Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/02/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 26, 1997 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiet, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS B~d Buller, City Planner, obse~ed that he wou~d be distributing information on Heritage and Red Hill Parks to the Commission regarding P~85. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-0-1 (McNiel abstain), to approve the minutes of January 22, 1997. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-02 - CITATION HOMES - A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan Development District designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 18 acres of land at the nodheast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-011-17. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tentative Tract 15796. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15796 - CITATION HOMES - A proposed residential subdivision of 94 lots on 18 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), proposed to be Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at 1he northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-011-17. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03 - CITATION HOMES * A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan Development District designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 12.4 acres of land south of Highland Avenue, east of Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tentative Tract 15797. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15797 - CITATION HOMES - A proposed residential subdivision of 61 single family lots on 12.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), proposed to be Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located south of Highland Avenue and east of Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there will be two separate fences, a soundwall for the freeway and another wall along the property boundary. Mr. Hayes confirmed there will be sound attenuation walls along Kenyon Way. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the current design plans for the freeway do not include a soundwall in that location. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there may be duplication. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the project is built prior to awarding of the construction contract for the freeway, Cattrans may include a wall. He said the City is making the developer responsible for the wall along the property line. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Jerry Linton, Citation Homes, 19600 Fairchild Road, #270, Irvine, expressed appreciation for staff's efforts in helping the project to move forward. He stated the project will not be able to mitigate the sound of the freeway. He observed that soundwalls are designed at a 20ofoot height to mitigate the traffic noise from Highland Avenue, not the future freeway. Mr. Hayes commented that the City's General Plan recognizes the noise levels cannot be completely mitigated. He pointed out that when the preliminary noise study was completed, the noise consultant had been under the impression that the freeway will be above ground. He observed there will be a final noise study at plan check status and there is a chance that the walls will not be as high as originally anticipated because the freeway will be lower. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City should require a disclosure that the freeway will be built. Mr. Buller stated that a disclosure can be required, but it is hard for staff to police the issue. Mr. Linton stated they had just finished another development in the City at which they had disclosed the future existence of the freeway for their own protection. He said they would include notice of the future freeway at this location. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 26, 1997 Commissioner McNiel stated the application is a straightforward zone change to reduce the density for marketing purposes. He felt the proposed development fits well in the neighborhood and supported the application. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02, approving Tentative Tract 15796, recommending approval of Victoda Community Plan Amendment 96-03, and approving Tentative Tract 15797 and issue negative declarations for Tentative Tract 15796 and 15797. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE o carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and distributed copies of a revised roof plan and equipment specifications for roof-mounted equipment which had been provided by the applicant earlier in the week. He indicated staff had determined the proposed parapet height and well depth should be sufficient to screen the roof equipment from view. He reported the applicant had also submitted revised grading plans the previous week and staff had determined that, with the conditions as written, the drainage should be handled satisfactorily. Chairman McNiel asked for further clarification of the drainage issues. Mr. Hayes replied that the issues had to do with the nature of the queuing of flows and the directing of overflows into the spilk, vay. He noted that temporary measures will be taken with Phase One and the issues would be permanently addressed with Phase Two. He commented that Engineering staff felt the issues could be resolved pending approval of the Flood Control District. Commissioner McNiel remarked that temporary measures are included with Phase One with permanent solutions waiting until Phase Two. He asked the soundness of the temporary system, noting that Phase Two may not occur for possibly 6 to 12 years. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that with Phase One, there will be water flowing over raw land. He noted that staff felt the overflow concerns were addressed by the latest grading plans which had been recently submitted. Commissioner McNiel asked if staff felt it is a safe system. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if everything had been worked out or if it was still to be worked out. Mr. James replied that confirmation of acceptance had not yet been received from the Flood Control District. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if concrete drainage swales will be used. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 26, 1997 Mr. James replied they will be earthen swales with the overflows to be of gunite. He noted the grade of the spillway is lower than the natural property line. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gil Rodriguez, Jr., U. S. Properties, P. O. Box 281, Upland, thanked staff and the Planning Commissioners for working with him during the past year and a half. He agreed to all of the conditions with the exception of Engineering Condition No. 14, requiring the construction of the local storm drain in Foothill Boulevard to Cucamonga Creek. He felt the storm drain would only service the vacant property.on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and did not think he should be responsible. Ray Allard, Allard Engineering, 6101 Cherry Avenue, Fontana, stated that when the Thomas Winery project was built, a storm drain was constructed to drain to the south side of Foothill Boulevard where it bubbles out of the catch Basin and proceeds down the street. He said the pipe was stubbed out on the south side of Foothill Boulevard so that it could be connected to a drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard to drain over to Cucamonga Creek. He noted that the catch basin on the south side of Foothill is to be abandoned when the drain pipe connects to Cucamonga Creek. He proposed that the City consider placing the east-west pipe in Foothill Boulevard on the nodh side of Foothill Boulevard and have it placed in Foothill Boulevard when the property on the north side develops because the Rodriguez property cannot drain to the pipe. He said they wilt be participating in the master storm drain program by paying fees. Chairman Barker asked if staff had been approached regarding the proposal to move the pipe to the north side of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the applicant had made the request a year ago but the idea had not been pursued. He noted the storm drain in Foothill Boulevard is a local facility, and would not be eligible for master plan funding. He stated the City has always required that local facilities be completed as frontage improvements by the first developer. He said the property to the north had also been required to put in the storm drain when a project was approved; however, that project had not developed. Mr. Allard apologized for his misunderstanding that their drainage fees would pay for installation. He stated that if they could drain their property to the line, they would not question the requirement to install the pipe; however, he did not feel they should have to install the line since they will not be able to benefit as their drainage will be to the south. Mr. James said the local drainage systems are considered as pad of normal frontage improvements. He observed the applicant's property has the right to drain to Vineyard, but does not because of grading. He indicated that typically, properties drain to the street and properties to the south have to build drainage systems to accommodate flow from properties to the north. He was not sure if there would be any complications with having the drain pipe along the north side of Foothill Boulevard to connect to Cucamonga Creek. Mr. Allard said they would like to have flexibility. He stated that Cucamonga Creek is very deep and swift moving at the site. He felt that if they drained their site to Vineyard Boulevard, it might cause problems on Vineyard. He indicated they therefore met with the Flood Control District and the District did not object to having the property drain directly to the creek. Commissioner McNiel asked how much of the drainage system is currently in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the Thomas Winery site drains to a catch basin on the southwest corner where it bubbles out. He said the catch basin will be removed when the storm drain is extended westerly to the channel. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 26, 1997 Commissioner McNiel asked if Phase Two areas will be hydro seeded. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked if the current policy is to require the first developer to bear the cost for local drainage systems. Mr. James confirmed that is the policy. Commissioner Macias asked if there is a precedent for this applicant to contest that exaction. Mr. James did not recall anything having gone up to the City Council for a decision. Mr. Allard thought that if Thomas Winery wasn't constructed, it would be simple to drain on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. He thought it had been an arbitrary decision to have Thomas Winery drain to the south side of the street. Commissioner McNiel felt that the City selected the lower side of the street because typically most properties drain to the street. Mr. Allard conceded that generally systems are placed on the lower ends of streets. Mary Byer, 8167 Vineyard Avenue, #112, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she lives in the Villa Poloma condominium project across the street from the project. She expressed concern about the traffic flow and stated it is already difficult to get into the condominiums because the area is so congested, possibly from the gas station on the east side of Vineyard. She feared those vehicles trying to enter or exit the condominium project will be caught between different traffic patterns. She asked what an activity center is and whether a grocery store is planned for the site. She questioned if there is a law requiring fast food restaurants to have self-circulating air systems installed in order to prevent fumes from exhausting into the air and commented that the odors from In-N-Out Burger are powerful at times. Mr. Rodriguez, Sr., 1797 Melajo Way, Upland, stated they had filed the application for a fast food restaurant about two years ago. He said they originally sited Burger King on Foothill Boulevard but after spending thousands of dollars, the Commission suddenly indicated Burger King would have to be located on Vineyard Avenue. He thought the introduction of two new Commissioners had brought about the request to move Burger King and said he did not think it was fair. He said he had to renegotiate with Burger King because of the move to Vineyard Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff had included a chronology of the project with the staff report and said that the location of Burger King had been a matter of discussion when the project was first submitted and the location was not changed as the result of the addition of new Planning Commissioners. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant wished to have the Commission delay action until resubmission of the plans with Burger King located on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Roddguez urged the Commission to approve the application as presently submitted with Burger King located on Vineyard Avenue. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public headng. Mr. Bullet explained that an activity center refers to a hardscape plaza at the corner of the property; a people place, not a recreational facility. He said that Phase One will include Burger King and potentially a sit-down restaurant on Vineyard Avenue. He indicated no other buildings are planned Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 26, 1997 with the first phase. He stated that future phases are yet to be determined and were not being considered tonight. Mr. James stated that the project is conditioned to widen Vineyard Avenue and there will be dual left- turn lanes at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He stated there will also be a right-turn lane into the project so that southbound traffic can get out of the regular flow of traffic when entering the property. Mr. Bullet stated that staff feels the traffic circulation will be improved over current conditions. He indicated he was not aware of any requirements with regard to ventilation systems containing odors and said such a condition had not been placed on any other restaurants, either fast-food or sit-down. Commissioner McNiel noted that with Phase One, the Commission was looking at Burger King and a spec sit-down restaurant, parking, plaza and street frontage. Commissioner Bethel said that when he first saw the project at the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting, there was no roof plan and no idea of whether the screen would cover the equipment. He indicated the equipment was changed from a 5-ton unit to two 10oton units but they were the same size. He said DRC asked that the parapet be high enough to screen the equipment and the applicant has complied. He noted that a chimney appears to be missing on one of the elevations and he hoped the chimney has not been eliminated. He felt the project is in an emergency mode and staff has been trying to save it and move it forward. He stated he had never seen a project with so many conditions. He felt conditions should be for clean-up of a project, not a rework; and he thought so many conditions would mean that the Commission is opting out of its respohsibility. He said he could not support the project at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he liked the elevations but did not feel confident that was what would be built. He stated that Burger King was moved from Foothill Boulevard because it was first proposed to be located dght next to the historic Klusman house on the site and the Commission felt there needs to be room around the house and a driveway should not be at the house. He thought that the parking area immediately south of the KJusman House should be eliminated. He stated that the Klusman House is an important historic structure and he did not want it to be emasculated by having parking or a building too close. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Burger King could possibly be located on Foothill Boulevard closer to the intersection. Mr. Buller observed that there had been a Pre-Application Review with the Burger King located near the intersection but it required a vadance because the plan violated minimum setbacks of the Foothill Specific Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the moving of Burger King to Vineyard Avenue was one of the first comments from the Commissioners and had nothing to do with the appointment of new Planning Commissioners. He reiterated that he liked the renderings but noted that many of the 48 separate conditions from the Planning Division require Planning Division review and approval, so he felt it was not really known what the City will get. He thought the issues should be resolved before the Commission approves the project. He did not feel it was fair for the applicant's engineer to make the statement that the Foothill Boulevard drain should be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard without calculations to showthat the drain could be located on the north side. He did not think that question could be answered tonight. Commissioner McNiei concurred with the chronology of events with respect to moving Burger King from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue. He recalled that Burger King was not moved closer to the comer because it crowded the activity center. He acknowledged the project has been in process a long time but said that progress has been slow because there have always been loose ends. He agreed that the renderings are nice, but commented that the renderings for the McDonalds located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street had been very nice and he was Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 26, 1997 unhappy with the constructed results. He expressed concerns about the drainage and the use of earthen berms, noting that it is unknown when, or if, Phase Two will occur. He stated he did not feel comfortable enough to approve the project. Commissioner Macias felt the City needs to do a better job of making sure applicants understand that DRC concentrates on design and approval by the Committee does not guarantee approval of a project. He noted that DRC approval does not preclude new issues. He observed he did not say he would support the project, merely that he liked the design and the way the corner looks. He felt the design of the building will be complimentary to the rest of the City. He expressed concern about Phase Two and thought a master plan for the entire site should be considered. He agreed with Commissioner McNiel regarding drainage. He noted there is a question of when Phase Two will be constructed and said he wished he could see Phase One in the total context of the site. He took exception to the notion that new Planning Commissioners changed the location of the Burger King. He observed that he had personally been involved in four to five meetings where the Commissioners requested information and the information was provided in a piecemeal fashion. He remarked that he had never seen an architect for the project. He agreed with Commissioner Bethel that staff had bent over backwards to expedite the project, but felt efforts have been unsuccessful. Chairman Barker asked if there had ever been any other project with this many conditions. Mr. Buller conceded that there is more being deferred on this project than on others. He remarked that pad buildings are generally not processed ahead of major tenants for a center. He said staff had tried to determine if there is adequate room for parking the square footage envisioned. He acknowledged that the biggest piece of the puzzle is not shown. Chairman Barker said he felt like he had seen the project forever. He admitted he was anxious to move the project forward because he liked the way the corner is shown. He thought all the deferred steps and conditions are proof that staff had gone out of its way to make the project work and he felt the effort was laudatory. He agreed with the other Commissioners that is not the most comfortable way of processing. He thought the drainage issue should have been worked out before the project reached the Commission and did not feel the Commission could comfortably make a decision to move the drain within Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller stated that the applicant's engineer had pointed out that the storm drain pipe in Foothilt Boulevard is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He thought the condition gives the City Engineer the ability to consider what the applicant had proposed. Chairman Barker summarized that Commissioner Bethel was concerned about the large number of unresolved issues, Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about what the project will look like because of the large number of conditions, Commissioner Macias questioned what Phase Two will be like and thought a master plan should be required, and Commissioner McNiet was troubled by the temporary earthen berms and the loose ends and endless series of questions. Commissioner McNiel remarked that most of the issues that were before the Commission had been discussed countless times and there were still questions and no resolution. He thought staff had gone way beyond what is normally done to move the project forward. He said that if the project were approved, he wanted to go on record that the conditions were etched in stone and not subject to negotiation or relaxation by staff. Commissioner Macias noted that many conditions were subject to City Planner or City Engineer discretion. He asked what would happen if the issues could not be resolved with the applicant. Mr. Bullet replied that the City Planner or City Engineer could forv,,ard the matter up to the Commission or the applicant could appeal any decision to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 26, 1997 Commissioner Macias asked if unresolved issues would always come back before the Commission. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked what the applicant would gain if the project were approved at this time. Mr. Buller indicated that normally the Commission would know the architectural and landscaping theme before approving a project. He noted that the Commission was being asked tonight to approve two very different buildings on a parcel that contains a third historic building. He said that on most projects, better guidelines are established so that they can guide future tenants with regard to design and direction. He noted that the applicant must resolve many issues prior to pulling the first building permit. Chairman Barker asked if it would be fair and accurate to say that the City would be entering into an agreement that the applicant can pull permits if he meets all the conditions. Mr. Buller observed that many of the conditions have milestones that prevent the applicant from progressing beyond a certain point without meeting the conditions. He said this provides safeguards. He confirmed the number of conditions was beyond what the Commission had accepted in the past. Commissioner Bethel felt the Commission was being asked to approve a process rather than a project. ' Mr. Bullet observed that the City would be getting improvements to Foothill Boulevard consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and an activity center. He said those were features that will improve Foothill Boulevard. He acknowledged that normally pad buildings are deferred and not put in first. Commissioner Macias stated the process had not been the best but he acknowledged that Mr. Buller had made an excellent point about improvements that would be made to the corner. He thought approval may be a way of spoon-feeding the applicant to get what the City requires under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chairman Barker questioned if a condition should be added that the project would return to the Commission if agreements are not reached. He said he did not want to dump a bunch of problems on the City Council. Commissioner Bethel observed that the majority of the conditions call for City Planner approval and he felt the Commission was dumping its responsibility on staff and setting a precedent for future projects. He asked if the next project would have 49 Planning Division conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to get a consensus on the parking located south of the Klusman House. He preferred that a planter strip be placed in the area. Mr. Bullet observed that there is more than ample parking for Phase One without including that strip of parking. He suggested requesting that the applicant landscape the area and forward a plan for how it will be designed in the future, subject to approval of DRC. Commissioner Macias stated he could not support the project because there were still too many outstanding issues. Commissioner McNiel observed that if the Commission approved the project at this time, it would be approving two buildings within Phase One of the project. He said the Commission still had not Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 26, 1997 seen the other buildings to be included with Phase One, but the applicant could pull grading permits and building permits for those two buildings. Mr. Bullet confirmed that was correct. He pointed out that Planning Condition 5 requires the applicant to submit a concept for the design of the other buildings and said it is to the applicant's benefit to provide such a design guideline supplement. He reported that Terra Vista has design guidelines for pad buildings and staff is able to turn around such buildings in four to six weeks. He noted that this project has different architecture on different buildings and felt it will be hard to write the design guidelines. He stated there is no unifying theme other than heritage architecture. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would be more comfortable having those design guidelines before approving the project. Chairman Barker remarked that Commissioner Bethel had said he would like to see most of the issues resolved before approving the project. He asked if Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with that approach. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he did. Commissioner Macias said he did not feel a lot of confidence with this project because there are too many unresolved matters. He observed numerous conditions deal with large issues. He felt uncomfortable with approving the project at this time. Commissioner McNiel wished the project were built. He stated he likes the Roddguez family and said he wished he could approve the project for them but he was concerned that the City is only ending up With a Burger King. He asked if Phase One would include the activity center, street improvements, and storm' drains in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Builer confirmed that it would. Commissioner McNiel said he saw those improvements as good for the city but he did not think the project is ready for approval. Chairman Barker said it appeared the Commission was heading toward denial. Mr. Buller stated that if the Commissioners did not feel there was enough evidence to suppod the project, staff would request the project be continued to the next meeting to allow time to prepare a resolution of denial. He suggested the resolution of approval could also return to the Commission at that same meeting in case the Commissioners felt there had been some progress in resolving the issues. Chairman Barker said he was hearing concern about a number of issues. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the hearing should be reopened and the matter continued to March 11, 1997. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing and continued Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to March 11, 1997, to allow staff to prepare a resolution of denial. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 8:53 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 26, 1997 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT FOR UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 119 - OIL MAX - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding signs for Oil Max, an approved project within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031~37. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that a letter had been received from the attorney representing Oil Max. Commissioner Bethel observed that the letter from the attorney indicated that only the "10 Minute Oil Change" verbiage was being requested, not the third color or the larger size. Brad Duller, City Planner, stated the letter was sent to the Community Development Director and offered to compromise by complying with the provisions regarding color and size but asking that they be allowed to use "lO-Minute Oil Change." He said the applicant agreed to have the letter forwarded to the Planning Commission for its consideration. Commissioner Bethel did not feel this application was a good comparison to the appeal from Orchard Hardware because staff had recommended that Orchard be allowed to have a second sign reading "Hardware and Garden Center" and staff recommended no second sign for Oil Max. Commissioner McNiel noted that the building has three proposed wall signs. He observed that it is a small building and asked if three signs would comply with the sign program for the center. Mr. Hayes responded that it does. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Buck Woods, Owner, Woods Sign & Lighting, 9152 Madeline Drive, Huntington Beach, stated they had never intended to exceed the sign size. He said they were willing to forego the yellow sign color and the only remaining issue was the registered trade name of Oil Max 10-Minute Oil Change. Commissioner Bethel said he had disagreed with the Commission's finding not to allow the "Complete Hardware and Garden" sign, but in this instance he felt the additional verbiage is a description of the type of business and violates the sign ordinance. He did not support the appeal. Commissioner Tolstoy supported upholding the City Planner's decision. Commissioner McNiel commented that one can register anything as a registered trademark. He did not support the appeal and noted the business could also be registered as "Oil Max 10-Minute Oil Change, Tire Rotations, Smog Certification, Bumper Hitches, and Chrome Polishing." He did not feel they are entitled to a sign which includes all of the registered name. Commissioner Macias stated that the building is much smaller than Orchard Supply and he felt the requested verbiage is inappropriate because it is too large for a building of its size. Chairman Barker concurred with staff because he considered the additional verbiage as advertising. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that the appeal be denied. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 26, 1997 G. PARK DISTRICT 85 (PD-85} - Information regarding impacts of Proposition 218 regarding PD-85 Assessments (Red Hill and Heritage Parks) Brad BuIler, City Planner, distributed a packet of information and indicated that Community Development Director Rick Gomez had offered to make a formal presentation at the March 26 Planning Commission meeting if the Commission so desires. He reported that Mr. Gomez is currently speaking to sports organizations, school districts, and service clubs. He stated that a citizens group is being formed to address the issue. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the issue will be placed on the ballot. Mr. Bullet replied the ballot is to be mailed on May 8. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that it is a mailed-in ballot. Mr. Buller stated the public hearing is June 26, 1997. Commissioner Tolstoy hoped there would be a push to support the assessment as the time grows near for voting. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that developers were getting confused about the difference between Pre-Application Reviews and Preliminary Reviews. He suggested that the name of"Pre-Application Review" be changed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the term "Coudesy Review" be used. Mr. Buller announced that a meeting would be held on Tuesday, March 11, 1997, in lieu of Wednesday, March 12 because the Commissioners would be attending a conference on March 12. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that there be more streets named after pioneers in the community. He asked how street names are determined. Mr. Buller replied that the City has a list of historic names which is provided to the developers for their consideration. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that several streets on the tracts approved earlier in the evening were called out with temporary names of "A," "B," and "C." He asked if research could be done to determine if those streets could be named after long-term owners of the property. He did not think enough is done to honor pioneers. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 26, 1997 Mr. Bullet reported that the previous Historic Preservation Commission had approved the listing which is provided to developers. He stated that a lot of developers don't like to use historic names because they prefer using a series of related names, such as trees, flowers, etc. He explained that street names are chosen by the applicant. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 9:20 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 7:00 p.m. on March 11, 1997, to be held in lieu of its regularly scheduled meeting on March 12, 1997. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 26, 1997