Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/12/13 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 13, 1995 chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:06 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Cathy Morris, Planning Technician, had been named Employee of the Year for 1995. The Commissioners offered congratulations. , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 95-04 - BAYARDO/KARUPPIAH - A request to establish a large family day care facility (up to 12 children) in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7503 Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 207-044-19. Commissioner McNiel stepped down from hearing the project because of his proximity to the project location. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and commented that two additional letters of opposition had been received in addition to those included with the staff report. Chairman Barker noted that the City is proposing conditions and yet the City has no authority to deny the application. He asked if the City would have the ability to enforce the conditions. Mr. Murphy replied enforcement would be through efforts by the City's Code Enforcement. He said he had spoken with the Department of Social Services and he did not believe they will enforce anything conditioned by the City. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Department of Social Services could preempt the City and approve the application if the City denies it. Mr. Murphy replied affirmatively. Con~nissioner Lumpp felt the City's approval would be benign if the Department of Social Services does not mandate the conditions approved by the City. Mr. Murphy replied that was correct. He said it was his understanding that the only conditions the Department will enforce are those specifically outlined in the Health and Safety Code, not any conditions applied by the City. Commissioner Lumpp said that was his understanding and it was contrary to the newspaper article in which a representative of the Department of Social Services said the City has more control than that. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the City has limited power to establish conditions and those conditions would be enforced by the City's procedures. He said it is unambiguous that the State has created a system whereby they have deliberately preempted all local legislation and the City is not required to approve the use. He commented that if the City were to deny the application, the City would be in the position of trying to force its will against a situation which neither the applicant nor the Department of Social Services has created, as they are obeying the law. He said the City would be in a losing posture against a very clear State policy. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Sathi Karuppiah, 7503 Alta Cuesta Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they have adequate space in their driveway to park four cars. He felt there are no blind spots when backing from his driveway into the street. He said someone named Bob from the City said they have clear visibility. He stated their business is just ready to start and they do not expect to have 12 or 16 cars coming at the same time. He indicated they will abide by the noise level standards and felt that lawnmowers and gardening equipment are louder than the children will be. He said they do not have the funds to build a circular driveway, but they may do so in the future. Chairman Barker asked how long Mr. Karuppiah has owned the property. Mr. Karuppiah replied that it has been almost two years. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Karuppiah was aware of the number of times vehicles have entered the front yard during traffic accidents over the last decade. Mr. Karuppiah responded that there had been no accidents on his street during the last two years. Chairman Barker stated he was not talking about the last two years, but asked if he was aware of any cars that had ended up on the front yard. Mr. Karuppiah replied he was not. Commissioner Lumpp asked the reason the applicant wanted a day care facility. Mr. Karuppiah stated his wife is commuting and wants to stay home and take care of their two children and provide child care for other family members who live nearby. He noted it will be mostly family members who will be in the day care. Commissioner Lumpp asked how many related children there would be. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 13, 1995 Mr. Karuppiah replied there are six children total in the families. Commissioner Lumpp noted there would then be an opportunity to care for up to six additional children. Mr. Karuppiah replied they were asking for up to 12 children in case they want to care for others or if one of his relatives has another child. Commissioner Lumpp requested an explanation of the floor plan that was provided. Mr. Karuppiah stated they have a two-story house and the children will be located on the first floor only. He stated one room will be a play room and the children will sleep in another room. He reported they will also have children playing on their enclosed porch or perhaps have lunch outside. He said they will have a schedule of activities with most of those activities taking place inside the house. He stated they can have three cars stacked in a row in his driveway. Commissioner Lumpp asked the age of the children. Mr. Karuppiah replied they will mostly be infants up to four years of age. Walter Toddrow, 7450 Valle Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived there for the last 16 years and has seen a couple of accidents that occurred before Mr. Karuppiah moved to the area. He said he has a circular driveway that will hold approximately 15 cars and felt Mr. Karuppiah's driveway will only hold four small cars. He remarked he had driven 250 miles to come to the hearing to speak in opposition to the application. He asked that the Planning Commission stand its ground and deny the application. He said he had followed a small U-haul truck driving down the street and the truck had to drive down the middle of the street because there were cars parked on both sides of the street and it is a narrow street. He noted there are no sidewalks in the area. He stated that there are three different driveway entrances across the street from the site, so there would be no room to park cars along the street in that area. He felt the day care center will be a commercial enterprise and should not be located in a residential area. He suggested that the applicant locate in the Sunrize Center or some other commercial shopping center because that would allow easy access to City streets and adequate parking. He opposed bringing in children from outside the community. He said he was on the planning committee for Don Tapia Park which is to go along the Cucamonga wash. He said the committee had incorporated a sidewalk along Valle Vista between the park and Valle Vista School because they were concerned about children. He noted that Valle Vista is wider than Alta Cuesta. He thought that insurance costs will be higher than putting in a circular driveway. He noted there is a swimming pool located at the house behind the applicant's and he thought there is a short fence between the two properties. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Department of Social Services and the State have put the City in an awkward position. He could not imagine why they would grant a permit for such an operation without looking at local situations. He noted the street is only 30 feet wide at that point and the traffic in the morning and evening is bad. He felt it is an extremely dangerous situation. He supported staff's recommendation because he hoped there could be some mitigation by having a circular driveway. He felt that if the Commission were to deny the application, the City would have no authority to require any mitigation measures. Chairman Barker observed that the applicant had already stated he would not put in a circular driveway. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 13, 1995 Commissioner Melcher thought the applicant had said he could not afford to put in a circular driveway at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the applicant had said he would consider putting in a circular driveway in the future. Chairman Barker said that was not a commitment. Commissioner Melcher stated the Attorney had said the City would have the same kind of enforcement power that it does on any private sector application. He questioned if the City could enforce it since the State would encourage the use to continue even if the City revokes the Large Family Day Care Permit. He thought the City's conditions of approval should be made a condition of opening for business rather than being future conditions. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the applicant indicated he has two children and plans to care for four additional children from his immediate family. He questioned if the applicant would need a permit to care for other children from the family. Mr. Hanson responded that the State has two types of applications, small family day care for 6 or fewer children and large family day care for up to 12. He noted that small family day care applications are automatically granted by the State and the City can't even do what little it is trying to do with this application. He noted that beyond 12 would be considered a commercial operation. He said that so long as the use is 12 or below, the State has declared it to be a proper residential use. Commissioner Lumpp agreed that the State's reasoning was that it is better for children to be in more of a home environment. He felt the City is being victimized by Big Brother. He thought the City could make a statement by denying the use to let the Department of Social Services know the City feels there are health and safety issues involved, but he feared the State would merely ignore the City's objections. He hoped the City would be able to put some strength into an approval with conditions even if the State does not enforce the conditions. Chairman Barker asked the attorney to address Commissioner Melcher's suggestion that any conditions be fulfilled prior to opening of the facility. Mr. Hanson said that would be one of the normal conditions of any approval. He said the City would attempt to enforce the conditions but the Department of Social Services might side with the applicant that the conditions need not be met. Chairman Barker expressed frustration because he felt it is not a safe environment. He said the newspaper article indicated the City has certain powers, such as making the fee so high that no-one could afford to open such an establishment. He said that would mean that the City would charge high fees and effectively deny appropriately placed establishments just because this one is unsafe. He expressed irritation at such a notion. He noted the resolution calls for the Commission to make the finding that the proposed use, together with conditions, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. He noted that the applicant has indicated he will not be complying with the conditions at this time. He felt the State was dictating that the Commission make a finding that staff feels is not true. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the finding be made under protest. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 13, 1995 Chairman Barker said he could not make the finding that it is a safe thing to do even under protest. He said the State could not tell him to vote that something is safe when professional staff says it is not safe. Commissioner Lumpp felt he would not oppose the project if the location had normal width streets, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. He felt the issue is traffic safety for not only the applicant and his customers, but also the adjacent residents. He doubted that four cars will fit in the driveway. He said he could not make the findings listed in the resolution even under protest. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Large Family Day Care 95-04. Commissioner Melcher asked the City Attorney to review what would happen if the City denies the application. Mr. Hanson stated the Planning Commission would be putting off the tough decision to someone else. He understood the position of the Planning Commission and felt the Planning Commission could deny the application, but it would probably just go to the City Council. Chairman Barker did not feel the Commission was trying to sidestep the decision, but was merely unwilling to say something the State demands it say. He felt it would be easy to roll over. He noted that staff suggested a condition of a circular driveway to help mitigate the safety problems, but the applicant indicated he will not comply with that condition at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City could enforce a condition that the Day Care Center cannot operate until a circular driveway is installed. Mr. Hanson replied the City could attempt to enforce the condition through normal channels, using Code Enforcement and pursuing the matter either through civil or criminal avenues. Commissioner Melcher withdrew his second to the motion. Chairman Barker observed there was no motion on the floor. Commissioner Melcher felt the application was in many ways similar to other projects which go on in the City which are under the purview of the State and over which the City has little to say; i.e., public schools, California Highway Patrol facility, Department of Motor Vehicles facility. Chairman Barker noted those types of projects do not come before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission does not make findings regarding them that they are safe. He felt if the approval is out of the hands of the City, the City should not be required to make a finding that the use is safe. He was willing to vote for the resolution if the finding regarding safety were removed. Mr. Hanson stated such findings are needed for conditional use permit applications but are not necessary for Large Family Day Care approvals. He advised that the Commission could delete the findings and could add a protest statement that the action was approved strictly on the basis of State law requirements. Chairman Barker suggested that the current findings be replaced by a finding that the location is unsafe for such an operation and the Commission was acting under protest. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 13, 1995 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Chairman Barker. Commissioner Melcher asked if the conditions would still be included. Mr. Hanson felt the conditions would still apply. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve Large Family Day Care 95-04 with modifications to indicate that the action was being made under protest and a statement that the Planning Commission finds that such action is detrimental to public health and safety and the welfare of the community. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MCNIEL - carried Mr. Hanson observed that the staff report recommends that a letter be sent to the Department of Social Services expressing the City's concerns with the safety of the facility at this location and recommending that the Department deny the permit. Chairman Barker directed staff to send a letter to the Department of Social Services regarding the Commission's findings. He requested that the letter indicate the Commission is talking about this one specific site and one specific problem and not opposed to child care centers in general. CONDITIONhi. USE PERMIT 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to serve hard liquor in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, & 61. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to offer entertainment consisting of a disc jockey and live band in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, & 61. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and stated an additional letter of opposition had been received. She said she had also received a call from another resident who could not attend this evening's meeting and wished to voice his opposition. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. John Mannerino, attorney, 5333 Baseline Road, #120, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the application was not a new issue and the Planning Commission had addressed the matter with this owner and previous owners. He said that Mr. Pellegrino had indicated he wanted to expand his operation by selling distilled spirits and having limited entertainment. He acknowledged that the staff report reflects the entertainment requested by the application, but said that Mr. Pellegrino had advised him he was actually seeking a lesser level of entertainment. He observed that the applicant had surrendered the entertainment permit over a year ago. He stated there had been no complaints over the past year although he acknowledged that staff had now received a letter of complaint. He thought it would be an error to assume that the lack of complaints is merely because of the demise of the sale of distilled spirits and entertainment. He felt those assumptions do Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 13, 1995 not give credit to the fact that security is now provided at the door, the sidewalks and and back area are being patrolled to prevent lingering outside, and parking is prohibited behind the establishment and against the wall. He thought those actions were as significant as the demise of the sale of distilled spirits in perciptating no complaints for over 13 months. He stated that at the time the Conditional Use Permit was surrendered there were no live bands. He commented that Mr. Pellegrino had asked him to indicate that he had listened to the Commission and made the changes they recommended. He observed that the establishment was enlarged by 70 percent four months ago over what it had been when it was last before the Commission. He noted there is a kareoke permit for Wednesday nights and, at times, the crowds have been larger than the crowds which troubled the neighbors in the past. He believed that showed Mr. Pellegrino is now running the establishment effectively. He requested that the Commission consider the Conditional Use Permit separately from the Entertainment Permit application. Mr. Mannerino said the menu has been expanded and he felt distilled spirits are an important part of dining. He thought the sale of distilled spirits raises different issues from those which are connected to entertainment. He felt it would be irrational to say that it would be more difficult to control people drinking distilled spirits than it would be those drinking beer and wine. He noted that most of the restaurants in the area have some sort of entertainment. He acknowledged that the concern is with the proximity to the adjoining residences. He felt the neighborhood is not a quiet one and noted that in the future a freeway will be constructed less than 200 feet away. He requested that the matter be decided upon the issues, not by newspaper coverage. He asked that the Commission consider the changes Mr. Pellegrino has made in the operation of the establishment. He stated that the crowds are larger now and there have been no apparent disruptions in the neighborhood. He asked that the Commission consider each application separately and consider if some sort of entertainment would be acceptable if the Commission feels the entertainment requested is not acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it had been his understanding that the permit for the billiard hall had been granted to Sam Pellegrino's son. Mr. Manerino replied that Tony Pellegrino, Sam's son, is one of the owners of the premises. He did not think that Sam Pellegrino had abandoned his ownership as a condition of approval for the billiard hall. Commissioner Tolstoy only recalled that Tony Pellegrino had made the application and the City had been told that Sam Pellegrino was going to move his business to a new location. Mr. Mannerino said the liquor license for beer and wine remains in Sam Pellegrino's name. Sam Pellegrino, 6620 Carnelian, Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is still involved. Commissioner Tolstoy asked who runs the business. Mr. Mannerino said that it is run by Tony Pellegrino. Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Mannerino to expand upon his comment that there is a discrepancy between the entertainment requested and that noted in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 13, 1995 Mr. Pellegrino stated he would prefer to have a deejay rather than a band. He said he would like to have a band perhaps once or twice a month, but he would like a deejay five times a week. Chairman Barker asked if the request was for both bands and a deejay. Mr. Pellegrino said he would be willing to give up the bands, but he would like one once or twice a month. Commissioner McNiel stated there have been multiple meetings regarding the problems and he questioned why the recommendations were not put into place until the Conditional Use Permit was canceled. Mr. Pellegrino said he had made a mistake and he apologized. Commissioner McNiel stated he has been a patron and he felt that Mr. Pellegrino runs a nice bar. He said management promptly deals with any patrons causing problems inside the bar; however, the problems happen outside. He noted there had been many threats by the City before anything was done and he feared the same pattern would develop. Mr. Pellegrino said he would be more careful and put more security outside. He thought his son will probably do a better job than he had done. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is now a security person in the parking lot. Mr. Pellegrino replied that they have about three security people on weekends with one being in the parking lot. He said they have always had security, but the security had not been as strong on the outside before the City Council indicated they would pull the permit. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there had previously been a distilled beverage license. Mr. Mannerino replied that there has been and still is a license from Alcohol Beverage Control for distilled beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled liquor but he does not have a conditional use permit to sell distilled spirits. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there had not been problems as a result of the sale of the distilled spirits. Mr. Mannerino felt the problems had not been as a result of selling distilled spirits versus the beer and wine which can now be sold. He thought the problems existed because they had not dealt with the proper way to ensure a quiet departure from the premises, including the shopping center. He stated there is no question that any establishment which sells alcohol for consumption creates more of a risk than a flower shop. He said it is a question of moderation and control. He felt the argument fails in attributing problems to the sale of distilled spirits versus fermented and brewed spirits. He did not feel it is the sale that causes a disruption, but rather the nature of how the patrons are overseen as they depart the premises. Commissioner Lumpp noted that a marked improvement was seen subsequent to the surrender of the permit for the hard liquor. He asked what has changed so that the City should now allow reinstitution of the permit. Mr. Mannerino said the manner in which the establishment is operated has changed. He said it is up to the Commission to assess the credibility and trust but he Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 13, 1995 noted there had been no complaints for 13 months even though patrons still had the ability to consume alcohol. He felt that proves the bar can be run without causing problems for the neighborhood. He stressed that entertainment is a separate issue. He agreed that allowing bands may be a legitimate concern to people in the neighborhood and he felt that request should be handled separately. Joe Fabis, 6611 Topaz, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property immediately borders the parking lot. He said he has appeared before the Commission as often as the applicant has. He indicated he was one of the original residents who initially signed a petition to allow Mr. Pellegrino a chance to sell hard liquor. He said there are a number of things about the application which are not consistent. He noted that the application indicates staff has been reduced from 24 to 12 people because the business has decreased. He thought the decreased business would be why there is less noise than previously. He stated that he cannot play tennis on a City court after 10:30 at night because it is too noisy for adjacent residents. He felt that part of the City's philosophy is that residential areas should be residential areas. He thought the request is inconsistent with that philosophy and would be contrary to the image the City has tried to promote. He said he has submitted letters of complaint back to 1992 addressing the problem. He felt the problem has always been the way the facility and business is operated and managed. He said there had been many promises as to what would be done, but he felt the noise cannot be mitigated without a 20-foot high wall. He noted that a comment had been made that a freeway will be constructed in the area and he said the State spends a lot of money to mitigate the noise from freeways. He stated part of the problem is the noise in the parking lot from motorcycles, revving of engines, loud radios, and loud discussions. He said he has to get up at 4:00 in the morning to commute to Los Angeles and he does not like being awakened at 2:00 a.m. He commented there had been efforts for four years to address the problem. He stated t.hat Mr. Pellegrino is on probation for confronting a City employee who was trying to investigate compliance with some of the requirements and he felt the City should not necessarily believe things will change. He felt Mr. Pellegrino had been given a fair chance and he blew it. He said he was tired of coming to the City to argue for rights of the residential neighborhood and he thought the matter should be permanently put to rest. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Fabis was opposed to both applications. Mr. Fabis stated that anything that will increase the traffic volume will increase the nuisance potential, whether it is a band, disc jockey, or hard liquor. He said he does not care what goes on in the building if it would stay in the building, but he objects to the noise from the inside when the doors are left open and from patrons in the parking lot. Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Fabis his opinion of the level of disturbance in the time since Mr. Pellegrino had voluntarily surrendered his conditional use permit and stopped serving distilled spirits. Mr. Fabis said it is tolerable because people are leaving earlier. Commissioner Melcher asked if he had been aware of any increase in business by the addition of the 1,500 square foot billiard hall. Mr. Fabis said the applicant's letter indicates business is down almost 30 percent and he had not noticed an increase. Hugh Hairston, 663 Topaz Street, Rancho Cucamonga, concurred with Mr. Fabis. He said he was surprised the matter was once again before the Planning Commission. He indicated he attended the meeting where the conditional use permit was Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 13, 1995 canceled and had thought Mr. Pellegrino was going to move his operation elsewhere. He said he was surprised the billiard hall expansion had later been approved. He thought that even if Mr. Pellegrino is a good manager, the world does not revolve around bars. He felt that people who are drinking distilled spirits become loose and rowdy and security is required. He felt that drinking leads to loud, sometimes profane discussions and loud radios. He commented that he lives across the street from Mr. Fabis and the noise disturbs the neighborhood. He apologized that he had not complained over the past year when he was awakened by the noise and felt he should make it a point to complain more. He stated he was hereby registering a formal complaint. He thought it had been determined that this type of establishment was not compatible with the General Plan designation of his area. He said it was his understanding that a neighborhood shopping center is supposed to cater to the neighbors but the bar attracts patrons from all types of communities because Mr. Pellegrino is well known since he advertises on television. He feared that if the permit is granted, Mr. Pellegrino would want to expand even further or others would want to copy the success and perhaps add a bar in the Vons center across the street. He agreed that a lot of money will be spent to construct sound barriers to nullify the effects of the freeway. He said he and his wife agree that Mr. Pellegrino's request is not compatible with the community, as the business creates a disturbance. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated that he knows Mr. Pellegrino and while the operation is well run inside, the problems exist outside. He said problems have existed at that location since the City first allowed the Boar's Head to go into the center' as a restaurant and it then transitioned into a bar. He was troubled by the question he had asked Mr. Pellegrino regarding why it took such strong actions by the City before changes were instituted. He felt the freeway issue is unrelated and that un-attenuated noise from one location does not mean that noise from another location is acceptable. He noted that the application indicates that employment is down from 24 to 12 people but Mr. Mannerino indicated the crowds are bigger than they were before on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday evenings and he felt there was a disparity there. He thought the situation is currently acceptable because of previous actions, but he feared it would lead to a return of previous problems if the application to sell distilled spirits is approved. He indicated he was not sure about allowing disc jockeys because problems had been created in the past with live bands with the back door being left open. He said he could not find a good reason to approve the applications. Commissioner Tolstoy said he had been thinking about what a neighborhood center is and noted the City has tried over the years to make such centers compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. He did not feel that bars belong in such centers mainly because residents in the area tend to go to bed early and such businesses tend to produce loud noises such as playing of radios, revving of motorcycle and vehicle engines, and squealing of tires late at night. He thought he would vote against such uses in any neighborhood shopping center, regardless of who the applicant is. Commissioner Melcher stated he had supported Sam's in the past. He thought the problems seemed to have been solved when the conditional use permit was surrendered and he did not feel the City should approve a request to reinstate the permit. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with the other Commissioners. He said the information provided by staff seems to indicate that the situation improved after the Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 13, 1995 cessation of the sale of hard liquor. He noted the applicant now wants to go back to doing the same things that caused the problems in the past. He recalled that one of the reasons the back door had been left open in the past, was that it gets hot inside. He thought it might be a help if the applicant had control of the building and could install enough air conditioning units so the door would not have to be open. He thought it might also make a difference if the applicant controlled the property and could build a higher sound attenuation wall. He did not feel the applicant has such control of the property; and he feared that if the permits were now granted, the applicant may again be appearing before the Commission in the future apologizing that he had made a mistake in not controlling the situation. He felt other uses are more compatible in the center. He said he could not justify telling the neighbors that the applicant deserves another opportunity to disturb the neighborhood and he could not support the application. Chairman Barker recalled when the Boar's Head was allowed in the center in the early 1980s because it was a restaurant but in time it evolved into a bar with a minimum menu. He felt the Planning Commission and City Council have traditionally gone out of their way to work with whoever owns a property in order to salvage business. He noted that the wall to the west of the property is a sound attenuation wall which was installed in an attempt to mitigate the sound. He noted that readings were taken on the outside and there were concerns about the type of door and it was changed. He said planters and chains were installed in the early 1980s in an effort to prevent parking next to the wall, but none of those measures worked. He did not feel a bar and entertainment center works in that location, regardless of who the owner/operator is. He said that when enough people are attracted to the business to make a profit, they end up in the parking lot late in the evening and they make noise which disturbs residents who live in close proximity. He said that, regardless of the applicant, he could not support a conditional use permit or entertainment permit for such uses in that center because he did not feel such uses belong in that location. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution denying Conditional Use Permit 95-26. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution denying Entertainment Permit 95-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS D. CONSIDERATION OF A REOUEST TO FENCE OFF SERENA PLACE, A CUL-DE-SAC STREET, AT ITS CONNECTION TO LEMON AVENUE (Continued from November 8, 1995) Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that none of the residents who had appeared at the November 8 meeting were in the audience tonight. He asked if the Commission wanted to go ahead and act. He noted that the two adjacent property owners had spoken at the last meeting and knew the matter was continued to tonight's meeting so that Commissioner Tolstoy could be present. Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 13, 1995 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, stated he also had been in contact with a representative of the neighborhood, Mrs. Hartnell; and she was aware the matter was to be on tonight's agenda. Commissioner McNiel noted that only the two adjacent property owners had been present at the November 8 meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission, that they should go ahead and consider the matter. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that in the older tracts, the adjacent lots abut at the end of a cul-de-sac street instead of having a small sliver of land owned by the City to allow a through-passage to the other street. He noted the Commission has always tried to make the City pedestrian friendly. He suggested the City dedicate the land to the two adjoining properties and allow them to fence it off with a gate so that pedestrians could still pass through. He said the City would therefore not be required to install a fence. He felt the City should not go to the expense of installing a fence in that type of a situation because he feared residents in many other areas would then request such fencing. He also did not feel the City should be responsible for maintenance of the fence. He supported allowing the neighbors to put up and maintain their own fence so long as pedestrian ingress and egress is provided for. Commissioner Lumpp asked who currently maintains the area between the two lots. Mr. Murphy replied that the City maintains it as it is within the City right of way. Mr. Buller said the City maintains that area plus other areas along Lemon Avenue which are outside the wall and within an Assessment District. Mr. Murphy noted that the vast majority of the frontage along Lemon Avenue from this point down to Highland Avenue is part of a Landscape Maintenance District which the City maintains. Commissioner Lumpp noted that if the City quit claimed the property to the adjacent owners, they would have to maintain the property on both the inside and the outside of the fence or else build the fence right at the sidewalk. He said that if the homeowners install the fence while the City maintains the right of way, the same problem would exist for the City's maintenance crews. He also questioned who would pay for the fencing. He noted the residents had indicated they initially wanted the City to pay for the fencing. Chairman Barker said that the Commissioners had indicated at the November 8 meeting that the City would not pay for any fencing. Commissioner McNiel felt that may be why the residents were not at tonight's meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the City should install a fence but he was willing to try to make it possible for the residents to accomplish what they want to do without the City's incurring any costs while still maintaining the City's policy on pedestrian access. Mr. Buller noted that open cul-de-sacs are located throughout the City, not just in the planned communities. He felt that vacating the easement and allowing the Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 13, 1995 property owners to install landscaping, a wall, or fencing would raise the question as to what makes this cul-de-sac situation different from others. Chairman Barker stated his original thinking had been to go ahead and allow the residents to install a fence, but he had thought about it more and is concerned as to why this particular cul-de-sac should be treated differently. He noted that the matter arose because the residents requested it, and he wondered if that would mean that every time residents ask to have an area fenced, that the City would then allow the cul-de-sacs to be fenced off. He agreed it is a valid question. Mr. Murphy said that staff had considered the matter at great length. He said that from the residents' standpoint several factors could be considered. He observed that there is a much stronger pedestrian trail system within the planned communities than there is in this location. He said there are no trails within close proximity to this location. He noted that the nearest shopping is at Haven and Highland and he questioned if it would harm the City if the residents want to make their own route to the shopping center more lengthy. He pointed out that there are currently two side-on cul-de-sacs across the street from each other and there is a greater potential for mid-block crossing on a blind curve. He thought that allowing the cul-de-sac to be gated off may discourage pedestrians from making that crossing. Mr. Buller noted that when the freeway is constructed, Lemon will be blocked off from Highland. Mr. Murphy said that City Traffic Engineer Paul Rougeau feels the traffic volume will not be significantly reduced as the City feels the amount of traffic on Lemon is currently not that great. He said there are currently not high traffic levels and the street is probably under-utilized from a collector standpoint. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that even if the property could be vacated, it could not be a private property with a public right of way as the property owners would be solely responsible for the pedestrians as they go through the area. He felt the property owners would be within their rights to block off the access. He said if the City were to vacate the property but require an easement, it would be a public easement and fall back on the City. He said if public access is desired, it is then public property. Mr. Murphy stated there is a catch basin at the south end of the cul-de-sac so the City would still have to maintain an easement through the area for drainage and surface overflow in the event the catch basin were to clog up. He said if the City wishes to maintain the existing 4 foot sidewalk out to Lemon, there would have to be at least a public easement to allow the sidewalk to remain. He felt that could lead to maintenance problems in determining what portion is public and what is private and he noted that the irrigation is currently tied to City lines and would have to be shifted over to the property owners. He also noted that the fencing should be at the back of the sidewalk along Lemon Avenue in order to prevent a "no man's" strip between the Lemon Avenue sidewalk and a future fence. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the City should not have a maintenance problem and should not have to put in a fence, so he felt he would have to vote against the fencing. Commissioner Lumpp stated he lives in a community where the residents were forced into having wrought iron fencing between the major roadways and the cul-de-sacs based upon the insistence of several residents who felt there was a need for Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 13, 1995 protection. He observed that the residents who initially requested the fencing no longer live in the area and residents who moved into the community because it had an open feeling are still living with the tubular steel fencing which was installed. He said the fencing has deteriorated and is not maintained and the adjacent homeowners have added trellis work resulting in an ugly fence. He feared the same thing would happen here and he did not support the idea. Mr. Murphy noted that in some areas of Terra Vista, fences have been installed which completely block the access. He said that he had spoken with the City's Public Works Maintenance Manager and maintenance is a nightmare trying to keep up with the nun%ber of rungs which have been bent or broken out by people trying to get through at the end of the cul-de-sacs. It was the consensus of the Commission (5-0) to oppose fencing off at the end of cul-de-sac streets where they side onto other streets. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman Barker said it was his understanding that Commissioner Melcher could no longer serve on the Design Review Committee beginning in January and that Commissioner McNiel had indicted he could serve on the committee. With the agreement of the Commissioners, he appointed Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that the Planning Commission discuss small lot subdivisions in light of their recent field trip. He felt the Commission should indicate its concerns in order to provide early direction to the developers who have expressed an interest in that area. He suggested the Commissioners could either meet with the developers at a workshop or could discuss the matter and provide direction to staff to forward any concerns. It was the consensus of the Commission that the matter should be placed on the January 10 agenda for discussion as to how the Commission's feelings would be forwarded to the developers. Commissioner Lumpp stated he did not see any mounding going on at McDonalds at the corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue. He feared the developer would be requesting an opening without everything being done. He felt the mounds should be increased and the trees installed prior to the City's allowing the business to open. Commissioner Melcher stated the trees had been installed. Planning Commission Minutes -14- December 13, 1995 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that 60-inch box multi-trunk trees were installed. He reported that Steve Hayes had informed the developer that the mounding is not completed as specified on the plans. Chairman Barker suggested that staff inform McDonalds that several of the Commissioners had asked where the mounding is. Mr. Buller said the intent of the mounding is that it be of sufficient height so that cars cannot be seen from the street as they go through the drive-thru. Commissioner Tolstoy said that has always been the City's intent and it is not unique to McDonalds. Commissioner Melcher suggested that anonymous letters regarding projects not be forwarded to the Commission. He felt that unsigned letters have no meaning and should not be considered by the Commission when making decisions. Commissioner Melcher felt the question regarding fencing at cul-de-sacs raised some interesting issues. He stated he had not been part of the original planning regarding the openings at the end of cul-de-sac streets, so it was hard for him to speak about it knowledgeably. He thought the Commission should revisit some of the issues in the near future, such as the whole idea of pedestrian orientation. He felt the City does not have many traditional neighborhoods and neighborhood shopping centers are neighborhood centers only in their size as they serve the community as a whole, not the immediate neighborhood. He said they are tied together by a grid of wide streets that preclude easily walking to the centers from residences. He felt pedestrian activity is discouraged by 4-foot wide sidewalks, as they are too narrow for walking with a companion. He thought it would be possible to be pedestrian-friendly within developments, but he felt the City should re-examine the idea. Chairman Barker suggested that it would be important to look at the history of pedestrian orientation. He noted that one developer was opposed to the idea, but now heavily advertises it as an amenity. Commissioner McNiel felt there should be a workshop regarding the issue. He noted that the City formed its policy partly as a reaction to communities that were formed with walls around all the housing developments. He said he had not seen anything better. Commissioner Melcher agreed that walls around residential development with no landscaping presents an ugly appearance to the community. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that the ability to walk without a barrier gives a feeling of more openness. He stated that there are five houses in his neighborhood which have not fenced their back yards and they have a continuous lawn with trees. He noted that it presents a beautiful open vista and allows the children from the various houses to play together without crawling over fences. The Commission discussed the letter from Fontana regarding a meeting of Planning Commissioners from various cities. Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 13, 1995 It was the consensus of the Commission that the Commissioners would be willing to meet and that Fontana should organize the first meeting. Chairman Barker suggested that staff advise Fontana of the regularly scheduled meetings that Commissioners attend. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Commission recommend a time and a place that is convenient. He thought such a meeting could be held at Rancho Cucamonga. He said he would wait to hear from the Commissioners and forward any comments to Fontana. Brad Buller, City Planner, reminded the Commissioners that a workshop was scheduled for December 19 at 6:00 p.m. with Lewis Homes regarding Conditional Use Permit 93-49. He noted that a joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting was scheduled for December 20 regarding the Commercial Market Study. He commented that there would be no Planning Commission Meeting on December 27, 1995. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 9:35 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on December 19 for a workshop regarding Conditional Use Permit 93-49. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- December 13, 1995