No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/07/12 - Minutes - PC-HPC '•1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 12, 2006 Chairman Stewart 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 Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Emily Cameron, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Fechner, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission • Secretary; Joe Stofa,Associate Engineer;James Troyer, Planning Director; Barbara Tuncay, Planning Department Secretary; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS • Jennifer Fechner,Assistant Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the designs of the 2005 Design Award winners. The following projects/entities were given awards. Chairman Stewart presented the awards and thanked the winners for their help in making Rancho Cucamonga beautiful City: DRCDR00-79 Burnett Companies SWC Foothill & Haven Rancho Cucamonga Town Square DRC2003-00504 Marketplace Properties SEC Base Line & Day Winery Estate Marketplace Creek (Henry's) DRC2002-00845 Master Development NEC White Oak & Elm Campus at Rancho Oaks Corp Office/industrial park DRC2003-00638 DR Horton SWC Day Creek & Church Strathmore TT16454 Lot 29 KB Home NEC Etiwanda & Bartholow Bartholow House Historic Drive restoration Restoration TT16430 Manning Homes SWC Archibald & Hillside Oakhill Estates DRC2003-00965 DRC2003-00575 Manning Homes SWC Archibald & Hillside Toews House restoration DRC2002-00499 Kisco SWC 6th & Village on the Green senior apartments APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Munoz made a correction on Page 6 of the minutes. • The Planning Commission Secretary noted the change. .Motion: , Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of June 28, 2006. • CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-01198 - LILY KAUT- The review of site plans and elevations for 6 single-family homes on 2.99 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 6956 East Avenue - APN: 0227-121-33 and 37. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16578. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Item A was pulled from the Consent Calendar to be discussed in conjunction with Item B. • PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16578-KAUT-A request to subdivide 2.99 acres of land into 6 single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 6956 East Avenue - APN: 0227-121-33 and 37. Related File: Design Review DRC2004-01198. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Emily Cameron gave the staff report and noted that placed before the Commissioners are Engineering conditions for the map that were inadvertently left out of the staff report and resolution. She also reported that a letter had been received from Jim and Marsha Banks,which is attached to the staff report, detailing their concerns related to historic preservation, preserving the setting, the relationship of their historic home and the proposed adjacent development,their economic sacrifice, , design consistency within the neighborhood, their desire for single-story product to be built instead of the proposed "big box" design. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Lily Kaut, 10630 Towne Center Drive#101, stated she is the applicant and that she and two other members of her family purchased the 3 acre parcel and that they have been processing the project over the course of the last 3 years. Commissioner McPhail asked why she did not choose to build single-story homes and who will be living in the homes and which lots will be occupied by family. Mrs. Kaut stated that 3 of the homes will be lived in by family members and that the other 3 have already been sold. She reported that she has checks and contractual purchase agreements in hand because she sold them 3 months ago. She mentioned that she held a neighborhood meeting and no one came. She said she and her family members are in the front 3 lots and the back 3 were sold. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 12, 2006 • Chairman Stewart asked for confirmation that they are completed deals. Mrs. Kaut confirmed that the lots 3 and 4 are sold and that she asked the buyers if they would be willing to make changes but would not. She said because of the last three years of processing and because of the changes she sold the remaining 3 properties. Commissioner Fletcher asked if at the beginning of this process if she was aware of a development standard to provide single-story homes. Mrs. Kaut said no, she had been submitting two-story home plans since the beginning and no one mentioned a requirement for single-story homes. She said she invited her neighbors to a neighborhood meeting and no one was in opposition. She reported that Mr. Banks had an issue with the fence material because he claimed it would damage trees, so she changed to wrought iron because he said that would not damage the roots of the trees as opposed to the solid wall proposed for the project. She remarked that later Ms. Cameron called her and suggested an acrylic fence material because Mr. Banks requested it. She said she was complying with what he asked. She said that was the only request from the neighbors. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney commented that according to Califomia law and the Subdivision Map Act and the Department of Real Estate,the property could not be sold until the subdivision has occurred and the map was approved and recorded because property cannot be sold before lots are even created. He questioned the validity of the sale. He remarked that even if there were only preliminary discussions regarding the acquisition of the lots, it would not preclude the City from reviewing and making a decision on the map and development. He noted that those who enter into such agreements do so at their own risk and that does not preclude the City from making decisions regarding development, building sizes, changes in the lot configurations until the map is acted upon. Chairman Stewart asked if the buyers are all family members. Ms. Kaut replied three of them are. Jim Banks Jr., 13181 Victoria Street stated this is his residence address, however, he does not receive mail there and that is most likely the reason he did not receive notices regarding the project neighborhood meeting. He stated his mailing address is 10788 Civic Center Drive. He commented that he was never in favor of wrought iron fencing because coyotes can get through it and therefore he asked for the "Cedar Crete" product. He referred to the zoning noted in the staff report are statistics and he believes statistics can lie. He noted that the staff report indicates the property to the North of the project area is Low Residential. He commented that he believes the City changed that to Very Low about a year ago. He said part of his property is Low and some of it is in the Very Low Residential District. He said the development in question is actually is Very Low density. He said he did not know what the zoning is to the south but that is already developed. He commented that he believes the ratio of single vs. two-story homes is not important, but the way it is built is important. He said that there are few two-story homes and all the homes are smaller. He said the smallest of the proposed homes is bigger than the largest of what has already been built and since they are two-story homes, they are also massive. He commented that because of the Subdivision Map Act, the sale agreements Ms. Kaut is holding are not legal or enforceable and that they are contingent on the City's action. He commented that all six homes look like they are designed by one architect. He said the Design Review Committee (DRC) pointed out that they are large homes clustered around one small cul-de-sac. He said the project would appear to be a big forest of big blocks which is inconsistent with everything around it. He stated he believes the proposed dwellings are not compatible with the General Plan, Municipal Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He commented on the"buffer." He referred to Exhibit A on page A& B-4 of the agenda packet as being an old map(pre 1990) prior to the addition of their garage(barn)or the south addition to their home. He said most of the buffer is his property and therefore the developer is not really providing a buffer, Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 12, 2006 he and his wife are apart from the 38 foot backyards of the new homes. He quoted the Municipal Code Sections 17.08.010 which refers to intent of compatibility; and Section 17.08.040 which lists the intent of compatibility to provide transitions. He said there is no transition in size, height,density or of any kind. He noted Section 17.08.090 regarding setbacks from adjacent properties as it pertains to scale. He referred to the Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.42.100 and regarding character of development in Etiwanda. He noted Section 5.42.202 describes how the architecture and design elements of new development should be rural, rustic, informal, and traditional and have a low profile, not massive. He cited Section 5.42.500 that states developments of 4 dwelling units or more shall have a design that is sensitive to and compatible with the character of the surrounding area. He commented that the General Plan also indicates development design should be compatible with the surrounding and existing development and be based upon prominent design features in the immediate area such as trees, landforms and historic landmarks. He said he is trying to protect the historic environment around the historic landmark and to preserve the setting is important to the City too. He remarked that placing these large homes so near to his home would destroy the setting. He said the Commission should"consider taking the hard line." He said that the Commission should conclude that some of these homes should be single-story. He commented that he believes the City has a 25% minimum for a ratio of single-story homes to two-story homes. He ' asked why we are making an exception when we have so many good reasons.not to make the exception. Mr. Banks spoke for approximately 25 minutes. Commissioner Fletcher asked if his property is gated. , Mr. Banks stated he has 3 gates; 1 to the house and 2 to the vineyards. Mr. Banks said they have had several home tours and the public has not been shut out. Commissioner Fletcher said he went to visit the property and from the street it was difficult to see anything or get a flavor for the property because it is so hidden with mature vegetation. He commented that he is fortunate to have such a buffer on his property because development has ' occurred all around his property. He said they have to be sensitive to the historic nature of his property but that it is also important to be compatible to his site and the new development surroundings as well. Mr. Banks said that privacy is important but that he tries not to make a big deal out of it. He said he believes he has spoken in terms of what the standards are. He said they bought as much of the property as they could afford. Chairman Stewart commented that since she allowed Mr. Banks to go on so long, that she would make a procedural exception and allow the applicant to respond. Mrs. Kaut noted that the size of the homes was reduced from 3,600 square feet to 3,200 square feet. She displayed a map on the overhead projector indicating where the eucalyptus tree line appears to serve as a green wall. She indicated new trees would be planted and the new Cedar Crete wall would also help protect his privacy. She said her project meets the requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan but that she would change the exterior material to river rock to match the river rock on Mr. Banks' home. Commissioner McPHail said the reduction of the house product is compatible with the surrounding homes in the area. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 12, 2006 '•1 • • Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented that there is an appropriate density transition and that the allowable range noted in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the General Plan is 2-4 dwelling units per acre. He said the project is being developed at the bottom of that range at 2 dwelling units per acre. He added that the setbacks are larger than required. He said that along the shared property line the setback measures 38 feet from the bay pop out and is about 40 feet from the main mass of the homes. He said the requirement is only 25 feet. He said the average lot size is almost 16,000 square feet and the minimum required by the Specific Plan is 10,000 square feet. He noted that the 153-foot measurement was not taken from the map shown on Exhibit A, but was taken from the more recent tract grading plans and does include the addition to the Banks' home to the south. Ms. Cameron commented that the Design Review Committee originally asked for single-story elements including, single-story garages, one-story wrap around porches, generous sideyards and popouts. Commissioner McPhail said single-story homes were discussed and that they determined they would need about 1 and 1/2 single-story homes if they were going to require them. She said they • settled on using single-story elements in the street portion of the development to soften the appearance of the two-story product. She commented that at Design Review they considered placing a single-story home within the development however,,it would have been at the street instead of the back of the development and if they had imposed the requirement for one single-story home, the street face would have looked disturbing in that it would not have provided a good transition from the street to the back end of the site. She said she is passionate about historic preservation but that we cannot stop time or development by law and that she would love to see more vineyards. She noted that they compromi;ed with the single-story elements and compatible materials. She added that the lots are very large and she has visited the site. She commented that much of Etiwanda is being developed with.very large and beautiful homes. She noted that the proposed 6-foot wall will help with the privacy issues. She said she would like the developer to use additional buffering in the'rear yards along with the existing eucalyptus and all things considered, she is still in favor of the project and supports the staff recommendation for approval. Commissioner Munoz agreed and he thanked Mr. Bank's for his feel for the community as it used to be. He said there was a time when one could look at Rancho Cucamonga and that it was once one of the largest grape producers and now the vineyards are almost gone. He said he visited the site and that the homes around it are more of the character of what will be built. He said the developer has worked with the City to soften the appearance of the two-story homes and that it is unlikely that any property could transition smoothly to the Banks' property and what it ideally could be in a perfect world. He said the best thing they can do is to guide the development the best they can. He concurred with staffs recommendations. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that he is uncomfortable with the lots being pre-sold. He said that this is not valid or enforceable and should not dictate City development standards because it is financially expedient for the developer. He said that to design a development without all the facts is not a reason to ask for an amendment to our standards. He commented that the reference to these homes being "custom" is in error, they are not. He said he is disturbed with the single-gabled horizontal roofline and that he does not think the single-story elements such as a single level garage is a suitable replacement for single-story homes that would be in conformance with the policy of requiring single-story housing. He said these elements aide the street view more typically to a long street with two story homes with front-on garages all the way down the road on both sides of the road that creates a tunnel, box-on-box effect. He said a mix of single-story homes is a development standard at a minimum of 20% and Mr. Banks noted it in his letter. He remarked that he does not believe this development will affect his property and that there is a mix of single and two-story homes in the surrounding area. He remarked in regard to Mr. Banks' letter that his home is a low structure built of river rock and that he believes the two-story homes will affect his historic property. He said he does believe the development should be sensitive to the historic landmark and that he Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 12, 2006 does not see much in the design of the homes that reflects that historic character. He added there should have been more historic character that went into the design of these homes. He said it is fortunate that he has land around his home and that will be more important to the preservation of the character of the historic property. He said there is a demand for single-story homes with the aging population. He said it is possible to put a single-story home on these larger lots. He said it is important to maintain that element in the design standard. He said he believes the concern is not so much the nature of the development but how it is developed. He mentioned the surrounding land does have a mixture of single-story and two-story homes. He said he would like this to go back to the Design Review Committee to maintain th'e standard for single-story product. Chairman Stewart said she sees it differently, that she does not disagree or agree with everything being said. She reported that the project went to DRC twice and she visited the site twice and she shared her concern with staff and the Commission. She said she walked the property and tried to envision this project and she seemed satisfied with it. She said they were looking'at the front of the development as the transition area, they worked with the idea of single-story and they decided to mitigate some things but still followed the codes. She said they followed the codes but perhaps misunderstood in that she believed this was a "family type" of development. She said she tries to respect each homeowner. She commented that she is very unhappy that the parcels were being sold to other people and they are developing the property without approval from the City: She commented that this is the second time this has occurred and she publicly stated that this practice will not continue. She remarked that she considered everything and she does not believe single- story homes will help with the historic enterprise in this situation. She noted that the developer said she would work with them to get further enhancements. She remarked that she may have missed something at DRC and would like to return the project to the Design Review Committee and to also ask staff to come up with enhancements that would improve the project in conjunction with the Banks' concerns. She commented that Mr. Banks participated in the development of the Foothill Marketplace and that perhaps he could assist with this project to make it compatible with the historic nature of the site. Commissioner McPhail asked the Commission to consider asking Mr. Bank's to work with the applicant and staff rather than return the project to DRC. Chairman Stewart said she would be agreeable to that. Commissioner Fletcher interjected that he still is disturbed with 6 two-story homes, that there is, plenty of land and that even a single-story with a loft could be considered. He said he would like it to go back to Design Review. Move: Fletcher motioned to send the project back to DRC to give the single-story standard adequate consideration. Commissioner Munoz asked for clarification of the motion. He said he heard one motion to send the project back to DRC and another motion that does not. He asked which is he voting on now. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the motion is to take it back to DRC for adequate consideration. The motion failed for lack of a second. Chairman Stewart moved that the project be continued to a date non-specific and that staff would work with the applicant and the Bank's and consult with the DRC representatives (McPhail and Stewart) to address the concerns and then bring it back to the Commission when it is ready. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 12, 2006 • • Commissioner Fletcher pointed out that if they do not go back to DRC then there is a risk of coming back to the Planning Commission resulting in an unsatisfactory response from the Commission. He said he did not know how Commissioner Macias would respond. Chairman Stewart said there is a motion and asked for a second. Commissioner McPhail seconded the motion. Chairman Stewart said she would like to entertain amending the motion in deference to Commissioner Fletcher's comments and send it to DRC as a Consent item. Commissioner McPhail stated that she believed they could come to a solution without going back to DRC. Commissioner Fletcher responded that he is still not satisfied with the project because it doe's not have single-story product. He did not believe that could be done without going back to DRC. Commissioner McPhail said she did not believe there was support from the rest of the Commission to do that. Chairman Stewart suggested the applicant work with Mr. Banks and staff and then take it to DRC as a Consent Calendar item before returning to the Commission. Commissioner McPhail commented that the motion she seconded was to work with the Banks', staff, and the applicant with the ability to consult with the representatives of DRC towards a resolution. James Troyer, Planning Director ascertained that there was a motion and a second to bring the project back to Planning Commission on a non-specified date. He said that should be voted upon and then if needed it can be amended. Mr. Ennis noted that the motion was to work with staff the Banks', and the applicant and the item will be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Coleman noted that the public hearing was closed prior to the motion and that should probably be addressed. Mr. Ennis noted that it would be re-noticed prior to the next hearing. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to continue the item to a date non-specific to allow time for the applicant to work with staff and Jim Banks and to bring the project back to the Commission when the project is ready. It was noted that the item will be re-advertised for public hearing at that time. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: FLETCHER ABSENT: MACIAS - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17222 - NEBS HOME DEVELOPMENT-A request to subdivide 0.92 acre of land into 4 lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located 100 feet north of Vivero Street, on the east side of Camelian Street, at the terminus of Candlewood Avenue - APN: 0207-551-73. Related file: Variance DRC2005-01078. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CONTINUED FROM 6/28. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 12, 2006 , • D. VARIANCE DRC2005-01078-NEBS HOME DEVELOPMENT-A request to reduce the required average lot area of 8,000 square feet to 7,903 square feet for a 4 lot subdivision qn 0.92 acre in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located 100 feet north of Vivero Street,on the east side of Camelian Street - APN: 0207-551-73.. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17222. CONTINUED FROM 6/28 ■ E. VARIANCE - DRC2006-00477 - NEBS HOME DEVELOPMENT - A request to increase the permitted wall height along the west property line by a maximum 3 feet in order to attenuate traffic noise from Camelian Street for a 4 lot subdivision on 0.92 apre of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located 100 feet north of Vivero Street, on the east side of Camelian Street - APN: 0207-551-73. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17222. CONTINUED FROM 6/28 ' F. VARIANCE-DRC2006-00519-NEBS HOME DEVELOPMENT-A request to decrease the 40- foot minimum property line lot width requirement by 20 feet for 1 lot of a 4 lot subdivision in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located 100 feet north of Vivero Street,on the east side of Carnelian Street - APN: 0207-551-73. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17222. Tabe van der Zwaag presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. ' Nam Hopar, President of Nebs Development, stated be is the applicant. Pete Reinheimer, 8762 Candlewood Street, stated he met with his neighbors regarding the project proposal, and all of them are in opposition of the Variances, items D and F because of Lot#2 and the 20-foot street frontage. He presented to the Secretary a petition signed by 23 residents opposing the variances to reduce the lot size and to decrease the required 40-foot minimum property line requirement. He explained that according to the plans, Lots 2 and 3 have no parking and Lot 4 appears to have room for one car. He added that there is a proposed fire hydrant in front ' of Lot 1 which would also take away parking. He said the lack of parking would have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. He said that Councilman Dennis Michael said,that, "Rancho Cucamonga is a wonderful City because it had a plan." He added that his neighbor at 8722 reported that an owl is present on the property and he wanted to know if birds of prey are protected. He said he does not understand the limitations Mr. Van der Zwaag referred to. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Mr. Van der Zwaag stated that he believes the fire hydrant was added for illustrative purposes only and probably would not be placed mid-block but that decision is made by CCVWD. He noted that Lot 3 has a very long driveway which the owners could use for their parking and there is additional parking at the south end of the cul-de-sac. He added that because it is a short stub/bulb and a short street and how it enters the lot creates limitations to the property and how it can be developed. He presented an exhibit that shows the lot areas of all the lots surrounding this project as well as the project area and they are similar to the lots on the south side of Candlewood and Balsa and two are similar to the north side of Candlewood. He noted that because it is in-fill development,the way that the property could be laid out was limited. Commissioner Fletcher commented that the public asked about flag lots. He stated that flag-lots are not common, nor are they uncommon. 111 Mr.Van der Zwaag said they occur when there are tight cul-de-sacs. He said that with the available parking at the south side, they should not have a big parking problem. Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 12, 2006 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner remarked that there are dozens of flag lots in all the zones. He noted that they are popular with buyers because they give the property owner privacy and that the . ' Planning Commission has expressed general concern regarding them in the past. Chairman Stewart asked why if at the neighborhood meeting the comments were favorable and now there is a petition and comments in opposition. She asked if they went to a neighborhood meeting and if they received notice. . Mr.,Reinheimer said he was not aware of a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Van der Zwaag said he went to observe the meeting. He commented that all the neighbors there seemed positive and excited about the project. He noted that the tree that the owl was in is right where the cul-de-sac is to be located and that it would be difficult to preserve the tree. Commissioner Fletcher explained that flag lots occur in tight infill projects or in new development ' where a couple of lots that are wide to the back but narrow at the street are fit tightly together and it results in two long driveways that then requires a variance because of the lack of street frontage. He said in this case, the zoning is right and the request for the variances makes sense. He moved approval. Chairman Stewart cautioned the developer that she would not be in favor of modular housing and encouraged the developer to pursue other avenues. She said she agrees with Commissioner • Fletcher regarding the variances. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolutions of Approval and conditions for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17222, Variance DRC2005-01078, Variance II DRC2006-00477, and Variance DRC2006-00519. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments were made at this time: . . . . . COMMISSION BUSINESS G. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN POSITIONS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS Commissioner Fletcher noted that Chairman Stewart has a year"under her belt'and is doing a great job and motioned to have Ms. Stewart continue as Chairman for the next year. • Commissioners Munoz and McPhail concurred. Chairman Stewart advised the commissioners that Commissioner Macias had expressed his desire to no longer serve as Vice Chairman. Ms. Stewart suggested the commissioners consider Rich Fletcher as Vice Chairman. Commissioners Munoz and McPhail supported her suggestion and concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 12, 2006 • Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, suggested the motion be amended.so as to include both actions electing the Chairman and Vice Chairman in one action. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, to elect Pam Stewart as Chairman and Rich Fletcher as Vice Chairman. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS -carried • • H. CONSIDERATION OF'APPOINTMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Chairman Stewart remarked that these are yearly elections although the appointments determined this evening would change at the first of the new year. She mentioned that Commissioner McPhail will be retiring at the end of this term, December 2007, and'it is the same for Commissioner Macias. She remarked that the commissioners should consider the timing of their upcoming retirements and • look at the training time needed for new members to effectively serve on this committee. She said she (Chairman Stewart) b willing to stay on and Commissioner McPhail would as well, but that the commissioners should consider Lou Munoz and Rich Fletcher with that in mind. Commissioner Fletcher suggested Lou Munoz be elected as first alternate and to sit in on the meetings as much as possible for training. Commissioner McPhail said she would be concerned if there were two new commissioners on the committee come July 2007 and therefore would stay on. She mentioned that it would not be fair to them. Commissioner Munoz said he would be happy to serve 'as an alternate. Motion: Moved by McPhail,seconded by Stewart,for McPhail and Stewart to retain their positions on the Design Review Committee and to appoint Munoz as first alternate and Fletcher as second alternate. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully�s'Jubmitt� James R. Troyer,yer, AICP Secretary Approved: July 26, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 12, 2006