Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/07/27 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 27, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:10 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; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the Commissioners had in front of them a written update on the Regional Comprehensive Plan and a report on the status of the Housing Element. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to adopt the Minutes of June 22, 1994. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the Minutes of July 13, 1994, as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE 94-04 - CAMPOS - A request to reduce the required number of parking spaces, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 0 feet, and to reduce the required side yard landscape setback from 5 feet to 0 feet in conjunction with the development of 5 parcels in the Specialty Commercial Designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues, APN: 208-153-08, 09, 10, 11, and 23. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff had received a request from the applicant that the matter be continued until August 10, 1994. Chairman Barker affirmed that the public hearing remained open from the previous meeting. He waived presentation of the staff report and asked if there were any public comments at this time. Nadene Eshelman, P. O. Box 967, Pauma Valley, stated she owns the adjacent gas station. She expressed concerns about ingress and egress and whether her property would still have adequate circulation maintained. Chairman Barker stated that staff could review the proposal with her and help her to prepare written comments if she were not able to attend the August 10 meeting. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Ms. Eshelman would be interested in landmark designation for the gas station. Ms. Eshelman replied she was not sure of the advantages and disadvantages of such a designation. Commissioner Lumpp felt that historic designation might provide better opportunity for through circulation. Ms. Eshelman stated she also owns the lot behind the florist shop and needs to maintain access for parking in that area. Chairman Barker requested that staff provide information regarding historical designation. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to continue Variance 94-04 to August 10, 1994, at the request of the applicant. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-46 - FLORES - A request to construct a gas station and mini-mart on a 0.63 acre parcel of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Wesley, Okamoto, Architect, 15675 Altamira Drive, Chino Hills, stated he represented the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if arrangements had been made with In-N-Out Burger to achieve a driveway on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Okamoto stated the location of the driveway was established by the minimum distance from Foothill Boulevard at the time of the previous application and the south truck access from Vineyard Boulevard had been maintained. Commissioner Melcher stated there is currently a driveway from Foothill Boulevard to In-N-Out which will be closed as part of this project and In-N-Out will then take access through a new driveway on this parcel. Mr. Murphy stated that In-N-Out Burger had been heavily involved at the time of processing the previous application and had approved the driveway location at that time. He noted that conditions of approval require approval from In-N-Out regarding the driveway reconstruction. He said the alleyway access to the south is a recorded easement. He indicated the driveway and circulation pattern and dimensions are the same as the previously approved application which In-N-Out had approved. Commissioner McNiel thought there had been discussions at the Design Review Committee meeting regarding moving the water and air services closer to Foothill Boulevard. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented that the Design Review Committee had ultimately decided to redesign the space and shape but not to relocate it. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher noted the pattern of paving and tree planting at the corner which is established as a result of requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He commented that the requirement had been waived on the Thomas Winery corner because of the historic nature of the structures. He questioned what would be required when the Klusman house property on the southwest corner is developed. He thought the treatment being applied to this corner should also be applied to the southwest corner and the northwest corner so that only the northeast corner would be different. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that the issue first arose when the Thomas Winery project was proposed. He said the Smith's project was approved with a modified version of what is required under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He noted that the preliminary application reviewed for the southwest corner proposed moving the buildings close to the intersection with a pedestrian connection into the project, which is more consistent with this current application. He said that under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, it is staff's intent to encourage any proposed development for the southwest corner to be more closely related to the urban streetscape of this project. He recalled that when the decision was made to depart from the plan to allow a more open view of the historic winery, it was a conscious decision that the north side would be different from the south side. He said the Smith's project was approved with two buildings with a landscape and fountain area on the corner. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Melcher recalled the Smith's concept and said his concern was more with what is being done in the public right of way. He thought the repetition of the landscape process on the corners would make the developments appear more as activity centers in contrast to the rest of the street. He felt it is important that that theme be carried to the three corners other than the Thomas Winery corner. Mr. Buller stated that the approved Smith's project is also different from this application. Commissioner Melcher opposed the self-closing pedestrian door for the trash enclosure because he felt it would enhance the ability for people to lurk in the enclosure. He felt there should be no door to the pedestrian entrance. Chairman Barker asked if the logic behind the door is to keep in trash or to make the area more secure. Commissioner Melcher supported the circuitous path because it screens unpleasant views but he felt doors invite improper use of the space. He thought there also might be a practical problem of opening a self-closing door when carrying trash. Commissioner McNiel stated trash enclosures have always been a security problem. He recalled the objective of the self-closing door was to contain the trash. He thought Commissioner Melcher's point was well taken but he disagreed. He felt an enclosure with a self-closing door would be no less safe than one with only a circuitous route. Chairman Barker noted that doors were initially introduced to keep trash inside but Commissioner Melcher was concerned that a door may create an attractive space for a homeless person. He thought a door may also inhibit someone from staying there. Commissioner Tolstoy saw advantages of both arguments. He suggested leaving a door. Commissioner Lumpp stated the trash enclosure has become a building block of different things to hide the trash. He felt the initial concept was to provide an enclosure with a convenience for people to dump trash without having to open the main doors. He was concerned that a self-closing door may create a problem. He saw no benefit of a self-closing door and stated he had not seen problems with trash blowing out of the enclosures. Commissioner Melcher stated he had not been aware that the requirement has existed in the past. He asked if any have already been constructed so that he could view one. Mr. Buller said there were probably no examples where such a trash enclosure has been constructed. He suggested the Commission may wish to delete that portion of the condition. He said staff had not meant it to be a latching door, merely a spring-hinged door which could swing in. He said staff has not found a lot of trash blowing out of pedestrian access areas. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 27, 1994 Chairman Barker suggested that the matter of a standard trash enclosure detail be considered separately from the action before the Commission tonight. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-46 with deletion of the requirement for a self-closing door on the pedestrian access to the trash enclosure. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried Commissioner McNiel agreed that the issue of the door should be further studied. It was the consensus of the Commission that the issue should be further researched. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-07 - ST. CLARE OF ASSISI EPISCOPAL CHURCH - A request to construct a temporary multi-purpose building of approximately 3,840 square feet on approximately 5 acres in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of East and Highland Avenues - APN: 227-071-77. Beverly Luttrell presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher noted that the Design Review Committee had questioned if it is really necessary to have two points of ingress and egress from East Avenue and the Fire Department has indicated it would not be necessary if an L-shaped or hammerhead turnaround arrangement is provided. He questioned if the driveway and parking lot arrangement proposed for the first phase is adequate. Ms. Luttrell stated the Fire Department has not yet reviewed the proposal with the northerly driveway deleted and they would be sure it meets their requirements. She said they had indicated at the Technical Review Committee meeting that they were not opposed so long as the driveway meets their requirements. Commissioner Melcher hoped a hammerhead turn would not force an unnecessary expansion of the parking lot. Ms. Luttrell said it was her understanding that the aisles do not need to be wider. Commissioner Melcher questioned if Engineering Condition 3g, requiring construction of a reduced radius turn-around at the south property line, could be deferred until the future development of the vacant lot which is part of the project to the south. He felt it is an unfair burden to place it on the church. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 27, 1994 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the condition is consistent with past Commission practice where stub streets have been closed off by a proposed development. He said the Commission has always required the developer whose development calls for elimination of the through street to provide the finishing work to such stub streets. He said the street had initially been intended to extend to the north, but the church plans calls for closing off the street. Commissioner Melcher said he understood, but he felt the stub street had been put in as a convenience for the developer to the south. He thought in the future, when someone is given approval for a stub street, they should post a deposit to construct a terminus to the street if development other than what is anticipated actually takes place and the street becomes a dead end. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many times it is not known if a street will be continued or if it will become a modified cul-de-sac. Commissioner Melcher said he understood and that's why he thought a bond or a refundable deposit should be provided if future development does not require the connection in order to avoid placing a burden on a future adjacent developer. Commissioner McNiel felt it would not be feasible to apply deposits to cover such possible contingencies. He felt that developers of adjacent properties know what the conditions are at the time they propose their development. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. The Reverend Elizabeth Habecker, Vicar of St. Clare of Assisi Church, 6563 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the church members are happy their property is an historic landmark and they intend to proceed cautiously in the development of the property in order to retain the historic appearance. She said they plan to do replacement planting of citrus trees when needed and that would be most of the landscaping in the first phase of development around the parking lot. She said that CalTrans has promised to designate a committee to work with them as the freeway plans progress. She requested deferring the sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lights, and street trees along East Avenue until CalTrans has determined what changes there will be to East Avenue and the corner of Highland and East. She suggested those issues could be addressed at the time of permanent development on the property so that such improvements would not be ripped out when CalTrans changes East Avenue. She asked that the decorative pavement at the entrance to the driveway be delayed until East Avenue is fully constructed for the freeway. She asked if the drainage assessment fee could be delayed until permanent development rather than being paid now since the current proposed development is only temporary. Commissioner Melcher stated it was his understanding that Engineering Condition No. 3 does not commit the church to any expense at this time, but only a guarantee that certain things will be done at the time of future development. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Melcher asked how that would relate to the requirements for improvements along East Avenue. Mr. James replied that the improvement requirements along East Avenue apply only to the area between the south property line and the driveway, which is approximately 85 feet. He said the development to the south has already improved East Avenue including curb and gutter, street lights, and landscaping. He indicated staff feels the request is reasonable because the driveway is shown on the church's master plan as a master plan location and that area is over 600 feet away from the Highland and East intersection and the currently proposed elevation change is 10 feet which should allow room to make up the grade differential or a potential realignment. He said if a street light is needed, it would only be one. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant understood the requirements only currently apply to the 85-foot frontage at the southern end of their property. The Reverend Habecker indicated she understood. She said the people at CalTrans have indicated they are not as certain about the proposed elevations. She said CalTrans also has made a commitment to protect the house, and has indicated the centerline of East Avenue may be moved to the west if necessary. She observed that CalTrans deliberations start at the church's southern property line. Commissioner McNiel asked if CalTrans had indicated any timeframe for making its decision. The Reverend Habecker replied it had not. She said the church was now requesting the temporary building for that reason. Commissioner McNiel felt that any improvements installed may be considered permanent because of the length of the process with CalTrans. The Reverend Habecker said the church has made a very permanent dedication to preserving the property. She said a number of neighbors have stopped by to comment that they are glad the church plans to retain the orchard. She said that what it will eventually look like remains to some extent in the hands of CalTrans. She commented they hope to one day have an outdoor museum. Jerry Linton, Citation Homes, 15101 Red Hill Avenue, #100, Tustin, stated they own the adjacent development on the south and the east sides. He said they do not oppose the development but they have serious concerns about the standards of design being proposed on an interim basis for the church. He said the proposed building has a compo roof and does not have architectural features consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He objected to the gravel parking lot. He thought the design of the development places the negative aspects of the site layout adjacent to the Citation Homes property. He thought it will make it difficult for Citation Homes to sell homes adjacent to the church. He said the Commission placed strict design standards on their property to make them consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He thought the homebuyers were not being treated fairly if the church is allowed to construct a building which is not up to those standards even though it is proposed for an interim Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 27, 1994 basis. He felt the interim basis may be for many years and he did not feel the City would force the church to remove the building at the end of the maximum 5-year period. He asked that the church be required to comply with the same standards the rest of the neighborhood has to comply with. He asked the Commission to consider the impact of the interim standards on the surrounding development. The Reverend Habecker stated the color, siding, roof, and design of the building were chosen to be compatible with the historic farm house. She said it was their attention not to be unusually situated in the neighborhood so as to draw attention, but rather to have the same appearance, color, and materials as the farmhouse. Mr. Linton stated the area was designated in the General Plan as Low Residential with the Etiwanda Specific Plan overlay with its exacting standards. He felt there is a total disregard for applying the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards because the facility is only temporary. He said Citation Homes is particularly bothered by the architecture and the gravel parking lot. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He asked for clarification on the drainage assessment issue. Mr. James stated that City Council ordinance requires that drainage fees be paid at the time of building permit issuance and does not distinguish between temporary and permanent improvements. Chairman Barker stated the applicant had requested a deferment of changes on East Avenue and the decorative paving at the driveway and Mr. Linton had raised concerns about the design not complying with the Etiwanda Specific Plan including the gravel driveway. Commissioner McNiel saw no reason the improvements along East Avenue and the decorative paving should not be done because he felt it will be a long time before the freeway is constructed. He indicated he appreciated Mr. Linton°s concerns but he said churches generally start out with small congregations and the City has set precedent with relaxing some terms with respect to churches to allow them to establish themselves in the community. He said he had been on the Design Review Committee at the time this project was reviewed and it was felt this is an interim facility and standards could be relaxed. He fully anticipated that if the five years should elapse, the City would require that the interim facility be removed. Commissioner Melcher felt there are interim facilities on other church properties which have existed for more than five years. He asked why Commissioner McNiel was making a commitment that this church would be forced to remove the structure at the end of the five years. Commissioner McNiel responded that the City has pursued other organizations which have reached the end of their five-year period for temporary facilities. He felt it is fair to give the church an opportunity to have the temporary facility and he thought it also fair to point out that there is a five-year maximum time for temporary facilities. Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Melcher said he had a problem with Commissioner McNiel's position that no extensions would be allowed past the five years when other facilities have been allowed past the five-year period. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the requirements stated by staff. Commissioner Lumpp supported the conditions of approval as proposed by staff. He expressed concern about the gravel parking lot. He said the first phase appears to be laid out to tie in to the ultimate master plan design and he felt the parking lot should have a permanent surface rather than gravel. He said he appreciated Mr. Linton's comments with regard to the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan but he felt the interim building has made an attempt to coordinate with the existing historical building in that the materials are very similar to.the existing building. He said other temporary structures are generally of a lesser quality than that being proposed. Commissioner Melcher stated his only concern was with Engineering Condition No. 3g regarding construction of the reduced radius turn-around and he hoped the Commission could visit that issue independent of an application at some point in the near future. He supported the application as submitted with respect to the architecture and paving materials. Commissioner McNiel stated he belongs to a church which had a gravel parking lot for two years. He did not object to the gravel parking lot. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the gravel parking lot. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-07. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-49 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - The development of an integrated shopping center consisting of 15 buildings totaling 222,605 square feet on 25 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled there had been a suggestion that there should be pedestrian egress from the Montgomery Wards Tire and Batter Center to this site. Ms. Fong responded that the matter had been mentioned at the last Planning Commission workshop and the conditions call for further Commission review and Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 27, 1994 approval of the master plan prior to approval of design review for the next building. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff had understood the Commission to say that the connections from Terra Vista Town Center to this project should be further analyzed. He said that Commissioner Melcher had suggested the Commission look at both sides of the street now that this project has been proposed. He said staff felt that issue should be addressed in the master plan. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the Commission could then be assured that there will be a modification to the pedestrian path if it approves Conditional Use Permit 93-49. Mr. Buller responded that was correct and that the Commission would be approving the Best Buy building and the rest of the center with the west side definitely returning to the Commission. Commissioner McNiel felt it would be better to state that the Commission would further consider the west side with a potential for modification. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the west side was the only portion of the project that he feels uncomfortable about. Commissioner Melcher commented that it is important that such reconsideration should occur right away because the east-west on-site street is to be constructed as part of the Best Buy construction and he still had serious concerns with how it intersects with the first on-site north-south street. He felt it should be clear the matter should be reconsidered by the Commission prior to the start of construction of site improvements. Mr. Buller stated that he heard the Commission's concerns and staff's interpretation was that if construction begins, it still would not guarantee that it would be the ultimate layout. Commissioner Melcher felt the decision would be cast in concrete once construction begins on the improvements. Richard Mager, Western Development Limited, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated the project architect, landscape architect, and other professionals were available to answer questions. He stated he had several concerns with the resolution that he would like to have entered into the record and possibly obtain the Commission's agreement that they could deal with staff to resolve those issues. He said it was his understanding that they had not agreed to corner quoining on Building 9 nor the addition of pre-cast concrete molding framing on the edge of the future sign. He said their architect and staff had already agreed on the architectural elements on the most westerly side and that further modifications would not be necessary to that elevation. He requested deletion of Planning Condition 8, calling for additional architectural elements to the main entry of Building 9. He also requested Planning Condition 11 be changed to require that hardscape and landscape design be approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of the Certificate of Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 27, 1994 Occupancy rather than prior to issuance of building permits. He stated that on the west side of Spruce the sidewalk easement is 8 feet and he requested that Engineering Condition 5 be amended to require a sidewalk easement of 8 feet rather than 12 feet so that it would be consistent. Mr. Mager felt it was inappropriate to require dedication of a future southbound right-turn lane on the west side of Spruce Avenue with development on this property as that property is part of the Terra Vista Town Center, not part of this project. Chairman Barker suggested that staff respond to the points raised by Mr. Mager. Ms. Fong stated that at the July 13 workshop the Commission had indicated they would like further entry refinement. She noted that Planning Commission No. 8 was generic in looking for those further refinements, She observed that hardscape and landscape in front of Building 9 would have to be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Buller stated he would support the applicant's proposed modification to call for City Planner approval of the final design of the hardscape and landscape in front of Building 9 prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. He said he understood the applicant's concerns regarding the timing of pulling building permits and he felt it is in the applicant's best interest to resolve the design issues as soon as possible so that the hardscape and landscaping could be installed prior to occupancy. Mr. James concurred that there is an 8-foot easement along the first 200-300 feet west of Spruce. He stated that occurred because the original development had been conditioned with a standard street right-of-way but it was determined during the design process that the throat of Spruce Street should be widened to provide for adequate left-turn movements. He said that because development was already underway at that time, the City did not feel there was an opportunity to acquire more right-of-way. He stated the City is now trying to obtain the standard 12-foot right-of-way on the east side of Spruce. He said that when Terra Vista Town Center was approved staff had not foreseen the need for a right-turn lane on the west side of Spruce and staff now feels there is a need for a right-turn lane. He commented that even though this development will generate more traffic, staff is requesting dedication only of the right- turn lane and not requiring construction of the lane until further development. Commissioner Melcher asked what future development would trigger the need for the right-turn lane at the northwest corner of Spruce and Foothill. Mr. James responded that it is Engineering's intent to impose the condition at the time of future development, perhaps at the southwest corner of Spruce and Church. Mr. Mager reiterated his request for deletion of Planning Condition 8, calling for additional architectural elements to be added to the main entry of Building 9. He stated they feel the building is attractive as proposed and he requested the building elevation be approved or rejected. He asked that the width of the sidewalk easement be studied at a later point in time when the Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 27, 1994 pedestrian linkage between this project and Terra Vista Town Center is considered because the 12-foot parkway would potentially cut into the parking area they had designed on the new project. He still did not see any linkage between this project and the request to dedicate property on the west side of Spruce for a future right-turn lane. He felt the requirement would be more appropriate when Building N at the northwest corner of Terra Vista Town Center. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp thought the additional architectural elements requested for the front elevations referred to the balance of the center, rather than Building 9. He thought the Commission had expressed satisfaction with the elevations for Building 9. Commissioner McNiel stated he recalled discussions regarding further enhancements to the building entry but he stated he was willing to now delete Planning Condition 8. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that future refinements to the elevations were discussed and both sides had expressed a willingness to have the details worked out with the City Planner. Commissioner Melcher commented that the developer had already built Terra Vista Town Center, the premier shopping center in the City, and was now being conditioned to deliver another center consistent with that center. He stated that he was satisfied in looking at the elevations. Commissioner Lumpp recalled there had been discussions regarding modifying the entryway and the architect had made a presentation regarding the proposed entry which he thought had satisfied the Commission in relation to Building 9. He thought the Commission had indicated the balance of the center would have to return through the Design Review process. Commissioner Melcher concurred that the Commission had pretty much signed off on Building 9. Commissioner Lumpp agreed to changing the verbiage of Planning Commission 11 to require the City Planner's approval of the hardscape and landscape along the Building 9 frontage prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. It was the consensus of the Commission that such verbiage was acceptable. Commissioner Lumpp asked staff's reasoning for requiring a 12-foot sidewalk easement. Mr. James stated that 12 feet is the standard and that where the easement is only 8 feet, the distance between the sidewalk and the curb is only about 3-1/2 feet which creates problems where street trees are planted. Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 27, 1994 Chairman Barker noted that Mr. Mager had requested the matter be considered at the time the pedestrian access is considered. Mr. James said that would be acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed a willingness to leave the requirement at 12 feet with the potential for modifying the requirement after the discussions on pedestrian circulation. Commissioner McNiel noted that the easement on the west side of Spruce Street is because the street had to be widened after the site plan had been approved. He felt the 12-foot standard should be maintained. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that the requirement should remain at 12 feet with the potential for reducing it to 8 feet if the developer is able to convince the Engineering staff and the Commission that the reduced parkway is sufficient. Commissioner Lumpp agreed that was a reasonable approach. He said he understood that it was Engineering's intent to require the dedication of a future southbound right-turn lane on the west side of Spruce but the lane would not be constructed until future construction on the west side of Spruce. Mr. James said the right-turn lane will be needed upon ultimate build-out of the Terra Vista planned community. Commissioner Lumpp questioned why the dedication would not be required at that time. Mr. James said that would be possible and the condition requiring dedication was primarily a way of notifying the Commission that there will be a future requirement. Commissioner Lumpp supported the deletion of the condition. Commissioner McNiel agreed with staff and felt leaving the condition in place would establish a paper trail. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner McNiel. Commissioner Melcher stated it would be impossible to impose the condition if the property were owned by a different developer. He therefore felt the condition should be deleted. He thought it would be possible to get the dedication at the time of development on the southeast corner of Spruce Avenue and Town Center Drive. Chairman Barker asked Mr. Mager if he was aware that the dedication will be requested in the future. Mr. Mager stated the applicant had appeared before the Commission a year ago to sell off a portion of the site to General Mills to construct an Olive Garden Restaurant at the northeast corner of Spruce and Foothill. He thought Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 27, 1994 that at no time during the discussions regarding the Olive Garden Restaurant had there been any such condition discussed. He said so far as he was aware, this was the first time they were being made aware of such a future condition. He noted that Terra Vista Town Center and this development are owned by two different entities, even though they are both related to Lewis Homes. He felt the appropriate time to deal with the matter would be when the owner of Terra Vista Town Center proposes development of the northwest corner of the center. Mr. James agreed that the potential condition for the southbound right-turn lane had not been brought up until the technical review comments on this project had been forwarded to the applicant. Chairman Barker asked if Mr.. Mager was now aware that future development on the Terra Vista Town Center site will trigger such a condition. Mr. Mager affirmed that he was. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. He said he was not comfortable with the condition being tied to this project. He felt the minutes would provide a sufficient paper trail. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-49 with modifications to delete Planning Condition No. 8 and Engineering Condition No. 7 and require City Planner approval of the hardscape and landscape along Building 9 frontage prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Lumpp requested that the traffic study required in Engineering Condition No. 8 look at the traffic circulation as it relates to the master plan including the west side of Spruce. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 'COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried The Planning Commission recessed from 9:10 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE - A request to conduct entertainment consisting of live bands, disc jockey, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, in the Community Commercial District within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that he had placed before the Commission and given to the applicant a copy of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 27, 1994 May 4, 1994. He observed that following discussions on Sam's Place and Babe's Club 66, Mayor Pro Tem Buquet had suggested that anytime there is a sale of alcohol at a business or an entertainment permit, the matter should go before the full City Council for approval. He noted that Council Member Gutierrez had concurred with the suggestion. Mr. Buller said he was bringing this to the attention of the Planning Commission, applicant, and residents to show that the City Council is seriously concerned about where these uses occur and any neighborhood concerns. He stated that under current City Codes, the Planning Commission has the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application before them. He suggested that the Commission might consider taking no formal action and instead referring the matter up to the City Council with a resolution recommending the Commission's position. Chairman Barker stated he had read the minutes and he appreciated the concern of the City Council. He said he also understood Mr. Buller's desire to follow the direction of the City Council; but that it was his opinion that because no changes have yet been made to the code, it is currently the obligation of the Planning Commission to act on the matter. He noted he had also discussed the matter with the Mayor a few minutes before the meeting when Mr. Stout had happened by and that the Mayor had been of the same opinion. Chairman Barker said the Commission would hear the matter. He said that although the Commission could then either make the decision as they had made such decisions in the past or simply forward with a recommendation to the City Council, he believed it was the Planning Commission's duty under current regulations to fulfill their obligation to hear the matter and make a decision. He said the matter could always be appealed to the City Council by anyone, including the City Council. Commissioner Melcher shared Chairman Barker's opinion and felt the applicant was entitled to an action by the Planning Commission. He commented he was entirely amenable to referring the matter up to the Council when and if the City Code is changed. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the Commission should proceed as before. Commissioner McNiel concurred that the Commission is charged with that responsibility until the Code is changed. Commissioner Lumpp concurred. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that an additional letter of opposition had been received following preparation of the staff report and a copy had been given to the Commissioners and the applicant. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there had been any problems related to police activity when the business operated as The Cub. Ms. Fong responded that she had not asked the Police to go back that far for records. Commissioner Melcher observed that Paragraph 3.a of the resolution states that the Commission finds "That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 27, 1994 the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." He reported that Ms. Fong had stated that language is directly out of the Entertainment Permit. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Greg Dorst, attorney, 818 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, introduced Mr. and Mrs. Rousa, the owners, and their son Garry Rousa, the manager. He said the Rousas are part of the community and they have 38 years of experience in the hospitality bar/restaurant business. He presented a letter from the Executive Director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Inland Empire indicating that the Final Score had donated proceeds and food to the clubs. He said they wish to work with the neighbors. He stated they have spent a considerable amount of time going over the problems and they have some solutions. He noted that staff had also proposed appropriate conditions of approval. He said the main concerns raised have to do with noise. He acknowledged that staff is correct that mitigations to contain the noise inside the business will not work if doors and windows are left open. He said the establishment currently does not have outside security personnel assigned to the parking lot. He pointed out the conditions proposed by staff call for parking lot security and he felt approval of the entertainment permit would make the situation better because there would be supervision in the parking lot and supervision of the doors. He said the permit was also conditioned to cease entertainment at midnight and he felt the crowd would leave earlier and that would also cut down on the late night noise. He observed that sound attenuation measures would be required with approval of the entertainment permit and he proposed a second set of entry doors on the east side to act as a buffer zone. He hoped that the residents and condominium owners would go to either he or the Rousas to discuss any concerns. He pointed out that the entertainment permit can be revoked at any time if it is found to be a nuisance. He felt approval of the entertainment permit will give the City control over the establishment where such control does not now exist, but would also allow the Rousas to utilize their property to its fullest extent. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the occupancy rating of the facility. Mr. Dorst thought it is currently 52. He noted the proposal is for 44 people in the dance area and 12 in the pool table area. Commissioner Lumpp observed that Mr. Dorst had proposed another set of doors on the east side and he questioned when those doors would be installed. Mr. Dorst replied it would be prior to entertainment being offered. Commissioner Lumpp questioned how the applicant plans to comply with Condition No. 6, which calls for the restriction of parking in certain parking spaces. Mr. Dorst responded that currently the trash dumpsters are in that particular location and a structure will be built for the dumpsters. He said the area would be blocked off at all times. He indicated the Final Score does not need that parking area and they proposed blocking it off with a low railing or a chain. Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 27, 1994 Bob Fleming, 8434 Cedarwood Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the Vice President of the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association and he was speaking for his neighbors and the majority of the association. He commented that the attorney had said they had been in business for 38 years, but they had opened the establishment and provided live entertainment without obtaining the City's approval. He said the music went until 2:00 a.m. and rattled the walls of his condominium which is located 100 feet away with a railroad embankment between. He said their clientele tends to drive motorcycles and they tend to sit in the parking lot and rev up their engines when they are leaving. He felt the residents should not be disturbed by the noise emanating from the establishment just as contractors have to comply with certain regulations regarding noise during certain hours. He said there have also been problems with loitering on the railroad embankment. He stated that one of his neighbors had distributed a letter in the neighborhood regarding tonight's meeting and when the manager of the club heard about it, he called her up and used profanity. He felt that did not show a willingness to work with the neighbors. He thought the doors are left open because the ventilation is poor. He said the Homeowners' Association does not want live entertainment to be permitted during any hours. He did not feel it would be physically possible to soundproof the building. Commissioner Melcher asked if the building had been a bar the whole time that Mr. Fleming lived there. Mr. Fleming responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the primary problems had occurred when there was entertainment. Mr. Fleming said that was correct. He said there is a normal nuisance from the bar, but the main problems have been with live entertainment. He said that he had called the police and the police had been out there several times in response to noise complaints prior to the cessation of live entertainment. Gary Johnson, 11626 Mt. Hood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has known the Rousas for about two years during which time he has patronized their establishment. He said they have taken security measures during the last three months, such as installing surveillance cameras that show the parking lot. He said the manager does not allow people to get drunk or disorderly. He felt the entertainment permit should be approved so that young people would have a place to go at night. Steve Scharry, 8414 Cedarwood Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he lives in the condominium project south of the bar. He commented that all of the bedrooms in the complex that face the bar are the second and third bedrooms and are typically occupied by children. He did not feel it is good to have children looking out their bedroom windows and seeing the type of activities that go on in the parking lot of a bar. He stated there had been a shooting incident in the parking lot several years ago and one of the stray bullets went through his neighbor's bedroom window when young children were sleeping in the bedroom at the time. He thought that the current owner has made attempts to get rid of the biker crowd but he felt that live entertainment would be a hazard to public safety and morals. Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 27, 1994 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel asked when the condominiums were built. Mr. Buller replied they were built in the early 1980s. Commissioner McNiel stated that it has been fairly consistent practice to give business people an opportunity to operate while retaining the right to withdraw such permission based upon whether there have been sufficient complaints, police reports, etc. He said the matter could also be potentially reviewed by the City Council. He stated he understood the concerns of the residents and he felt them to be valid. He thought the vast majority of potential complaints had been considered and attempts had been made to provide mitigations for those problems. He said the tragedy has been that in the past, the City has too many times experienced problems. He supported the application. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he supports the opening of a sports bar as it provides a service to the community. He said that in recent entertainment permit applications, the City has looked at the buffer between the use and the neighborhood. He observed that years ago a bar was allowed to operate in a neighborhood center quite close to residences and it has not worked. He said several other entertainment permits were recently approved on the basis that they were well buffered from the neighborhood. He did not feel this particular location is sufficiently buffered from residences and he therefore hesitated to vote for it. Commissioner Melcher felt that both Commissioners McNiel and Tolstoy had presented compelling arguments. He did not feel the Commission had sufficient information upon which to base its decision. He thought the proposed mitigation measures need to be thought out more carefully and he felt an acoustical report should be prepared to be sure that proposed soundproofing measures would work. He said he had visited the site and gone up to the railroad tracks and was promptly apprehended by Garry Rousa because he had seen him on the video system. Commissioner Melcher felt that was proof that the video system works. He thought the Rousas want to make the project work. He felt an acoustical study should address what would be needed so there would be no additional noise heard at the condominium project and the study should consider whatever measures were built into the condominium project because at the time the condos were built the railroad was operating. He said he was not prepared to act this evening. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had always been in favor of allowing business people to try to make a living in the community. He felt the applicant's proposal to install a set of double doors should be further investigated through a noise study which looks at the interior and the exterior. He was not convinced that the benefits of interior mitigations would not be negated by a tendency to leave doors open because of a lack of proper ventilation. He agreed that there was not enough information to support the project. He suggested that staff look at the possibility of installing a fence that would prevent people from climbing up or loitering on the railroad tracks. He said he did not want to be in a position of having staff spend money and time to try to revoke a permit because the applicant has not complied with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes -18- July 27, 1994 Chairman Barker said he does not have a lot of sympathy for people who move next to an existing condition and then are upset. He stated this situation is one where there is a pre-existing non-conforming use which has caused some problems through the years, but now the Commission was being asked to add entertainment which may exacerbate the problem. He did not feel the proposed attenuation measures are sufficient to handle the problem. He said it will be difficult to satisfy him because he has experienced the scars of watching the Commission and City Council go out of their way to attempt to make something work which will not work. He stated he will have to be shown that attenuations could be made so the expanded intensity of use would not create an increased irritant to the neighborhood. Commissioner Melcher asked if it is truly an existing non-conforming use. Mr. Buller stated it is an existing non-conforming site development structure and therefore a conditional use permit is required for expansion. Chairman Barker said it was something that would not have been approved but it was already built before the City was formed. Commissioner Melcher asked if a sports bar is a permitted use on the site. Mr. Buller replied it would be a conditionally permitted use. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not convinced of the adequacy of the sound attenuation measures. He said he had been told by the applicant that there are further plans for the development of the site and he felt an acoustic study should be necessary for not only an entertainment permit but also any additional changes. He felt that sound is a very specialized area. Be commented that it was noisy when he was up on the railroad tracks not because of the bar, but because of Foothill Boulevard. He noted that the railroad line has been abandoned and in the future the berm may be removed and the land may be developed. He felt a more comprehensive approach to solving the problem is needed. He noted the berm was constructed to elevate the trains to get over Foothill Boulevard and he thought part of the problem is currently solved by the berm but it should not be relied on to solve the problem as the berm may be removed one day because the railroad is abandoned. Chairman Barker stated that a berm will not stop sound, it will only redirect it. He stated he was not at all sure that he would ever be satisfied that the noise could be adequately mitigated. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was not ready to approve or deny the project. He suggested that the matter be continued until the conditional use permit application and a sound study are ready for the Commission's consideration. Chairman Barker asked if the project were to be denied without prejudice, if the applicant would have to pay a second application fee if they wished to resubmit the project. Mr. Buller confirmed that a second fee would be required. He suggested asking the applicants if they would be willing to continue the matter until the study is completed. Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when he visited the bar, he talked to Mr. Rousa and he indicated there were future plans including a patio, enlarging the area with the pool tables, and placing a double door on the east side. He said he then talked to Garry Rousa and his plans were a little different. He said it appeared they may not be sure what their plans really are. He felt a patio could certainly present some noise problems. He thought an acoustical study should include what their plans are. He said the building has been expanded several times and he felt some parts of the building may have to be treated differently. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Dorst stated there had been live entertainment back in the 1960s and that had been approved by the County. He said that was why the Rousas thought that entertainment was a permitted use. He commented that the people who spoke in opposition to the entertainment permit were addressing problems that currently exist and those problems will not improve unless the entertainment permit is approved because conditions would then be imposed. He questioned what noise level was expected when the condominium project was approved. He said at that point a train was running and Foothill Boulevard is a very noisy street. He said he did not know if the entertainment permit would create a noise level that would be above that expectation level. He asked what levels would be set. He requested that the Commission approve the permit, keep a watchful ear to see if problems develop, and stop the use if there are problems. Chairman Barker stated the applicant was advocating a change in the status quo and the Commission would need to be convinced that taking such an action would not have a negative effect. He said the majority of the Commissioners had indicated that the proposed conditions are insufficient to make them comfortable in making those findings. Mr. Dorst noted that Planning Condition No. 5 calls for sound proofing and indicates that whatever is necessary must be done before commencement of entertainment. Chairman Barker said he was not willing to dump the matter on staff. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was also concerned about the the possibility that the air conditioning does not operate properly and the doors are propped open for ventilation. Mr. Dorst said that the doors have been closed in the recent heat wave, which would indicate that the ventilation is adequate. He said that could also be investigated. He proposed that the matter be continued to a time when they can present sound attenuation measures based on a competent professional study. Mr. Buller indicated that staff may have the acoustic study validated by an independent consultant at the applicant's expense. He suggested that the matter be tabled until the study is complete and verified. He said the matter would then be readvertised. Planning Commission Minutes -20- July 27, 1994 Mr. Fleming stated the condominiums are not sound proofed and have single pane glass. He said the train had only served a lumber yard and went by only once a week. He stated the problems had not existed until live entertainment was brought in. Commissioner McNiel stated he supported Commissioner Lumpp's suggestion for a fence to restrict access to the railroad tracks. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to table Entertainment Permit 93-03 to allow the applicant to prepare an acoustical study. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried Chairman Barker stated the application had been tabled to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide additional information. He said that when the matter is rescheduled for Planning Commission consideration, it would be readvertised and a public hearing notice would again be mailed to the same group as before. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-16 - AIRTOUCH CELLULAR - A request to construct a 90-foot cellular antenna adjacent to an existing building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9272 Hyssop Drive - APN: 229-283-12. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and suggested that the resolution be changed to require the installation of street trees. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Marie Landall, D. E. Miller Architects, 160 Newport Center Drive, #112, Newport Beach, stated they were prepared to comply with the conditions of approval including the street trees. Commissioner McNiel asked why the pole has to be 90 feet tall. Ms. Landall replied that is the minimum functional height to adequately pass signals to neighboring cel sites. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant would object to changing the gate to another material from the proposed chain link gate with redwood slats. Ms. Landall felt that would not be a problem. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -21- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp preferred that a solid metal or wood gate be used in place of the proposed chain link gate with redwood slats. Commissioners Melcher and McNiel agreed that a metal gate should be required. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-16 with modification to require a metal gate and the installation of street trees. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried G. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of various amendments to the Sign Ordinance. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker questioned the current maximum size of monument signs. Mr. Coleman responded that currently one sign per street frontage is permitted and it can be a maximum of 24 square feet, 8 feet tall. Chairman Barker said he read the proposal that there will be three choices: 1) The status quo of one sign per street frontage up to 24 square feet, 8 feet tall; 2) Two signs per street frontage up to 24 square feet each, 6 feet tall; or 3) One sign per street frontage up to 48 square feet, 8 feet tall. Mr. Coleman responded that was correct. He said it was felt that the status quo should be kept because some centers may not wish to have additional signs or modify their sign program. Commissioner Melcher stated the language gives the developer a great deal of flexibility so far as identification of tenants. He assumed there would still be an approval process so that a sign would not have a lot of small writing in an attempt to identify every tenant in a center. Mr. Coleman said staff would still have to approve the signs. He noted that there is a minimum 8-inch letter height. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Paula Dempsey, Lewis Homes Management Corp., P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated she had requested that the status quo remain not only for those centers which have already been developed, but also to give developers of new centers that option if they wish to name only their key anchors. She noted that if there is a program to identify the smaller tenants, the fairness issue enters into the picture and the shopping center operators must make a conscious decision as to what the parameters will be. She said that would take the burden off the City and place it on the property owner. Planning Commission Minutes -22- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp felt property owners should take more responsibility for such things as sandwich board signs which are placed out because smaller tenants claim they cannot stay in business because of a lack of signage. He felt that leases should include such provisions. Ms. Dempsey felt that most standard lease forms include such a provision, but the enforcement becomes difficult because the signs appear overnight. She said that Lewis Homes definitely tries to stay on top of it because when one tenant places such a sign out, the others want to follow suit. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the City could be assured that other shopping center owners would also enforce the provision. Ms. Dempsey said she could not respond. She noted that the task force had been formed at the request of the City Council to look at ways to better identify small tenants at the street. She felt a compromise position had been reached. Chairman Barker felt the representatives from the private sector and the Chamber of Commerce contributed a great deal to the task force. Ms. Dempsey felt it had been a very proactive effort. She hoped there would be some continuation so that other areas of concern in the sign ordinance could be addressed in the same positive fashion. Commissioner McNiel stated he had been on the task force. He felt there had been exceptional people from the private sector and there was great cooperation. He said it had been a pleasant experience to work on the task force. He felt that his ultra-conservative position was supported from the private sector on certain issues. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had also attended several of the meetings. He felt the City maintained its sign integrity and the development community was given what they wanted. He supported the amendment. Commissioner Lumpp supported the recommendations. He hoped it would help put an end to signage concerns raised by the small business people. Commissioner Melcher supported the proposed amendment as amended. Commissioner McNiel asked if there are currently any 8-foot high signs in the community. Mr. Coleman responded that there are currently six signs shown on the survey which are 8 feet or taller. Commissioner Melcher felt that height is relative to the setting. Commissioner McNiel stated he was concerned because the proposed maximum of 48 square feet up to 8 feet tall would be a large sign which could be overwhelming based on the setting. He said he was not opposed to the status quo or the second option with two signs per street frontage, a minimum of 200 Planning Commission Minutes -23- July 27, 1994 feet apart, with a maximum of 6 feet in height. He felt such signs would still be in a human scale. He felt a 48 square foot, 8 foot tall sign could appear as a wall depending on the setting. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City requires a sign program and he felt it would be possible to look at any proposed 8-foot sign in its setting and determine if it would be obtrusive. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Ms. Dempsey stated that the 48 square foot sign was introduced to permit allocation of space for small tenant identification. She said it was figured 8 to 10 small tenant names could be placed on a 48 square foot sign using the minimum 8-inch letter. She hoped the option would be left in so that developers would have an option. She said that some centers may want to rotate smaller tenant names on the signs, and a 24 square foot sign would not allow that to happen. Commissioner McNiel asked if it needed to be 8 feet tall. Ms. Dempsey felt that it did. She said they had wanted a lO-foot height and 8 feet was a compromise. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt that design review or staff review of sign programs would show where the area of the sign appears excessive and modifications could be requested. He thought the area provisions are appropriate for this community. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment 94-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY MCNIEL NONE -carried Commissioner McNiel stated he had voted no because of the 8-foot height on the 48 square foot sign. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had traveled on Foothill Boulevard in La Verne and he could not read their signs because they have small letters and are high in an attempt to list every tenant of every center. Chairman Barker agreed that placing a lot of names on a sign, makes it hard to read. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-1 with Melcher voting no, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -24- July 27, 1994 COMMISSION BUSINESS H. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he has been on the Trails Committee for a long time and would be happy to remain a member. He remarked that Pam Henry was one of the most valuable members of the Committee and no longer lives in the area. He said Ms. Henry had done a lot of research and also rode a lot and her expertise would be sorely missed. He hoped someone with her knowledge could be found to replace her. He suggested that Suzanne Chitiea might be a good person to have on the Committee. Chairman Barker felt it would be impossible to replace Ms. Henry. He said she had ridden the trails before the City was founded and designed many of the trails. He thought Ms. Henry had never been given sufficient recognition from the City for her contributions. He felt she had left a permanent mark on the City. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that Greg Pilcher had also expressed an interest in continuing. Chairman Barker said he would be happy to continue to serve. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Trails Committee is an advisory committee to the Planning Commission and he asked if the Planning Commission could add another member at large. Mr. Coleman stated that the administrative regulations could be modified to expand the Committee and that had already been done to add the bicycle member. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to expand the Committee only if Ms. Chitiea is available or if someone else with that expertise could be found. Chairman Barker stated that the Riding Club has a trail boss. Commissioner McNiel supported Commissioner Tolstoy's suggestion. It was the consensus of the Commission to reappoint Chairman Barker and Greg Pilcher to the Committee and direct staff to pursue discussions with Ms. Chitiea and bring back a proposal to enlarge the Committee if Ms. Chitiea is interested. Chairman Barker confirmed the action. Chairman Barker stated he would like to ask the Commission's permission to invite Mayor Pro Tem Buquet to make a presentation to the Commission regarding the Regional Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -25- July 27, 1994 It was the consensus of the Commission to request that the presentation be made on September 14, 1994. Commissioner Melcher noted that he had written a memorandum regarding hazardous materials to clarify the intent of the Commission regarding Ellena Park. Chairman Barker commented that the Commissioners had been given a memorandum from the Traffic Engineer regarding the intersection of 8th Street with Hermosa and Hellman Avenues. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the ground breaking for the Mission Foods Project will be on August 18, 1994. Commissioner Melcher observed that in December a proposed calendar for the housing element update was presented to the Planning Commission and the time line showed a series of check off points. He recalled that he had suggested that as the check off points arrived the matter should be placed on the Planning Commission agenda so the Commission could discuss the update as it is developing. He said he saw that as a way that the Commission could begin shifting its focus to being involved in planning matters. Brad Buller, City Planner, said it was felt it would be best to send a memo to the Commissioners and the Commission could then request that it be placed on the agenda if it felt further discussions are needed. Commissioner Melcher said he deals most effectively with what is going to be discussed at the meetings. Commissioner McNiel said he had looked at it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had read the parts that interested him. Commissioner Melcher commented that at the July 26 meeting of the Historic/ Cultural Resources Task Force, Larry Henderson indicated there had been no response to staff's inquiries regarding the reallocation to historic preservation purposes of the proceeds from the sale of the Ledig House. Brad Buller, City Planner, said it was his understanding that Rex Gutierrez had indicated he would possibly bring up the matter at the next City Council meeting. He said the money had come from the Redevelopment Agency and it is initially marked to return there. Planning Commission Minutes -26- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Melcher noted that although the money had come from the Redevelopment Agency, it had been earmarked for historic preservation. He said the money had initially been set aside for historic preservation projects, and the request is that the money continue to be utilized for historic projects even if additional monies cannot be used. He asked that the Commission be informed as to the outcome. I. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 WORK PROGRAM Commissioner Melcher felt that the Planning Division is at the bare minimum of staffing just to keep up with paperwork that needs to be processed. He thought that the Commission should begin to see if they could suggest some changes that might free up some staff time and create some positive pressure on the City Council to get more staff for Planning. Chairman Barker felt funding for particular uses could also be beneficial. He said the Commission should not be in the position of stating that more staff is needed, but rather certain things need to be accomplished and either additional funding is needed for outside help or more staff is needed. Commissioner Melcher felt the whole planning function seems to be falling further behind and there must be a shifting of funding priorities for staff or consultants to deal with some of the crucial issues. He agreed that a commercial land use study is very important, but he felt there are other crucial issues such as a uniform street furniture program for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He noted that every project processed is conditioned to comply with that nonexistent document. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the perception is that the development community has slowed down and staff is therefore released to do more things. He understood this perception but noted that there are a lot fewer staff and he believed additional staff consultants are needed. Commissioner Melcher agreed and said the slowdown in development activity may have released the staff to do more things, but more staff were released. He felt the loss of staff has gone beyond balancing out the slowdown. Chairman Barker asked how much staff had been lost. Mr. Buller replied there had been over 50 percent reduction in professional planning staff. He said that during the last 18 months there has been a drastic change in development activity, but there is a very active public counter and a lot of staff time spent is in providing public information. He also noted that Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, had recently submitted his resignation. Commissioner Melcher felt the City needs to keep in mind that the whole community is the public and planning for the future of the community and making sure plans are up to date is as much dealing with the public as is serving those who come to the counter. He suggested the public would be Planning Commission Minutes -27- July 27, 1994 better served by having better long range plans and having those at the counter wait a little longer or perhaps limit counter service hours. He was concerned that there is a perception that the planning for the City is done and now all that is necessary is to wait for build out. He felt that plans are living documents that require constant attention and the City is way behind. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Fiscal Year 1994/95 Work Program should be continued to the August 10, 1994, meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 11:40 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -28- July 27, 1994