Enforcement if this ordinance is passed. Mr. Keating commented that he would like to think the policy already exists in that it already prohibits real estate signs from being placed on City property, and up to the time of this proposed ordinance being considered, he had not heard anything from the real estate community regarding the City's policy or philosophy regarding the enforcement of real estate signs. He remarked that until the process was started to incorporate political signs into this ordinance did this issue come to the surface. He said he had not heard complaints from citizens or real estate agents. He said that real estate signs are not typically the source of complaints. He said their policy has not changed and did not anticipate it changing. He said their policy is in place and he believes it is working. He noted that the new ordinance is only being proposed so that they have a minimum standard to go by that is enforceable and so they can deal with problem signs so as to keep the community looking good. Mr. Ennis said this is the opportunity for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council regarding the version of the ordinance that they would be most comfortable with, including changes to the provisions. He surmized that the Council would appreciate hearing the Commission's comments. Commissioner Munoz asked if the data received from the meetings held with the real estate/business community could be used to alter the provisions of the ordinance. He said he wanted to be sure that changing something, e.g. the number of signs per parcel,would take care of their concern. He asked if they could review the data/public comments so they would know where to • make the changes. Mr. Troyer replied that the things staff heard were 1) an exception for the placement of real estate signs in the public right of way, and 2) more signs per parcel. He said we have consistently stated that the rules about signs in the public right of way have not changed and whatever has been occurring with those signs placed there has always been a violation. Commissioner Munoz commented that if that was changed, then we would no longer be content neutral because we would be granting privilege for one type of sign over another. Mr. Troyer commented that if they wanted two signs per parcel then that would be an equal standard for all types of signage. Commissioner Munoz asked how to find out if that would make a difference and allay their fears. Vice Chairman Fletcher said we heard from them tonight and we know their concerns. Commissioner Munoz said he would be happy to amend the ordinance and recommend two signs per parcel if that would take care of it. Vice Chairman Fletcher suggested they also restrict signs to two per linear block. He said this all came about because of The proliferation of political signs. He said he did not see that this would affect the real estate industry much because nothing has changed for them. Commissioner Munoz asked how would they enforce that. Mr. Ennis clarified the idea for a limit of two signs per linear block. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 9, 2008 Vice Chairman Fletcher clarified that he was speaking to signs placed by someone other than the property owner. Mr. Ennis said the wording is problematic because of the possibility of trespassing onto private property and because of possible signs in the right of way. Commissioner Munoz suggested they accept the change of allowing two signs per parcel, that this would address some of the real estate industry concerns and keep it content neutral with no other changes. Commissioner Howdyshell asked about a cooperative enforcement agreement. Vice Chairman Fletcher added that they recommend the Council include a policy for political candidates. • Mr. Troyer added that staff has already planned on doing community outreach with some guidelines that would certainly include the real estate community. Chairman Stewart recommended they move to send the modified ordinance forward to the City Council. She re-opened the public hearing to take comment on the suggested changes. Nayra Zeto commented that she believes two signs per parcel would be a good idea. She indicated she and her colleagues agree that the idea of two signs per linear block might not work. She asked for a 24 hour period to pick up their signs if they are picked up by Code Enforcement. Chairman Stewart commented that the 24 hour pick up period would be part of the policy/guidelines rather than part of the actual ordinance. . Helen Moreno agreed with the idea of two signs per parcel. She noted that a close-by City also changed their ordinance and now their Code Enforcement goes by the book. She said now homeowners and property owners are afraid to put out their signs and that is the source of her concern. She said education would help. Ryan Orr stated that political signs stay up 45 days and open house signs are only up for 12-24 hours and this is only half of the real estate sign issue. He still believes there is a difference although he understands the explanation regarding the concept of being content neutral. He said some of the considerations being suggested would help. Norm MacKenzie suggested that when the outreach program is ready, he strongly encouraged them to use the Chamber of Commerce to help get the word out. He said he appreciated the Commission's consideration and that they did a great job tonight. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Mr. Ennis re-stated the motion as: 1) a modification allowing two signs per parcel rather than one,2) a policy of cooperation with the business community regarding notification when their signs are • removed and an opportunity to retrieve them; voluntary guidelines developed for political signs;and an outreach program. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the draft Temporary Sign Ordinance DRC2007-00495 with the following: 1) a modification allowing two signs per parcel rather than one, 2) a policy of cooperation with the business community regarding notification when their signs are removed and an opportunity to retrieve them; 3) voluntary guidelines developed for political signs; and 4) an outreach program. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 9, 2008 Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None . * * * * COMMISSION BUSINESS Vice Chairman Fletcher thanked staff and the Commission for their kind comments and concern regarding his recent family emergency. * * w ♦ * ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Munoz, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted r mes.R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 9, 2008