Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/08/23 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 23, 1995 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, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, 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; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Nettie Nielsen, Recreation Supervisor; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of July 12, 1995. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of August 9, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-21 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An appeal of a request to operate a playschool program for approximately 150 preschool children within the existing classrooms of Hillside Community Church, in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the Commission had before them copies of two examples of letters which were sent by the Community Services Manager to residents who attended the City Planner hearing offering to meet with the residents. He said it was his understanding that as of this morning, no one had called to accept her offer. Commissioner Melcher questioned why the proposed resolution was not captioned as a denial of the appeal. Mr. Coleman replied that generally such a resolution is captioned as an approval of the project rather than terming it in the negative as a denial of an appeal. Commissioner Melcher questioned the statement on Page A-10 that the classrooms located at Hillside Community Church would be an ideal site due to the location and classroom arrangement. He felt the location is very far off center in the community relative to the probable demographics of who attends the program. Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager, replied that the playschool program is currently conducted at Lions Park and the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center. She said the two existing sites are located in the westerly area of town to serve the whole community. She stated that the Ruth Musser School site had been located nearer to the newer developing areas in the central part of the City and the easterly Etiwanda location. She felt the Hillside Community Church is more centrally located in the City, even though it is in the north. She thought it would be able to serve the newer development and the Etiwanda area. She noted it is extremely difficult to find a suitable facility at a cost that fits into the City budget. Commissioner Lumpp asked how many letters she sent to residents. Ms. Ota replied that the July 25 letter went to the five or six residents who attended the City Planner hearing. She said she received one telephone call from one of the attendees, who concluded the telephone conversation by saying that she was satisfied with the proposal because it is a temporary request. She stated she sent the August 3 letter out to the 300-foot mailing radius of 30-40 residences to provide additional information and to again offer to meet with the residents. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Ms. Ota had received any response from the second letter. Ms. Ota indicated she had not. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Doug Warner, 5291 Ozark Mountain Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives directly north of the church. He said he and his wife coordinated the appeal. He stated he was one of the few people who attended the City Planner hearing. He noted that he had included a petition with over 60 signatures with his appeal letter. He said his biggest concern is the increased traffic on Haven and Vista Grove. He thought the community is already congested with traffic that travels at unregulated speeds and he expressed concerns that children may be hit. He noted that the project has been presented as a temporary need for up to two years, but said he had been told that the application could be extended on an annual basis for up to an additional five years meaning that it could exist for up to seven years. He questioned if it could go beyond seven years. He said he had spent a lot of money to move into his home in search of more open space and a quieter setting and he felt that section of the City is not developed for a public day care center. He stated it is not a church program to support the immediate community, but a City program for up to 150 children from a larger section of the City. He questioned if the program would expand to more than 150 children. He acknowledged that the City had good correspondence with the community but expressed concern that the church had not been represented at the Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 23, 1995 City Planner hearing nor contacted the community. He did not think a business should be permitted in the area. He suggested that speed is better controlled further south. He questioned if there would be additional traffic for open house or holiday programs. Robert Simon, 5230 Ozark Mountain Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had written a letter to the City voicing his concerns. He questioned if the demographics of the area is right for this type of service. He thought it will cause a tremendous increase in traffic and stated that residents are fearful of allowing children to cross the street. He said that the church facility now leaves lights on in the parking lot most of the night because kids previously congregated in the parking lot. He was concerned that the playschool program may increase other types of activities at the church facility. Jackie Bolda, 11849 Mount Gunnison Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a playschool mom and is proud of the program that the City offers. She expressed sadness that neighbors seem to be intimating that because of their income, the program should not be allowed in the neighborhood. She noted the program is not a public day care nor a low-income program. She said most of the children are brought by stay-at-home mothers or grandmothers. She felt the program is a service being offered to the community, not a business. She thought the service is necessary. She observed that open houses have always been during school hours. Joe Alanis, 5270 Ozark Mountain Place, Rancho Cucamonga, felt there will be an increase in traffic. He felt it will be unsafe because of speeding. He feared the program will last for longer than two years and may have more than 150 children. He also thought the police force would have to be increased if the program takes effect. Jack Ellis, 5230 Stone Mountain Place, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concerns regarding the increased traffic. He noted the Traffic Engineer had estimated an additional 190 trips per day. He said there are no crosswalks in the area. He observed that the staff report discussed the buffering of the outdoor playground area by landscaping and slopes. He stated the church is 1-1/2 blocks from the mountains and he feared that coyotes may pose a danger.. He thought the location is unsuitable because it is in the northern end of the city and he suggested Valley Vista School below Base Line would be more suitable. George Lightner, 5684 Malachite, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is the Business Administrator for Hillside Community Church. He stated he has been a community resident since 1954. He praised the City's graffiti removal program. He stated that the lights are left on in the church parking lot until 3:00 a.m. for security reasons. He said they also have a private security company that checks the buildings and parking lots, an on-site gardener who picks up the trash two times per week, and he travels through the parking lot generally at least once per day. He said it is the church's goal to be of service to the community and they would like to provide the facilities for the entire community of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the parents would gain access to the church. Mr. Lightner felt that 95 percent would travel north on Haven Avenue and enter from the southern end of the church property and exit back to the south. He noted that entering from Vista Grove would be the long way around both on City streets and on site through the parking lot because the classrooms being used are on the southern side of the property while Vista Grove is to the north. He said the children will be using a fenced playground which is immediately adjacent to Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 23, 1995 the classrooms the children will be using. He observed that there is a large family center building between the playground and Vista Grove. He did not think the residents of Vista Grove will be able to hear the children on the playground. He acknowledged that Mr. Warner probably does hear a lot of traffic on Haven Avenue, but he said that Haven Avenue is a public street and he did not think the church causes any traffic problems. Chairman Barker observed that the church will not be operating the program and he suggested that Commissioner Lumpp's question regarding drop off and control of the children be addressed to City staff. Mr. Coleman stated that the playschool program requires that adults enter the classrooms to sign in the children. Mr. Lightner said the church has tried to keep the landscaping maintained at the same quality as the neighborhood. He said it is the church's firm commitment to maintain the property at the same level as the rest of the neighborhood. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He noted that concerns were raised regarding traffic, limit on time the use can exist, whether the use is for serving the immediate community, proper area to run a business, potential for increasing the number of children beyond 150, demographics not right for the service being presented, whether or not there is a hidden agenda with a bias toward income, potential for night programs, traffic taking place at peak times, fear regarding safety for local children because of the speed limit, and fear regarding safety for the day care participants because of coyotes. Commissioner McNiel said he was baffled by the appeal. He stated he has served on the Planning Commission for 13 years. He said that when the City was established, it was decided that uses which apply to residential areas would be put in residential areas. He said examples are schools, churches, pre-schools, etc. He said the concept was designed to provide service to the local community. He thought the same kind of theory could be applied to public schools, in that public schools bring increased traffic. He stated that the City population is over 100,000 and will increase to over 200,000 at build out and therefore traffic is going to increase and will have to be dealt with. He said there is a lot of open land north of the church that will be developed and the City has little or no control over the density on much of that land. He was troubled that there appeared to be a "not in my backyard" attitude regarding such a community service. He felt that community is about the entire City, not one neighborhood versus another. He noted there have been no complaints about preschools in other areas of the City. He felt the program will be a fine service to the community. Commissioner Lumpp asked staff to indicate on an overhead the probable flow of traffic to the site. Ms. Ota anticipated the majority of the traffic would travel north on Haven and enter at the southern entrance to the church property. She indicated where the parents would park to walk their children into the building. She said the children would not be arriving or departing during peak traffic times because the playschool will operate between 8:45 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Lumpp observed that Planning Commission Resolution No. 83-18 permits the church to open a day care center tomorrow that would allow 120 students for hours ranging from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He felt such a use would intensify the use by about 50 percent because of the expanded hours even though the number of students would be fewer. He sensed that most of the people who signed the Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 23, 1995 petition were concerned with traffic but he felt there would be little increase in traffic along Vista Grove. He commented that Haven Avenue is designed as a major street and it will have increased traffic. He felt that most of the traffic will be traveling north on Haven Avenue and entering the southern driveway of ~he church and very little will continue north to Vista Grove. He noted that there had been comments that teenagers loiter in the parking lot. He thought such teenagers are probably from the immediate area and observed the church is trying to discourage such congregation by leaving the lights on until 3:00 a.m. He noted a comment had been made that this is not a proper location to operate a business. He considered the proposed use a public use for the benefit of the community and not a business. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the church property to be an ideal place to locate such a program because it has the right kind of facilities. He said there are hardly any places in the community with facilities that would equal what is available at the church. He noted that Haven Avenue is a four-lane street and he felt the amount of added traffic would be barely discernable. He supported the use of the facility. Commissioner Melcher stated he respected what the other Commissioners had said. He felt the application is worthy and said he intended to support it. However, he thought it showed poor planning for the City to simultaneously shut down all of the existing space it was using. He was offended by the suggestion that the site is centrally located. He agreed it may be centrally located in an east/west direction, but he felt that 90 to 95 percent of the City's population lives south of the location, by perhaps as much as 7 to 8 miles. He noted that it had been stated that the location should be needed for only 18 months to 2 years, and suggested that such a limitation be in the resolution. He felt that having the City operate the program is somewhat different than having the church operate its approved preschool. He said he would support the application, but he felt it could have been handled better. He remarked that he had made the statement that a staff level hearing is not appropriate where the City is the applicant and said he felt it is equally not appropriate to rely on the City's Traffic Engineer. He said he did not doubt what the Traffic Engineer had reported in his memorandum, but he thought it gives the appearance of being one-sided. He said such a thing could not be done by the development community and he did not think it should be done by the City in the future. Chairman Barker noted that the Commission had already directed that when the City is the applicant, the matter will not be heard by the City Planner, but will be brought to the Planning Commission. He said a comment had been made about services to the local neighborhood. He agreed that when the City was formed a decision was made that churches belong in neighborhoods. He thought perhaps some had an idea that people would walk to the neighborhood church, but he observed that most people drive to whatever church fills their needs. He said because churches do not attract only from their neighborhood, a church preschool would probably draw commuters. He agreed that perhaps the Commission should have looked at more than one option, but he did not disagree with the intent or the project. He did not feel there will be an abhorrent traffic impact to the residents to the north of the site. He supported the project. He thought the resolution could be more specific about the length of time the program will be in effect. Ms. Ota stated the church is also concerned that it be a temporary use. She said the lease is for approximately 18 months because the City is currently renovating the old library site in this fiscal year. She felt that work should be completed within 18 months, barring any unforseen circumstances. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 23, 1995 Chairman Barker asked if it is possible to grant a conditional use permit with a specific length of time so that any time extension would have to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Coleman thought it would be appropriate to add a condition that the approval is on a temporary basis for a 2-year period subject to annual extension by the Planning Commission for a total of 5 years. Chairman Barker felt it should be for a specific period of time. Commissioner McNiel stated that approvals have been granted for temporary buildings for on an 18-month or 2-year period with three potential 1-year extensions for a total of 5 years for projects where the applicant does not have future plans in process. He noted that the City is in the process of preparing another facility which should be done within 18 months. However, he did not feel it would be fair to put a limitation on the program because he felt it would fly in the face of what he had said previously that these kinds of services belong in the neighborhoods. He thought that people from the neighborhood would take advantage of the program for their children. He felt the playschool application is a service to the community and he did not support placing a time limitation on it. Commissioner Melcher supported a time limitation and suggested that if the City finds it desirable to continue the use beyond June 30, 1997, that such continued use be subject to a further public hearing at that time. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner McNiel. Commissioner Lumpp stated that because the church has an already approved conditional use permit to run a day care center, he saw no reason to set a time limit. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-21. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY MELCHER NONE - carried Commissioner Melcher stated he voted against the project because the resolution did not contain a time limit. Chairman Barker remarked that the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council and said that staff could explain the procedure. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:07 p.m. to 8:17 p.m. ENVIRONMENThT. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14806 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A subdivision of 25 acres of land into 8 parcels in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of FoOthill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - 1077-421-58 and 63. Staff Recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 93-49 previously approved. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 23, 1995 Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the 60-foot non-buildable easement. Mr. James replied the non-buildable easement extends around the drive aisle of the buildings on the back side of the site and is a Building and Safety condition which he thought has to do with the fire wall rating. Commissioner Melcher asked if the parcel map will replace an earlier parcel map for the same property. Mr. James responded that an earlier parcel map was recorded and the applicant is now subdividing that earlier map. He said the earlier parcel map lines will no longer be there, but any street dedications from the earlier map will still be dedicated. He said the interior parcel maps are being changed. Commissioner Melcher asked if the one parcel which was described earlier will now change. Mr. James said it will be as now indicated. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Chuck Beecher, Western Development Co., 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, requested that the resolution be corrected to show the name of the company as Western Development Co. He asked for verification that Engineering Condition 1 refers to frontage improvements on the four perimeter streets rather than entire streets and noted that Standard Condition B.3 appears to refer to entire streets. He said they have now completed all frontage improvements around the center. Mr. James confirmed that Standard Condition B.3 refers to frontage improvements. Commissioner McNiel asked if the land is being subdivided in order to sell parcels to the tenants. Mr. Beecher replied that currently three of the four pads on the frontage of Foothill Boulevard are envisioned to be multi-use tenants and would probably not be sold and they are currently negotiating for a ground lease on the fourth. He said traditionally their company has sold homes but retained commercial properties. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 1806. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAT. USE PERMIT 95-15 - HOBIN - The proposed development of a 75,192 square foot public storage facility with caretaker's residence on 5.48 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-021-36. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 23, 1995 Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker asked if there is enough room for a car to pull a trailer into the parking spaces at the rear of the site. Mr. Hayes responded that the drive aisles are approximately 30 feet wide as compared to 26-foot aisles required for fire truck access. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Bill Hobin, The William Warren Group, P. O. Box 2034, Santa Monica, requested approval of the application. He said that Jo Ann Gyler, most recent past president of the Self Storage Association and financial controller to the William Warren Group, and architect Bruce Jordan were available to answer questions. Commissioner McNiel asked if all of the Design Review Committee requests were addressed. Mr. Hobin replied affirmatively. Bruce Jordan, architect, 34700 Pacific Coast Highway, Capistrano Beach, showed a color rendering of the project. He praised Mr. Hobin's willingness to design the project to fit in with the local area. He noted they used similar materials and architectural vocabulary to integrate the facility with the nearby Sports Complex. He observed that the driveway position was dictated by the location of the driveway across the street. He pointed out that a planter was inset into the first storage building at the driveway location, so that views into the facility will not be of storage doors. He commented that the project was designed with wall articulation and lasting materials to require a minimum of maintenance. He observed that trellises and thorny vines were designed around the perimeter of the project to preclude graffiti. He thought the project will fit in well in the community and provide a useful service. He felt the traffic will occur during off-peak times. He reported they used in excess of a 50-foot outside turning radius and noted the Fire Department requires only a 42-foot one. He said they propose an on-site resident manager and said that generally facilities with on-site resident managers are better integrated into communities because there is more concern about landscaping and appearance. He remarked that the manger will be instructed to contact the Police rather than to provide security, but noted that having someone there is a deterrent to problems. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what is proposed for the vacant area to the west. Mr. Jordan replied that it is to be held for future use. He indicated a master plan shows that there will be sufficient room for a separate driveway to that portion. Chairman Barker asked if the Design Review Committee members were happy with the changes that were made. Commissioner McNiel responded that the applicant was very cooperative. He felt it is a nice project. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. commented that it is a very attractive project. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-15. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 23, 1995 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-17 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-28 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA HOSPITAL - A request to modify conditions relative to the design of a required outdoor plaza and the timing of its construction for an existing vacant hospital complex totaling approximately 99,000 square feet on 6.2 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10841 White Oak Avenue - APN: 208-351-61. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any drawings had been submitted to show the proposed changes in the proposal. Mr. Hayes replied there have not been. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the proposed revisions will go to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Hayes replied it would be up to the Commission to determine if they should be reviewed by the Committee or staff. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted the proposed resolution calls for staff review of the three focal point areas. He thought perhaps the Commission may want the Design Review Committee to review the ultimate design of the originally proposed plaza area. He stated that final design will depend upon development of the site to the west. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it might be a good idea to take another look at the plaza area when a use is determined for the adjacent site. He recommended that it go back to Design Review. Commissioner Melcher asked if the adjacent property is now under different ownership. Mr. Hayes responded that was correct. Commissioner Melcher asked if the intent was to impose this plaza design regardless of what is developed on the adjacent site. Mr. Hayes felt the City would be receptive to alternate designs because the site will probably not be developed as it was originally master planned. chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Steve Josee, project architect, 7201 Haven Avenue, Suite 345, Rancho Cucamonga, stated it was the intent of the owner and the buyer that the three design elements being proposed would be in lieu of the original plaza concept. He noted that when the project was originally proposed, it was thought that the parcel to the west would be developed as a phase of the project, but the land was never acquired. He said the current and future owners have no position on how the adjacent parcel will develop. He said they are now proposing the three focal Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 23, 1995 points and do not want to have to make major modifications to the existing plaza area that is currently half constructed. Commissioner McNiel asked if they would interfere if the adjacent property owner should wish ~o complete the plaza area. Mr. Josee responded they would not interfere. Commissioner McNiel felt it should not be this applicant's responsibility to complete the plaza. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the Design Review Committee had been told that a publicly held corporation owns the facility at present. He asked if the same buyer is still intending to purchase the property. Mr. Josee said that was correct. Commissioner Melcher asked if they were proposing a pool below the caduceus sculpture. Mr. Josee said that was not their intent, but they were open to discussion. He said they were proposing a pool at the main entrance of the medical building, a sculpture at the east end and a monument sign at the entrance. He said he thought a splash of color and a vertical element would reinforce that it was the main entrance. Commissioner McNiel asked if the building will be a hospital. Mr. Josee replied affirmatively. He noted that the view upon entering the site will be of a three-story medical office building with a one-story 49-bed hospital attached on the back side. Mr. Buller noted he had received a call that the new tenant had chosen not to proceed forward with the project. Mr. Josee said the current buyer remains G & L Realty from Beverly Hills but there may be a change in the tenant who leases the building. He reported that G & L Realty owns and manages a large number of medical buildings throughout the United States. Commissioner Lumpp said the Design Review Committee had suggested a water element be added in the front entry area to complement the water element in the interior of the project. Mr. Josee said he had discussed that with staff during the last few days. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification that if the three elements are approved, this property owner would no longer be contractually obligated to the City to provide the original entry statement design, but would be encouraged to participate if and when the originally proposed plaza is provided. Mr. Buller responded that the originally proposed plaza had an element of sophistication and it was staff's intent that the three elements now proposed would in essence provide that same degree of pedestrian interest to the site. He observed that the drive aisle is now a fire lane and it will have to be modified when adjacent development takes place. He said staff was asking that Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 23, 1995 the applicant not walk away from the responsibility to cooperate with the adjacent property owner on whatever is decided at that time. He recommended that the Commission not put the same emphasis on the plaza as it did in the original master plan. He said staff is asking that the applicant actively participate in how the current fire lane is eventually developed. Chairman Barker asked if there are any teeth in the requirement to coordinate with the adjacent property owner in an attempt to complete the plaza as originally designed. Mr. Buller replied that there is more leverage in tying conditions to occupancy of a building and the Commission was being asked to have some trust that the applicant would cooperate. He said the City had discussed a possible good faith deposit with Kajima. He hoped the owner would cooperate even after a tenant is in place. He conceded there would be very little teeth once occupancy is granted. Commissioner Melcher suggested rewording Condition 4 to indicate that the applicant will make a good faith effort at such time as a development proposal is submitted for the adjacent property, rather than leaving the time line open. He also noted that Steve Josee, the project architect, filed the application, and he asked if he would then be responsible for making the good faith effort. Mr. Buller replied that Mr. Josee is the applicant's representative. Commissioner Melcher observed that the records do not indicate who the applicant is and the property may change hands several times before development is proposed for the adjacent property. Mr. Buller acknowledged that was correct. He said the conditional use permit would go with the property, not necessarily the owner. Chairman Barker said although the Commission might have some degree of trust in the current applicant, it was hard to have trust in future unknown owners. Commissioner McNiel noted that Condition No. 4 calls for the applicant to make a good faith effort to coordinate with the property owner of the adjacent property to complete the plaza as originally designed. He questioned what would happen if the original design is not appropriate when the adjacent property develops. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner McNiel's concern. Chairman Barker did not feel secure with the proposed language. Mr. Buller suggested the condition be reworded to indicate the applicant would make a good faith effort to coordinate with the adjacent property owner to complete the plaza. Commissioner McNiel felt the City should have the complete plaza. Chairman Barker asked if the Commissioners would accept the proposed revision. Commissioner Tolstoy said he was still confused about the three focal points. Mr. Buller stated that the Design Review Committee had expressed concern with the wind vanes at the street but had thought the elements at the plaza were Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 23, 1995 satisfactory. He said the Design Review Committee had recommended the applicant work with staff regarding the entry. Commissioner McNiel commented that when the proposal was originally presented, the plaza el&ment and entry statement were a beautiful concept. He said the City had agreed to half of a plaza because of the concept; however, he felt it has turned into a nightmare. Chairman Barker again opened the public hearing. Mr. Josee stated the present and future owners of the property agree with the concept of participating in ideas and design solutions when the land to the west is developed because it will impact their property. He indicated they were concerned that they not be required to totally redesign or reconstruct their portion of the plaza as it exists. Chairman Barker said it is unknown how the adjacent property will develop and how it will affect the plaza. Mr. Josee said it was his understanding they would definitely be notified when development is approved because their property is within a certain distance of the adjacent property. He stated they are very interested in knowing what will go on the adjacent property and having input, because it will affect the plaza, and it is obviously half their plaza. However, he said their greatest concern is trying to identify their cost and projected cost to get the property to an occupancy point and they fear they will be required to spend another $200,000 to $300,000 to redo the plaza area. He said it was their impression that the Commission was asking for their cooperation only. Mr. Buller did not feel the Commission is willing to venture a guess as to what the plaza will be. He indicated it may revert to landscaping. He pointed out that something will have to be done with the current fire lane. He said it would be unacceptable to have the fire lane remain the way it is when the rest of the plaza is developed. He thought the Commission was making a statement that the emphasis would be on the other three focal points rather than on the plaza. Mr. Josee said the intent of the three focal points was that they be the emphasis. Commissioner Lumpp said the applicant will have to probably spend some money in the future to allow a cohesive plaza area but the Commission is not sure how the plaza area will be designed. He noted the alternative would be for the Commission to deny their current request, and require that the applicant install the entire plaza. Commissioner McNiel felt there may be an opportunity to complete the remainder of the plaza to match what currently exists and that would be beneficial. He said the Commission does not want to have two unmatched halves because the property owners will not cooperate with each other. Commissioner Melcher commented there would be minimal financial exposure if they were to cooperate in completing the original design concept and that would secure a completely finished project. He felt it would be unfair to require this applicant to redesign its portion of the plaza if the adjacent property owner proposes an entirely different concept. Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 23, 1995 Commissioner McNiel felt the Commission was not asking for that. He said it was not his intent. He hoped that the adjacent property owner would be willing to complete the plaza, but he thought having this applicant at the table would help drive that position. He stated he was not looking for this applicant to have to redesign thefr plaza to fit a new plan proposed by the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Lumpp stated he thought that perhaps something less would be proposed that would fit in with what has been done rather than the opulence designed with the current master plan. He agreed the Commission's intent is not to make this applicant redo their portion of the plaza to anything more than what is already there, merely to finish off the plaza. Dean Plassaras, Vice President and Director of Commercial Development, Kajima Development, a representative of the present owner, indicated they proposed the three focal points as a substitute for the plaza design. He felt the plaza should be abandoned because the concept was initially proposed by a joint venture and the other partner had long ago left the scene. He stated Kajima has spent about $30 million on the property and its present market value is much less than that amount. He noted that initially a common owner controlled this property and the adjacent property and proposed the common plaza with mirror buildings. He said the new buyer will have to carry a mortgage on the property and it is difficult to secure a loan with such uncertainties attached to the title. He observed their request was to be able to quantify their costs. He said that once a design is approved, it can be priced out so that the financial exposure is known. He stated that requiring the applicant to participate in a future design of the plaza will mean unknown costs and he felt that would be unacceptable to the buyers. He said that the buyers are listed on the New York stock exchange. He requested that the Commission approve the three focal points and drop the plaza. He thought the proposed focal points and the leasing of the building will be beneficial for the City. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated he was sensitive to the applicant's concerns and he did not want to be a deal breaker, but he did not feel it is the Commission's job to make the applicant's sale go smoother. He said it is the Commission's job to be sure the City gets what it is supposed to get by way of completion of some elements. He indicated he would be delighted to consider a way that would protect the City's interest while providing the applicant what they want. Chairman Barker felt there was technically no way to tie a condition to the property. Mr. Buller stated the Commission could agree to a site design for the plaza area and agree that the adjacent property would be developed to fit into that site plan. He said the Commission could direct staff to work with the applicant to determine the site design and the applicant could then determine the actual cost impact. He said it would then be incumbent upon the adjacent property owner to blend into and connect to what is already built. Commissioner Lumpp thought this property owner should grant access rights to the adjacent property owner to modify the plaza area on their property in order to tie the two properties together. He said that would allow this property owner to go forward. Chairman Barker asked if it is legal to tie requirements to an adjacent property. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 23, 1995 Commissioner McNiel felt that is already done with respect to corner fountains, etc. Chairman Barker thought the property owner of the adjacent property has the right to be involved in the decision making process. Mr. Buller stated that he had worked with Mr. Plassaras on finding a solution. He said they had talked to the adjacent property owner and they had no desire to participate in anything that would cause them to have to work on someone else's property. He said staff did not feel it would be appropriate to condition the adjacent property owner to perform work on this property. Commissioner Melcher suggested that another alternative would be for the Commission to grant relief so that the applicant would not have to participate in future completion of the plaza in exchange for this applicant's developing a design which would properly complete the development of his property with a proper separate entrance as though there is never to be an adjacent development. He said the plaza would then be deleted and would not be a burden on anyone. He said currently there is a half plaza concept and it will never appear a proper entry to this project as a stand-alone project. He stated the plaza is currently the entrance to a project which he felt will not exist. He suggested this project construct a proper entrance to its site and require the adjacent property owner to develop a separate proper entrance for its site. Commissioner Tolstoy thought there is supposed to be a common ingress and egress for this project and the adjacent property. Commissioner Melcher felt both projects could utilize the existing vehicle entry. Commissioner Tolstoy thought only half of it was constructed. Mr. Buller responded that the full entry was constructed and the driveway then narrows down to only one side with a reciprocal access easement in place to provide for the full entry. Commissioner Melcher suggested the applicant design a project entrance from the existing vehicle entry. Mr. Buller felt there are potential technical issues for separating this project entrance from the adjacent property because of the recorded map and reciprocal access easements. He noted the driveways for the entire area were laid out on the master plan with building orientation. He thought it may cause problems to separate this one existing project without looking at the entire master plan. Chairman Barker asked the cleanest way to handle the situation. Mr. Buller stated the applicant had indicated they are under a time line and staff had placed it on the agenda as quickly as possible. He thought the new owner would have to understand that the City has never been unreasonable about what it considers a community interest. He noted this project is a potential good neighbor owner. He thought the applicant could look around at other plazas in the City and note that the required features would be considered benefits to those who use the buildings and the public. He felt the City would not ask for anything more than that. He thought it may end up that when the adjacent property is developed, the plaza area may revert to a simple landscape area, but stated the applicant would have the opportunity to participate in those design discussions. He felt the Commission was reluctant to discard the master plan and the plaza treatment, and stated he had previously told the applicant he thought Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 23, 1995' that would be the Commission's position. He remarked that the City had suggested the applicant make a cash deposit that would stay on retainer until the other property develops and which may be then used for the design of the site, but the applicant chose not to do that. He suggested the applicant be given a chance to respond to the suggested change to Planning Condition No. 4 with respect to the plaza design. Chairman Barker asked that the applicant respond. Mr. Plassaras requested that they be allowed to withdraw the application to modify and fall back on the City's previous proposal that the applicant make a $10,000 good faith deposit and a guarantee that they would share half of the cost of the eventual construction of the plaza if and when it occurs. He said they would be willing to sign legal documents that would guarantee construction of the plaza to the City's satisfaction. Mr. Buller said that staff had been working with Kajima over the last few years and a legal agreement was worked out that would have the applicant deposit $10,000 because it was the City's feeling that an applicant would not want to walk away from that amount of money. He indicated the agreement covers a lot of issues related to access and cooperation. He said the City Attorney felt comfortable with the agreement and staff would support accepting the applicant's withdrawal of their current proposal for three focal points. He stated the legal agreement would be an administrative action and the plaza would eventually be built. Chairman Barker suggested that it be handled in that way. Commissioner McNiel asked if there should be a vote. Mr. Buller observed that the applicant had withdrawn the application and no action would be necessary on the part of the Commission. Chairman Barker felt that would be a cleaner business deal for the applicant. Mr. Plassaras said that action would satisfy the new buyer. He apologized for taking the Commission's time. Commissioner McNiel complimented the applicant on the project and said he felt they had built a nice building. Chairman Barker expressed appreciation for their willingness to work with the City. The Planning Commission recessed from 9:35 p.m. to 9:38 p.m. E. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-46 - FLORES -A request to modify the approved site plan and certain conditions of approval for a previously approved gas station and mini-market in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN 208-192-06 and 07. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 23, 1995 Chairman Barker asked what would happen if the Planning Commission took certain actions and the City Council decided not to proceed with condemnation. Mr. Murphy outlined on a map the two existing driveway locations on the liquor store site.- He pointed out the proposed improvements with a new driveway constructed. He said if the City Council elected not to condemn the liquor store site, the City might take a lien agreement or cash deposit for future improvements if and when the whole section of Foothill Boulevard could be completed. He said there is concern that doing improvements on the gas station site-and providing a taper or temporary curb and gutter could lead to maintenance problems for Caltrans. He said another option would be for the gas station to complete their improvements with a taper and improvements behind the taper could be completed at some future time. He said that would leave the two existing drive approaches on the liquor store site. He thought there would also be a possibility of closing off one of those driveways because the existing driveways are within the right-of-way. Chairman Barker asked if there had been a consideration that any modification approved by the Commission be contingent upon the pursuance of condemnation procedures by the City Council and failure of the Council to enact condemnation would reverse the Planning Commission action. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission could add such a condition. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if the driveways are left as they currently exist. Mr. Murphy outlined where landscaping would be in place and the access. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the parcels have reciprocal access. Mr. Murphy stated he had seen documents to indicate there is reciprocal access across all three parcels. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that would be the best solution. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if staff had asked the adjacent property owner why he would not grant the right to have their property improved. Mr. Murphy replied the liquor store owner has objections to the proposed location of the drive approach from Foothill Boulevard being on the east side of his property and has requested that it be on the west side of his property. He said he has concerns about his patrons backing out of the parking in front of his store into the drive aisle if the driveway is located on the east side of his property. Chairman Barker asked why the driveway could not be located where the liquor store owner prefers it. Mr. Murphy responded the driveway location was determined based upon the distance from the Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard intersection. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the proposed driveway is 220 feet from the curb return of the intersection. Chairman Barker asked if there is not currently a driveway at the location the liquor store owner would like it to be placed. Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 23, 1995 Mr. James responded there is currently an asphalt driveway in that location. Mr. Murphy stated that currently the driveway approach is simply rolled asphalt, not an approach built to City standards. Chairman Barker noted there has been a driveway there for a long time. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why a driveway could not be left there since there is already one in place. Commissioner Melcher thought parking would be reduced if the driveway is allowed to remain on the west side of the liquor store site. He noted that if the driveway is moved to the west side of the liquor store site, the lost parking spaces could not be moved to the east side of the liquor store site because that would obstruct the entrance to the In-N-Out site. He thought that moving the entrance to the In-N-Out further south on the In-N-Out parcel to accommodate moving of the driveway to the west side of the liquor store site, would also interfere with the existing drive-thru lane and delete parking on the In-N-Out site. Mr. Murphy agreed that in order to accommodate moving the driveway to the west on the liquor store site, parking would be lost and the circulation on the In-N- Out site would be negatively impacted. He said staff has not pursued a scenario of moving the driveway to the west side of the liquor store site because it is felt that will be too close to the intersection. Mr. James said that the City has reduced the minimum distance necessary in certain instances. He stated he had not been personally informed that the liquor store owner wanted the driveway on his west property line. He said the driveway on the south boundary of the property is less than the 200 feet from the intersection, but staff was recommending that it be allowed to go less than the standard 200 feet because it is the best location that can be obtained on the site. Commissioner McNiel felt the originally proposed configuration is the best to serve all three properties. Commissioner Melcher stated he was chagrined that the project is back before the Commission with no effort to address a concern he had raised on several occasions. He asked that the impact of adding a Church's Fried Chicken franchise to the service station be considered. He asked that the Commission consider whether people will be coming to this constricted lot to buy chicken rather than gas. He feared that having people utilize the parking spaces while they wait five to ten minutes for their dinner to be prepared will further congest a site that is already too congested and was only approved because it was felt it was the only way the property could be developed. Mr. Buller noted that staff had received a letter from the property owner across Vineyard Avenue expressing the opinion that traffic not be allowed to make a left turn when exiting the site on Vineyard Avenue. Duff Murphy, 281 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, stated he is the attorney for the applicant. He said Mr. Flores was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Art Flores, 3762 Henderson Place, Claremont, stated the Church's chicken would be available strictly for take-out. He said they had applied for all the permits and he had complied with all of the City's requests. He asked for approval of Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 23, 1995 his application. He said the project has been in process for three years and it has been a difficult application. He also stated that the chicken is prepared on site and kept in a warmer for up to 45 minutes, at which time fresh product is prepared. He said there should usually always be fresh product available for the customers resulting in very fast transactions. Commissioner Melcher asked how many square feet would be devoted to the chicken operation. Mr. Flores said it would be approximately 450 square feet. He indicated what portion of the service station would be devoted to the chicken sales. Commissioner Melcher asked if service station staff would handle the chicken sales. Mr. Flores replied he is the franchisee for Church's Chicken. Commissioner Melcher asked if there are presently any other service station operations in Southern California where this is being done. Mr. Flores said there are several stations with this new concept; one in Murietta with a McDonald's in a Mobil station, a Taco Bell in La Verne, and several others proposed. Commissioner Lumpp asked for a comparison to purchasing a hot dog at an ARCO mini-mart. Mr. Flores said it should take approximately the same time because the product is already prepared. He said they would only be serving fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and certain types of vegetables and all food would be pre-prepared. He said the cashier would take the food from the warmer and give it to the purchaser and the purchaser would serve their own drink from the fountain. Commissioner Lumpp asked why the applicant cannot come to a resolution with the adjacent property owner regarding the property improvements. Duff Murphy stated that when the property was sold to the adjacent owner, Mr. Flores thought the issue had been addressed. He said that when the City requested a reciprocal agreement with the adjoining property owner to permit some of the offsite improvements to be constructed, the adjoining property owner (Mr. Sandhu) resisted signing the agreement. He indicated there appears to be a breakdown in communications and a disagreement over what was agreed to when the property was sold. He stated there is clearly reciprocal access across the three properties and Mr. Flores also reserved the driveway easement on Foothill Boulevard in the configuration on the previously approved plan and the plan before the Commission this evening. He said attorneys were not involved in drawing up the buy/sell agreement and the exact limitation of how much land was necessary for dedication on Foothill Boulevard and the delineation of that dedication. He stated that because the requested 15 feet was not specifically delineated, there is a question of how much land Mr. Sandhu is required to dedicate. He reported that Mr. Flores is now not able to obtain that 15 feet and Mr. Flores is willing to agree to make a good faith effort to acquire that dedication, but requests that the City initiate condemnation proceedings at his expense if he is unable to obtain the dedication. He understood that the City Council,' rather than the Planning Commission, would have to initiate the condemnation proceedings. Mr. Murphy did not feel the City Council would have the authority to condemn property for the proposed landscape area and stated Mr. Flores would post a cash deposit to cover the cost of the on-site improvements, Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 23, 1995 which would be refunded to Mr. Flores if he is unable to obtain agreement for the installation of the landscaping. He noted that if the liquor store is developed in the future, the Commission would have the opportunity to further address the landscaping issue. Commissioner McNiel asked if Mr. Sandhu saw the plans prior to the sale transaction. Mr. Flores said that Mr. Sandhu approached him to purchase the property because his master lease was going to expire later this year. He said he had explained his project and shown plans to Mr. Sandhu and they had an agreement that he would cooperate for the completion of the project. Duff Murphy said he did not believe Mr. Sandhu was present when the Commission previously considered the Conditional use permit, but he thought Mr. Sandhu's wife and daughter were present at the hearing. Mr. Flores said Mr. Sandhu saw the plans on several occasions and was aware of the reciprocal entrance with In-N-Out. Commissioner McNiel asked if a Conditional use permit carries with a property when it is sold if the Conditional use permit covers reciprocal access across the property. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, replied that the reciprocal access agreement has been recorded against the properties and does perpetually bind all three properties. He said that agreement had been reviewed by the City when the map was recorded. Commissioner McNiel asked if the accompanying plans for the Conditional use permit are affected. Mr. Hanson stated Conditional use permit plans also run with the land. Commissioner McNiel asked if the landscaping would then be enforceable. Mr. Hanson replied the owner has changed. He said the project was not for the liquor store and the City can now only hold up the service station project as a means of enforcement. Commissioner Melcher stated he was puzzled that the cash deposit Mr. Flores was being asked to make would revert back to him if he is unable to get Mr. Sandhu to agree to on-site improvements on the liquor store property. He thought the money should revert to the City because he thought the City will be called upon to solve problems resulting from an underdeveloped parking lot being used for ingress and egress to the service station and he thought the deposit money could help defray any costs the City incurs. Mr. Hanson stated the money is for good faith funds for private improvements, not public improvements, and the City would not go onto private property to improve a liquor store. He noted that the public improvements will be completed as part of the project. Scott Murphy stated the condition was placed in the resolution in order to enable the applicant to pull a building permit prior to knowing whether or not he would be able to complete the improvements. Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 23, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Sandhu purchased the property before or after the Conditional use permit was approved. Mr. Flores replied Mr. Sandhu purchased the property after the approval. Duff Murphy believed the configuration of Foothill Boulevard had been approved in a configuration similar to what is now proposed, but that was subject to Caltrans approval, and when Caltrans approved the final design approximately three months later, it required an additional 3 feet over what the Planning Commission initially approved. He thought the sale had taken place prior to Caltrans' ultimate decision. Vernon Jolley, 15610 Terraceview Court, Riverside, stated he is an attorney representing Mr. Sandhu. He stated Mr. Sandhu contends he was not shown this map prior to purchase. He said the real issue does not concern the easement for the landscaping or sidewalks, but instead deals with the driveways which have been there for approximately 30 years and were a major consideration when his client paid over $500,000 for the property. He observed it is their contention that the driveways were specifically discussed and they thought the bargain they were entering into dealt with the gas station using the existing west driveway. He said that Mr. Sandhu had not known that the western driveway would be eliminated and that there would be a common driveway for all three parcels, including In-N-Out. He noted the plans were approved when one person owned both the service station site and the liquor store and that one person could suffer losses from one business to another, but one person no longer owns both parcels. He felt Mr. Sandhu's liquor store will be boxed in by having only one driveway. He noted there are currently no parking stalls along the northern boundary and he felt elimination of the western driveway and putting in parking stalls will not benefit the liquor store, but only the gas station business. He observed that the proposed setup will require flow-through traffic continually through Mr. Sandhu's property. He stated easements were granted with the idea that the western driveway would be most used by the gas station. He thought the fuel tanks are located on the southern portion of the service station site and felt that fuel trucks will enter from Vineyard, cross the liquor store property and exit via the eastern driveway. He felt this would cause increased liability exposure for Mr. Sandhu because of the increased traffic. He said Mr. Sandhu is willing to discuss landscape easements and public improvement setbacks and does not want a condemnation proceeding. He was not sure if In-N-Out is aware of the plan to combine driveways. He said Mr. Sandhu would not have purchased the property if he had known about the proposal to eliminate the western driveway. He asked that the City eliminate the restriction regarding driveways being located within 200 feet of an intersection. He noted that the driveway on Vineyard is less than 200 feet from the intersection. He asked that the City make an exception on Foothill Boulevard as well. Commissioner McNiel asked if Mr. Sandhu saw the plans prior to purchasing the property. Joe Sandhu, 1033 Pomello Drive, Claremont, stated he had not seen the plans until recently when he received a copy from the City. He said he had not seen the plans prior to purchasing the property and that he would not have bought the property if he had known the fuel trucks would be going across his property. He stated that when he went to the City, he was shown plans that had been submitted by a previous developer which showed both driveways being kept and the two properties sharing the western driveway. Commissioner Lumpp questioned why a title report would not show the approved Conditional use permit. Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 23, 1995 Scott Murphy stated that Conditional use permits are not typically recorded. He said only reciprocal access documents are recorded. He noted that the reciprocal access agreement is very generic and merely states there is reciprocal access across all three parcels without specifying drive approach locations or numbers. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Sandhu was totally oblivious of the approved Conditional use permit and plans at the time he purchased the property. Mr. Sandhu replied he was aware there would be improvements on Foothill Boulevard and he would end up giving up some property but he was not aware that only one driveway would be used for the service station and his property. He feared there will be traffic conflicts when his patrons back out of his parking spaces in front of his store because they will be backing into the drive aisle for the service station. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Sandhu was aware he would have to give up some of his property but was unaware there were any other approvals by the City regarding the property. Mr. Sandhu said that was correct. Mr. Jolley said an escrow instruction discusses certain requirements and improvements on Foothill Boulevard stating that the seller will be responsible for improving the property per the City's requirements in order to complete the project on the corner property and the improvements to the subject property will be on the Foothill Boulevard side of the new property and shall consist of putting in sidewalks and off-site work per plans approved by the City and government agencies. He said Mr. Sandhu was therefore aware there would be sidewalks and a widening of the boulevard. He stated there had been discussions about driveways and that it was agreed the west driveway would be used by the service station parcel. He said there were no discussions regarding the elimination of the west driveway and the installation of parking stalls that will only benefit the service station. Commissioner McNiel noted that the escrow instructions mentioned approved plans of the City and Mr. Sandhu did not seek out the plans. Mr. Jolley stated that because the instructions said the improvements "shall consist," Mr. Sandhu thought the plans had not yet been approved. Commissioner McNiel noted the instructions also said "approved by the City," which he felt meant the plans were already approved. Mr. Jolley said that "shall" is a future tense. Chairman Barker thought the placement of shall meant something shall be done but it did mean that the plans were not already approved. He felt that was something that attorneys and the courts may have to deal with. Mr. Jolley thought the matter could be settled if the City will allow both driveways to remain. He thought the matter of landscaping, sidewalks, and the widening of Foothill Boulevard could be worked out between the property owners. Chairman Barker stated that the normal requirement along Foothill Boulevard is 300 feet and the approved driveway is already less than the 300 feet. Commissioner McNiel noted it is a safety consideration. Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 23, 1995 Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Sandhu is opposed to the southern driveway off Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Jolley said it was his understanding that it will be in the location of the present alleyway. He stated Mr. Sandhu is not opposed to that driveway location or the improvements as shown. Diana Flores, 3762 Henderson Place, Claremont, stated they showed the plans toI Mr. Sandhu when they first started discussions regarding his purchase of the property. She said they explained the conditions that the City was requiring so that their project could be completed. She said they walked through the parking lot and pointed out that the liquor store sign would have to be replaced when the western driveway was closed and the parking spaces were installed. She commented the escrow instructions include a paragraph that Mr. Sandhu would be responsible for future signs for the liquor store when that sign is removed. Chairman Barker asked if the plan depicted one driveway in the approved location. Mrs. Flores said that was correct. Mr. Flores said they sold the property in good faith at their cost. Mrs. Flores said the approved previous project which had been submitted by Abrams also showed elimination of the west driveway. She said they do not care if the western driveway is eliminated, they just want their project to proceed. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel felt it would be a benefit to the liquor store to have traffic travel across in front of their front door. He thought the project will make the liquor store more attractive. He also thought the parking along Foothill Boulevard will benefit the liquor store as well as the service station. He opposed moving the proposed driveway along Foothill Boulevard to the west because he felt it would be too dangerous to have it closer to the intersection. Commissioner Lumpp stated the objective of the original approval of the Conditional use permit was to better the conditions and improve the health and safety of the area. He was perplexed that Mr. Sandhu was totally oblivious of actions that were going on with regard to the service station approval and that he thought the two driveways would remain when only one driveway was proposed and approved. He noted that testimony had been given that Mr. Sandhu's family was at the earlier Planning Commission hearing. He agreed with Commissioner McNiel that the proposed traffic flow would focus on the front door of the liquor store property and should benefit the store. He thought the project will improve the property and he was amazed that Mr. Sandhu would be unhappy. Chairman Barker asked Commissioner Lumpp to address Mr. Sandhu's attorney's comment that their objective is to have two driveways. Commissioner Lumpp thought that one of the objectives of the original Conditional use permit was to modify the driveway entrances and combine them into one for all three parcels. He said the City Planner advised him that In-N-Out is well aware of the requirement to close their driveway and combine it into one driveway to make a safer condition. He did not believe two driveways is an appropriate solution, because he felt one combined driveway will make Foothill Boulevard safer. Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 23, 1995 Commissioner Tolstoy noted the applicant was asking for two things; 1) condemnation, which only the City Council has the authority to do; and 2) elimination of improvements on the liquor store site. He was not ready to eliminate the improvements on the liquor store site until finding out if the City Council is ready to initiate condemnation proceedings. Commissioner Melcher noted that when the project went through the process it was subjected to several rigorous reviews by the Design Review Committee and discussed at great length by the Planning Commission. He felt it is a problem site and the intensity of development now being proposed is too great. He noted that it is nevertheless an approved project. He thought that what had been approved represents the very least level of development acceptable to the City under the circumstances. He stated he was not concerned with the private property owner's problems. He thought the conditions of approval should not be changed. He felt that as a Planning Commissioner, his responsibility is to be sure that development is in the best interest of the City and he did not feel it to be in the best interest to leave a less than safe driveway condition or to allow a development to do less than what was intended and live with a blighted appearance of the liquor store for years to come. He said he could not support less than what was previously approved. Chairman Barker questioned if all of the Commissioners felt there should be only one driveway on Foothill Boulevard for the three because that would be the safest condition. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the driveways should be combined or the property should be left the way it is. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission was not being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council with regard to the condemnation, but was only being called upon to diminish the requirements on the Conditional use permit and he was opposed to doing that. He indicated he was sympathetic to the Flores, but he felt they had made a business deal which resulted in a business problem. He did not feel it is the Commission's responsibility to solve business problems. He thought the Commission is to do the planning for the City and to see that private development best meets the goals of the City. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher that it is the Commission's job to improve the community, not to resolve private property issues. He thought the conditions approved in July 1994 are in the best interest of the community and protects the health and safety of the community. Commissioner McNiel asked if it is in the best interest of the community that the site remains as it currently exists or if the Commission can alter the conditions to allow development and improvement of the property. He asked what costs would be incurred by the City if condemnation proceedings are undertaken. Mr. Hanson stated it would be an expensive endeavor, but the costs would be borne by the developer. Commissioner McNiel felt the options are for the City to initiate condemnation, or the project will probably die. He thought one of the ways to arrive at a solution would be for the City to bring some pressure to bear. He felt the Commission should approve the requested modifications contingent upon condemnation action by the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy did not want to change any of the conditions until the City Council makes a decision regarding condemnation proceedings. Planning Commission Minutes -23- August 23, 1995 Chairman Barker said the Commission could act to approve the request to modify the Conditional use permit, approve the request contingent upon the City Council's agreeing to condemnation proceedings, or deny the request. He suggested the Commission could recommend that there be no changes and could also recommend that the City Council initiate condemnation procedures in order to allow the originally approved design. Mr. Buller said that if the Commission denies the application to amend the Conditional use permit but recommends that condemnation proceedings be instituted, the City would then be initiating and paying for the condemnation proceedings. Commissioner Melcher observed that the applicant would have the right to appeal to the City Council if the Commission denies the application and the City Council could then also consider the condemnation request. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Modification to Conditional Use Permit 93-46 for adoption on September 13, 1995. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated Commissioner Melcher had raised some questions regarding the types of items being considered at City Planner hearings and also procedures for how a Commissioner might suggest that an item be referred to the full Commission. He suggested that the matter be placed on the next Commission agenda so the Commissioners could discuss it. He said he would provide a listing of all matters that have been heard at City Planner hearings and the Commission could then discuss whether the process is working effectively or whether the Commission wants to make some modifications. Chairman Barker suggested that current guidelines be indicated. He felt guidelines should be in place as to what matters should be forwarded to the Commission, so that decisions do not have to be made on an individual basis. He noted the Commission had recently indicated that the Commission should hear any projects where the City is the applicant. Chairman Barker noted that the Commissioners had recently received notification regarding a Planning Commission Workshop to be held in Diamond Bar in September. Commissioner Melcher stated it is put on by the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. Planning Commission Minutes -24- August 23, 1995 chairman Barker recalled that he and Commissioners Lumpp and Melcher attended and it was a worthwhile conference. Mr. Buller suggested that Commissioners advise staff if they would like to attend. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to go beyond 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Melcher questioned if it would be possible to add a standard condition to projects that a subsequent change in ownership in the subject property shall not relieve any portion of the property from complying with the conditions of approval if this project goes forward. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated a conditional use permit runs with the land and therefore any owner is subject to the conditions. He said revocation proceedings can be used if an owner does not comply. Commissioner Melcher noted it was not a revocation. He said two projects had come before the Commission and taken an enormous amount of staff and Commission time because the properties had been divided after an approval was given; making it difficult for the property owners to execute their projects and they therefore seek relief from the imposed conditions. He therefore thought imposing a condition on the original approval to make it clear that if a portion of the property is sold, it does not dischargethe sold portion from its obligation to perform. Mr. Buller suggested such a condition might better be placed at the time the division of the land occurs. Commissioner Melcher noted that on the gas station and liquor store, it was originally two parcels, but they were commonly owned at the time of the approval. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, said he did not know how that could be done. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant could have been required to erase the property line as part of the conditions of approval for the initial project. Chairman Barker asked if a condition could have been added that should any portion of the property be sold that the total conditional use permit is voided. Mr. Hanson stated that the conditional use permit is effectively null and void because the applicant can no longer comply with conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that one of the property owners should buy out the other and develop the both parcels as one project. Chairman Barker felt that would not happen. Mr. Murphy noted that Wheeler and Wheeler represented the previous property owner in 1988 and worked out an agreement with the liquor store owner prior to the matter coming to the Planning Commission. He said that Mr. Flores owned both properties at the time his project was approved. He observed that if the City Council takes action to condemn the property, it does not guarantee that there Planning Commission Minutes -25- August 23, 1995 will be an agreement regarding the on-site improvements for landscaping and parking. Chairman Barker said he felt the Commission's direction is that it wants what was originally approved because it is the least onerous and the only safe thing that can be done. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 11:18 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -26- August 23, 1995