Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/06/08 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 8, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:04 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 ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-1-1 with Tolstoy absent and McNiel abstaining, to adopt the minutes of May 11, 1994, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-06 - MISSION FOODS - A request to construct a 300,000 square foot industrial building on 18.65 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial Designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-111-48 and 49. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-08 - SANCHEZ ~BABE'S CLUB 66) - A request to establish a night club and sports bar, including entertainment, amusement devices (video/arcade games), and the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, within an existing building in the Community Commercial Designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-601-07 and 08. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 94-01 - SANCHEZ (BABE'S CLUB 66) A request to allow entertainment including, but not limited to, live bands, a disc jockey, karaoke, celebrity appearances, and comedy nights, in conjunction with a night club and sports bar in the Community Commercial Designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-601-07 and 08. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Police Department's recommendation regarding having security personnel posted in the parking area was in writing. Mr. Murphy responded negatively. Commissioner Melcher felt the Police Department recommendations should be in writing. He questioned what would constitute a duly licensed security officer. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that the State of California has specific requirements for being licensed. Commissioner Melcher asked if there are State licensing requirements for all security officers or only for armed security officers. Chairman Barker stated there are specific requirements for both armed and unarmed security officers. He said the lowest level would include training in procedures for making a citizen's arrest. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Condition 14 was meant to limit the hours every day. Mr. Murphy replied affirmatively. Chairman Barker noted the applicant proposed having security personnel within the building roaming the parking lot periodically, but the staff recommendation was more specific. Mr. Murphy indicated that was correct and the conditions were written to require security personnel in the parking lot on a continual basis after 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 8, 1994 Chairman Barker asked if the three handicapped parking spaces would be in compliance with regulations. Mr. Murphy replied the building will comply with ADA requirements. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. John Sanchez, owner, 12367 Snapdragon, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that they be permitted to remain open from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight from Sundays through Wednesdays and from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Thursdays through Saturdays. He felt that Thursdays through Saturdays would be their busiest nights. He stated that if any problems occur during the first six months from midnight to 2:00 a.m. he would close at 12:00 midnight. He said he decided to utilize valet parking to alleviate any problems of people mingling in the parking lot after they leave the club. He stated that in working at other night clubs he had noticed that valet parking avoids that problem. He said the owners of the motel were available to answer questions. Chairman Barker noted that in response to Question G on the Entertainment Permit Application, the applicant had indicated that there were.no previous convictions or alleged offenses within the past 10 years with regards to specific mentioned persons. He asked if there are any other persons who are owners or are directly related to the organization for whom the answer would have been positive. Mr. Sanchez replied negatively. Chairman Barker asked if the patrons would be limited to those 21 years of age or older. Mr. Sanchez replied positively. Chairman Barker asked if they planned to train one person in CPR and Emergency Medical Technology, who would then train the rest of the staff. Mr. Sanchez said the individual who will be handling their security has already been trained in CPR etc. and he will be training their other staff. Chairman Barker asked if such training would be a condition of employment if they should ever hire a new person to head security. Mr. Sanchez replied affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp noted that in materials supplied by the applicant, there was a handwritten note that on Wednesdays they plan to have male exotic dancers and in typewritten information they supplied it indicated they plan to have lingerie shows on Wednesdays and Thursdays. He asked if.these events would be held simultaneously. Mr. Sanchez replied that they decided not to have male exotic dancers or the lingerie shows. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 8, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp questioned Mr. Sanchez's previous experience so far as operating or owning a nightclub. Mr. Sanchez replied he has worked in nightclubs for the last eight years. He said he helped run the Gas House, was a manger at Black Angus, worked at Lace (a nightclub in Albuquerque, New Mexico), and was a part owner of the Boars Head in Covina. He said he had observed what others did wrong and made a list and he is surrounded by people who know what they are doing. Commissioner Lumpp said that on the layout of the floor plan it appeard that anyone entering the sports bar would have to enter through the nightclub. Mr. Sanchez said a revised plan will be submitted with one entry into the sports bar and another into the club. He said those people entering the nightclub from the sports bar will have to pass through the security area and pay the cover charge. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the night club will be opening at 11:00 a.m. along with the sports bar. Mr. Sanchez replied it will not. Commissioner McNiel asked what time last call would be. Mr. Sanchez replied that last call is 1:30 a.m. Commissioner McNiel asked if that meant everyone is to be off premises at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Sanchez confirmed that was correct. Chairman Barker asked if recorders will be included with the closed circuit security cameras. Mr. Sanchez replied affirmatively. Chairman Barker asked staff if there had been discussions regarding shielding of the parking lot lighting so it would not enter adjacent areas. Mr. Murphy replied that they are proposing box type fixtures which will direct the light down as opposed to out so they should meet the Municipal Code requirement that not more than 5 foot candles can extend past the property line. Sam Lakkees, 10120 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is co-owner of the adjacent motel. He said that although they have had some residents there for 3 to 4 years, they pay on a weekly rather than a monthly basis. He indicated less than 2 percent of the business is on a daily basis. He stated there had previously been a club in that location for about 12 years and the motel did not experience any problems because of it. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 8, 1994 Hillel Dorel, stated he is head of security for the club and would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Lumpp asked if he had been a security manager in other operations. Mr. Dorel replied affirmatively and said he had worked for the Ministry of Defense for Israel. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp noted that only one question had been raised by the applicant which concerned the closing time on Thursdays through Saturday. He felt it was a reasonable request and he supported approving the application. Chairman Barker noted that the resolution provided that no adult entertainment would be permitted. He said he had been given a clipping from a newspaper regarding a topless club. He asked if this club could become a topless club and reopened the public hearing so Mr. Sanchez could respond. Mr. Sanchez said it will not be a topless club. He said they had written in their lease that the lease would be automatically terminated if they have topless or nudity in the club and he did not plan to have either. Chairman Barker stated it would also be stated in the Conditional Use Permit. He again closed the public hearing and asked if the City Attorney was comfortable with the regulations. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the City adopted an amendment to the Development Code to restrict the location of potential adult uses. He said this location would not be in one of the areas permitted for adult uses and he thought the City would have sufficient legal grounds to stop such a use. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there would be a physical separation between the convenience store and motel and the nightclub. Mr. Murphy replied that a condition calls for the installation of a planter and fence between the uses. Mr. Buller noted that the proposed planter is shown on the exhibit and the area will not be completely secure because there will be two drive aisles which will allow pedestrians or vehicles to maneuver between the two properties. Commissioner Lumpp noted the Commission would be reviewing the application in six months and said he supported the application and agreed with the applicant's request for extended hours. Motion: Moved by McNiel to adopt the resolutions approving Conditional Use Permit 94-08 and Entertainment Permit 94-01 with modifications to extend the permitted hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. on Thursdays through Saturdays. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 8, 1994 Commissioner Melcher seconded the motion but thought there was a conflict between Planning Conditions No. 2 and 12 on the Conditional Use Permit resolution. He noted that Planning Condition No. 2 indicates a landscape planter may be located on the adjoining parcel but Condition No. 12 indicates the landscape planter is to be completely on site. Mr. Murphy responded that Condition No. 2 refers to the planter between the motel and the nightclub while Condition No. 12 pertains to the parking area north of the building. Commissioner Melcher asked if the property is within a Foothill Boulevard activity center area. Mr. Murphy stated the activity center extends from the intersection of Turner and Foothill to include the property. Commissioner Melcher stated he was concerned about Engineering Conditions No. 3 and 6. He asked how long staff felt it would take to get a ruling from CalTrans regarding the median. Mr. James did not know how long it will take. Commissioner Melcher preferred that Conditions No. 3 and 6 be combined and the applicant be permitted to post half the cost of construction of the median if CalTrans has still not decided at the time that all other conditions have been met. Mr. James observed that the applicant would be fully developing the site and half the share of median construction along the property frontage would be far less than the entire median would cost. He noted that CalTrans may grant approval for the median to include several hundred feet in order to construct a closure across his driveway. He commented that once occupancy is granted, the City would have no leverage. Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant had not objected but he felt that if the applicant satisfies all of the other conditions, he did not think it would be fair to force him to wait for CalTrans to decide how much median would need to be built. Mr. James stated that the condition is included because of a traffic concern. He noted the applicant is increasing the parking area and closing off the kitchen area and adding more occupancy to the existing structure. He said the increase in traffic, the current location of the driveway, the proximity of other driveways, and the relationship of the driveway to Hermosa were all considered. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not debating that there is a.concern, but was stating that if the applicant complies with all other conditions and is still waiting for a response from CalTrans, it would seem unfair to delay the project further. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 8, 1994 Chairman Barker noted the motion included only a modification with regard to hours. He asked how the other Commissioners felt about the issue raised by Commissioner Melcher. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher that CalTrans can delay the project. He asked if Commissioner Melcher was asking staff to create a bonding mechanism. Commissioner Melcher replied negatively. He said his understanding was that Condition No. 6 would allow the applicant to make a contribution towards one- half the cost of the median if CalTrans indicates it will not allow installation at this time. He felt that an aggressive applicant could probably satisfy all other conditions within 60 to 120 days, but satisfying Condition No. 3 could delay the opening of the club well into the future. He said that even at the end of that time, CalTrans could still deny the median, at which point the City would accept the contribution, and he preferred to allow the applicant to make the contribution when he has satisfied all the other conditions. Commissioner McNiel asked if the median would be installed if CalTrans approves it. Commissioner Melcher suggested that Condition No. 3 remain but that the applicant be allowed to revert to Condition No. 6 if all other conditions have been satisfied and CalTrans still has not made a determination. Mr. Buller read Condition No. 3 to mean that the applicant must proceed forward with CalTrans to find a solution. He said staff could not support a modification that would allow the applicant not to address the traffic issue and merely pay an in-lieu fee. He thought there should be some level of traffic device placed in the street to the satisfaction of CalTrans before occupancy should be granted. Commissioner Melcher felt that would be an astonishing burden to place on the applicant. Chairman Barker noted the City has no control over CalTrans. He understood the safety factor making the median necessary. He asked if an alternative could be presented. Commissioner Melcher felt it would be incumbent on the applicant to pursue Condition No. 3 with all due diligence and create a paper trail to show that he has tried to meet the condition. Mr. Buller suggested that the condition could be modified that if, after a specified time, the applicant has shown due diligence in an effort to obtain CalTrans approval, the City Engineer could grant an exception. Commissioner Melcher sensed that giving the approval back to the City Engineer would be hanging onto it. He noted that Condition No. 6 would allow the applicant to pay half the cost if CalTrans does not allow installation of the median and there would be no traffic control in that case. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 8, 1994 Mr. James commented there had been no traffic study but it is staff's opinion there is a possible traffic conflict because of the increase in traffic use. He said that if CalTrans reviews the project and feels that the installation of a median at this time will be more of a detriment to the rest of the traffic flows within their street, they may refuse installation of the median and would have accepted liability of whatever increased traffic conflicts there may be. He said in that case, the City would ask that the applicant be responsible for their frontage improvements which would be half of the median island cost. Mr. Murphy suggested the applicant be required to post a bond for the full cost of the improvements. He said the funds would then be available if CalTrans gave approval or the applicant could make the one-half contribution if CalTrans did not approve the median. He thought that would protect the City but still allow the applicant to occupy the structure. Commissioner Melcher felt that was a reasonable solution. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that the City Engineer work with the applicant to obtain a solution from CalTrans. Commissioner McNiel accepted the change to the motion. Commissioner Melcher accepted the change to the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY -carried VARIANCE 94-03 - RITTENHOUSE - A request to reduce the amount of common open space from 35 percent to approximately 25 percent for a proposed 20- unit residential detached condominium project on 3.0 acres of land in the Medium Residential Development District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 202-025-01, 04, 07, and 08. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14208 - RITTENHOUSE - The proposed development of a 20-unit residential detached condominium project on 3.0 acres of land in the Medium Residential Development District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 202-025-01, 04, 07, and 08. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Ralph Rittenhouse, 400 North Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, felt it is an ideal development. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 8, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp asked if he had considered purchasing the adjacent property to the east. Mr. Rittenhouse replied they had made several offers but no agreement had been reached. He said he had tried to include it in his development because he felt it is an eyesore and an awkward piece of property but he stated his soils report had indicated the site has been contaminated and would be costly to prepare for development. Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant had complied with the Design Review Committee's recommendation that the recreational area be internalized. He thought it produces a superior result and he hoped the applicant agreed. Mr. Rittenhouse respqnded they were quite happy with the placement. Commissioner McNiel stated he had participated in Design Review and is pleased with the outcome. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the City had requested that he use river rock. He said he would be willing to use it in the pilasters but he hoped he would not have to use it on his houses. He felt the house style is more conducive to other materials and he felt river rock has been used extensively in the City. Me said the material he prefers using is similar in appearance to a split Palos Verde stone and he thought it would give a higher quality appearance. Commissioner McNiel questioned if it is a manufactured material. Mr. Rittenhouse replied it is manufactured but is high quality enough that it is being used on $1 million dollar homes. Commissioner McNiel said the City has previously had bad experiences with manufactured stone in other developments. Mr. Rittenhouse said he understood the problem but he stated he wants to be sure it is a high quality development. He said he plans to use someone who has previously installed it on million dollar homes in Arcadia. He stated the stone is very expensive. He thought it will look better than river rock. He showed pictures of houses with the proposed stone. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the Commission has previously accepted many types of veneer stone but has insisted that if river rock is to be used, it must be real river rock. Commissioner McNiel did not object to the use of veneer stone but suggested the material be subject to approval by the City Planner. He did not think the pilasters should be different from the houses and felt consistency would be more important. He suggested that river rock could be used for an artificial stream bed if one is proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 8, 1994 Commissioner Melcher supported the manufactured stone but expressed hope that the manufacturer is stable so that the same material would be available if the property to the east side becomes available for development. Mr. Rittenhouse said the company has made discontinued patterns on demand. Tracy Tibbals, Covington &Crowe, 1131 West Sixth Street, Ontario, said he is the attorney for adjacent landowner Matreyek Homes and Matreyek Trust, which owns the property to the west, north, and east. He concurred that the proposed project is well thought out and will complement their project to the west. He said they had sent a letter to Mr. Hayes expressing concerns regarding circulation and grading. He reported Mr. Hayes had advised them about the left-turn pocket for east bound traffic on Base Line Avenue and that addresses their concern regarding circulation. He stated that a previous property owner for the proposed project had been a pool contractor who utilized the property to dump spoil dirt from digging swimming pools and the Rittenhouse property is up to 10 feet higher than the Matreyek property along the project's western boundary. He feared the proposed project will tower over the existing development. He said the grading plan they had seen proposed a retaining wall with a fence on top while his client has only a garden wall along the boundary. He felt the wall will appear aesthetically displeasing. He said Mr. Hayes had indicated a revised grading plan has been submitted. He asked that the condition be changed to require that the grading be as close to the existing grade on his client's property as possible to avoid the need for a retaining wall with a fence on top and having the homes being substantially taller than the homes to the west. He said there is currently a problem with compaction but Mr. Hayes had advised that would be addressed. He said Tom Matreyek was available in the audience to answer any questions. Jim Elkins, L & D Engineering, 12216 Dunlap Place, Chino, stated he is the project engineer and he is trying to keep the grading as close as possible to the existing property to the west. He stated the grading plans are still being revised. Commissioner McNiel asked for an estimate of what the grade differential may be. Mr. Elkins said he could not answer that question because he is still working on it. Mr. Rittenhouse said their property is naturally higher than the property to the west and their soils report showed less dump than one may think. He said there is a difference in elevation within the last 15 feet of their west property line. He said they want to make the property as low as possible and still hit the front of the property where it is the highest in the hump of the street. He said they want to make sure that the water drains from the rear of the property to Base Line and on into the channel. He thought they should be able to keep the retaining wall at the height of the existing wall. He said they would be willing to replace the existing wall with a retaining wall. He said they would then put wrought iron on top of the retaining wall up to a normal wall height. He thought planted rear yard areas would be better than a Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 8, 1994 7-8 foot solid wall. He said his project is currently facing a Matreyek wall that is about 12 feet high on the north side of their property. He said their ambition is to make the grades as low as possible while still draining properly. Commissioner Melcher said it appears that the existing grade differential is about 8-9 feet above the existing lots to the west. He asked if the plan calls for building a retaining wall and filling the properties so that the lots will drain to the street. Mr. Rittenhouse said there is a big hole 15 feet from the western property line. He said their property is on a hump and they would like to lower their property by moving the dirt from the hump to fill the hole. Commissioner Melcher felt building the retaining wall will be expensive and it would therefore be ih the applicant's financial interest to lower the grade, and thereby the wall, as much as possible. He thought there was no reason to add a condition. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the mature Coast Live Oak tree be removed and replaced in kind with a minimum 60-inch box size standard nursery grown tree. He supported the project. Chairman Barker asked if the Commissioners objected to the rock veneer proposed by the applicant. Commissioner McNiel said he supported the rock veneer if it appears legitimate. Chairman Barker noted manufactured river rock had not been acceptable. Commissioner McNiel did not dislike what the applicant proposed. Commissioner Melcher noted the pattern requested is cut into random rectangular shapes even when authentic stone is used. He felt the product will be handsome. He supported using a consistent material for both the pilasters and the houses rather than introducing river rock on the pilasters. Chairman Barker agreed. Commissioner McNiel acknowledged there is a lot of sentimental value in the Oak tree but he felt it is a poor specimen and it would be best to replace it in kind. Commissioner Lumpp concurred. He thought it would be a refreshing change to have a material other than river rock. He felt there were sufficient findings to grant the variance and supported the project. Chairman Barker agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 8, 1994 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Variance 94-03 and Tentative Tract 14208 with modifications to allow manufactured stone other than river rock and to remove and replace the Oak tree. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY -carried Fe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-14 - MR. C'S PIZZA - A request to expand an existing pizza parlor with additional dining tables, pool tables, and a game arcade into an adjoining vacant suite of 1,991 square feet in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at 7270 Victoria Park Lane, Suite 2E - APN: 227-111-41. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Frank Balchak, applicant, 9959 Holly Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Lumpp stated that when he was at the facility he noticed teenagers loitering around the facility. He asked if the applicant thought that would be a problem with the expansion of the restaurant. Mr. Balchak responded that immediately after school there are quite often a lot of skateboarders getting pizza or a Subway sandwich and they are generally gone later in the evening. He said he intends to have a minimum age limit unless accompanied by an adult after a certain time, probably after 8:00 p.m. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-14. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY -carried Chairman Barker indicated he was moving Items G through N to the end of the agenda. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 8, 1994 Oe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of pylon sign design for Foothill Marketplace, a commercial/retail center located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-41. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and 'noted the Commissioners had in front of them a revised proposal from the applicant increasing the sign height to 70 feet and the number of major tenants from four to seven per sign face. Chairman Barker requested clarification on the proposed location and elevation of the sign. Mr. Murphy replied it is proposed to be placed in the parking lot at the extreme southwest corner of the project adjacent to the freeway and the parking lot is approximately 20 feet below the freeway grade. He said the renderings on the wall are depictions of what would be visible from the freeway. Commissioner McNiel asked if there is a Price Club sign on that side of the building. Mr. Murphy replied a Sports Chalet sign will be located on the rear of the building and will be visible from the freeway. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Greg Wattson, The Wattson Arno Company, 3620 Birch Street, #100, Newport Beach, stated he represented Foothill Marketplace Partners. He concurred with the staff report. He said they are a regional shopping center with at least eight national tenants. He thought there will be only four opportunities within the City to have a pylon sign and those four spots are along the freeway. He commented that the bottom 20 feet of the sign will be below the freeway so only the top portion of the sign would be visible from the freeway and the sign would not be visible from any residential areas. He thought the sign is necessary to attract patrons to the center. Chairman Barker opened the matter for discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioner McNiel stated there have been many discussions since the conceptual introduction of the project. He felt the project has been good and successful and it had been a pleasure to work with the applicant during the process. He said the sign has been a bone of contention since its inception and he had repeatedly voiced opposition to the sign based on what is consistent throughout Southern California with respect to pylon signs. He noted the trend is to get bigger, flashier, and more cluttered with tenant names. He observed that there had been no guarantee that the Sign would be approved and the tenants have all still bought into the project. He said at one point in time there was no sign and the sign proposal has now returned bigger and bolder than ever. He thought if there is to be a sign, it should be tasteful and contribute to the center and be something other than a wall that identifies the tenants. He said the Commission had previously suggested Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 8, 1994 a sign identifying only Foothill Marketplace with no tenant names and the applicant had withdrawn the sign proposal. He noted there are 20 feet below the freeway grade but that left 50 feet above the freeway. He did not think there are any signs that tall in the City and he did not feel such a large sign is required. He felt that if such a sign is approved, it would set a precedent and competitors will request bigger and flashier signs. Commissioner Melcher felt that Commissioner McNiel raised some interesting points. He noted that a 57-foot high sign was approved by the Design Review Committee and he did not feel the extended height now being requested improves the appearance of the sign. He still favored giving the tenants the signs. He suggested that there be some further study because the Commissioners were seeing the new proposal for the first time. He thought the thin molding between the top three tenants and the lower tenants is too weak. He thought it would be better to introduce a molding around the tower elements only and its size should be somewhere between the lower stylized molding and the the thin one to give more definition to the change. He suggested that the element not go all the way across and the signs be in one panel with the air space eliminated and the sign reduced in height by the amount currently comprised of air space and moldings. He said he had consistently indicated that the smaller logo signs identify only freeway related uses and he objected to identifying Crown Books in that area. Commissioner Lumpp stated he has prepared sign studies regarding pylon signs in relation to regional and community centers. He said he has concerns which are similar to those expressed by Commissioners McNiel and Melcher. He commented that in most communities, pylon signs identify only the names of regional centers and not the tenants, such as Montclair Plaza. He felt the sign should state only Foothill Marketplace and noted the Sign Ordinance states a sign should be an identification mechanism rather than an advertising mechanism. He thought that once such a sign is built, it will appear smaller than anticipated. Commissioner McNiel felt the signs along freeways do not appear small. Commissioner Lumpp was not opposed to the 70-foot height but he was concerned that the design was different from what was originally proposed. He agreed the small band was not balanced. He felt using the various type styles creates a mixed up look and he thought it best to identify the major user, the shopping center. He preferred that the sign be redesigned for balance and felt only three to four majors should be listed on each side along with up to four freeway oriented logos. Commissioner Melcher asked if Commissioner Lumpp was suggesting the sign return to the concept that had been approved by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Lumpp said that was correct but he was willing to discuss the idea of a higher height. Commissioner Melcher felt the only reason the sign was increased in height was to add more names. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 8, 1994 Chairman Barker felt that if there are too many names, they will not be read by freeway drivers. He noted that some of the smaller shopping centers want additional signs, but he thought that such signs will not be read unless someone is waiting at a traffic signal. He was not too troubled by a large sign because the buildings are large. He thought there are sufficient differences at this center, so that the sign would not necessarily set a precedent. He did not like the most recent design and he did not think it will enhance sales because he felt there are too many names. He again invited public comment. Mr. Wattson apologized for making the last minute switch and said his intent had been to live within the 57-foot height by accommodating the eight major tenants by listing four each on each side of the sign. He said he subsequently received letters from attorneys for three of the major tenants, indicating they would sue if their name does not appear on both sides of the sign. He said he had listed Crown Books merely to fill in the spot and he agreed they would not need to be on the sign as they will be visible from the freeway. He said their tenants have indicated such signs enhance revenue by a large amount. He indicated a willingness to lower and close the sign as suggested by Commissioner Melcher. He said it would not do any good to build an $80,000 to $100,000 sign to merely advertise Foothill Marketplace. He felt such a sign would not help the tenants and would not attract people from the freeway. He stated all stores are not visible from the freeway and the sign is to alert freeway drivers as to what stores are there. There were no further public comments at this time. Commissioner McNiel suggested the matter be returned to the Design Review Committee and he thought a compromise solution could be reached. Chairman Barker agreed that would be best. He agreed that the Commissioners were not comfortable with approving a sign they first saw this evening. He reiterated that he felt too many names will not register with those passing on the freeway. Chairman Barker asked when the matter would be returned to the Commission. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested it could be scheduled for the next Design Review Committee meeting and returned to the Commission on June 22. Chairman Barker invited Mr. Wattson to comment on the timing. Mr. Wattson stated he would prefer to have a decision this evening and the sign would be installed as soon as possible after approval. He requested that he be allowed to work with staff and the Design Review Committee. He said many of the tenants will be opened by mid July. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to continue Conditional Use Permit 90-37 to June 22, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY -carried Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 8, 1994 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-17 - SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS LUTHERAN CHURCH - A proposed modification to the approved plans for a wall in conjunction with an expansion of an existing church located at 6080 Haven Avenue. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Mike Brewer, 6265 Terracina Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their proposed plan has no negative impacts on the surrounding community because the back of the wall is not within public view and would only be visible from inside the classroom areas of the church. He showed slides of various existing walls on the property. He fe~t that rock walls are an attraction for young people to climb on and it would be safer to have a stucco finish wall facing the area where the students will congregate. He thought their proposal is consistent with the overall appearance of the facilities because they already have some combination rock and stucco walls on site. He proposed a wall with a rock face on the street side, a stucco face on the interior, and a rock cap. He indicated having rock on both sides would add over $10,000 to the project cost. He presented a notebook with pictures of walls on their property and other walls in the community showing that other walls have stone facing on one side only. Commissioner Melcher asked if the classrooms which will face the wall will have doors to the area. Richard Avant, 1683 Doral Drive, Upland, stated he will be constructing the project. He indicated there will be doors coming out of the classroom into the courtyard area by the wall. He said that not all of the existing wall will be removed; approximately 20 feet closest to the church door will remain and will have rock on both sides. He stated the wall would be stucco on the inside starting with the curve to go around the new structure. He thought the stucco wall would not be that noticeable when walking into the church. There were no further public comments at this time. Commissioner Melcher stated he was on the Design Review Committee for the expansion. He recalled that the Committee was concerned about the loss of the beautiful south yard which the facility now has and expressed a desire to see to it that the streetscape be restored to equal what is currently there. He felt that will be very difficult to do with the limited space available. He thought there was merit to the staff's position and favored upholding staff's recommendation that the wall be rock on both sides. He reminded the applicant that at the Design Review Committee meeting, comments had been made that the architecture of the addition is compatible with the existing building but does not have the degree of relief that the existing does in surfaces. He said the new facade will not have the strength of the old facade and he felt staff was correct in asking that the new wall be the equivalent to what is currently there. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 8, 1994 Commissioner McNiel asked if more relief could be designed into the project. Commissioner Melcher thought it could be done but noted they were making a good faith effort to help the church get the amount of space they need as reasonably as possible. He said he was disappointed the applicant was now asking to use a stucco wall. Chairman Barker noted that the church was willing to put rock on the side visible to the general public and was asking to use the stucco only on the side visible from the church. Commissioner Lumpp supported the applicant's request, as both types of walls are already on the property. Commissioner McNiel said he does not like to go against the Design Review Committee, but he felt the applicant's request was reasonable. Commissioner Melcher said he would support the applicant's request but he was disappointed because the streetscape will not be equal to what is currently there. He did not recall that the Design Review Committee looked at the possibility of having stucco on one side of the wall. He said he thought the gist had been that there is currently a rock wall and the new design will have a rock wall but it would be closer to the street. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated there had been no discussion of materials for the wall because it was shown on the plan as matching the existing wall, which has rock on both sides. He said that staff's comments on the plan check were merely to uphold the Commission's approval of the plans. Chairman Barker did not oppose stucco on the inside of the wall. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to permit the wall the have stucco on the inside with a rock veneer on the street side and a rock cap. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY -carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR EXCEPTION 94-03 - FORNAL - An appeal of the City Planner's decision to deny a lattice fence extension of 18 inches on the north and east sides and 24 inches on the west side of 11226 Tetra Vista Parkway, #58 - APN: 1077-673-22. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and showed pictures of the fence extension. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if this would not be a civil matter. Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 8, 1994 Ms. Luttrell said the Planning Division has jurisdiction over whether or not to grant a Minor Exception but the City should not be a party to the dispute between the two neighbors in question. Commissioner Melcher asked if it was a dispute between two homeowners or a dispute between one homeowner and an Association. He asked if there are two legal actions. Brad Buller, City Planner, said there is discussion and debate between the Homeowners' Association and the applicant and between the applicant and an adjoining homeowner. Ms. Luttrell said that Euclid Management Company had verbally indicated there is pending legal action. Chairman Barker said he wanted to be sure the Commission limited its actions and comments to only those areas where the City has an obligation and a right to participate. He asked the City Attorney to summarize the Commission's limitations and obligations. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the only pertinent area would be facts regarding an exception to City Code. He said that the Homeowners' Association could take a different course of action and could be stricter than the City. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Homeowners' Association made any final determination on the fence. Ms. Luttrell said that from the correspondence received from the applicant and verbal discussions with the Homeowners' Association, it was her understanding that the they had requested the applicant make some modifications to the existing fence he had erected and proceed with getting permits from the City. She said they had suggested that he unattach the extension to the common fence and attach it independently on his side of the property in the area where he has been unable to obtain his neighbor's permission. Commissioner Lumpp observed there was a suggestion in the staff report that the applicant work with the Homeowners' Association and City staff to create a prototypical fence. He asked if the Commissioners should thus assume that the Association has adopted the applicant's proposed fence as prototypical. Ms. Luttrell said that to her knowledge, no prototypical fence has been adopted. She stated that staff has observed two other lattice work fence extensions in the project and staff checked and no Minor Exceptions had been issued in those cases. She did not know if the other residents had received approval from the Homeowners' Association. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Ken Fornal, 11226 Terra Vista Parkway, #58, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a booklet with written comments on the staff report, pictures of the fence extension, and written comments regarding a letter of opposition presented by Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 8, 1994 an adjacent homeowner. He indicated that three of his adjoining neighbors have consented to the construction of the extension and stated that an agreement had been reached with the Homeowners' Association that the lattice be moved to his side of the fence in the area where the one neighbor objects. He said the lattice extension is only 8 inches above the City's maximum height. He felt the Homeowner's Association had created a precedent when it permitted lattice extensions to be built at two other properties. He stated he had been cited for not filing for a Minor Exception when his neighbor registered a complaint with the City and he questioned why the City had not cited the other property owners who have fence extensions. He indicated he had not been notified of any legal action by the Homeowners' Association. He provided a copy of a letter he had sent to Euclid Management in March indicating that he would commence moving the lattice extension to his side of the fence following approval from the City. He did not feel 8 inches is significant and thought the lattice extension is aesthetically pleasing. He commented that he plans to use it as a plant trellis. He believed it would be unrealistic to work with the other homeowners in the development to create a prototypical fence extension as that would take time. Because anyone can apply for a Minor Exception, he felt approving his request would not be a grant of special privilege. Ann Lungu 7367 Beelpine Place, #46, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that her letter properly states her position. She stated the fence extension is 19 inches above the approved fence. She felt the applicant had created his own dilemma by not going through proper procedures. She commented he had received approval from the other neighbors after the fact and had never asked her for her permission. She felt the lattice extension appears piecemeal because only a portion of her fence has the extension and she felt that was aesthetically unpleasant. She felt the lattice work restricts her open space. She commented that she is jointly responsible for the maintenance of the fence and said he had no right to cut the top of the posts off. She thought that appropriate findings could not be made to grant the Minor Exception. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Melcher thought staff's reasoning was well founded. He saw no reason to grant the appeal and felt that the photographs show a larger problem that may grow with time. He suggested the Commissioners may want to examine how side and rear lot fencing is constructed and perhaps require better materials to a greater height with cap details to create a softening of the top edge. Chairman Barker said there is also another problem with property lines which end in the middle of others' property. Commissioner Melcher agreed that was a problem and said that with respect to the case before the Commission, he supported staff's position and recommended denial of the appeal. Commissioner McNiel said he was inclined to agree with Commissioner Melcher. He said the applicant made references to restrictions on the lot and the fact that the lot was small. He stated the lot had not changed in size since the Planning Commission Minutes -19- June 8, 1994 applicant moved in. He observed that the fences are common and were therefore not just the applicant's property and were therefore not his to do with as he saw fit. He felt the CC&Rs and the Homeowners' Association should resolve such types of problems so that they would not need to come before the City. He supported staff's position. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant would have the right to install a fence if the Homeowners' Association should approve a fence extension but the City denied the request. Mr. Buller replied that the City would request that the Homeowners' Association seek a Minor Exception for the entire complex if a prototypical fence extension design is decided upon. He noted that any extension above the 6-foot height would still require City approval. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Homeowners' Association could request the exception, submit a prototypical design, but leave it to individuals to accomplish sections as they see fit or would the City want it to be constructed all at once. Mr. Buller replied that was a judgment question, and his immediate thought would be that it should be developed all at once. He said they had allowed Homeowners' Associations to develop prototypical patio covers which could be done unit by unit but no such arrangements for fencing have been made. Commissioner Lumpp agreed it was unfortunate that such a matter was before the Commission. He observed that a townhouse project limits privacy and that is why there is common open space. He did not support the applicant's request. Chairman Barker noted the applicant's back yard ends halfway through another owner's back yard. He said therefore the neighbor's property is impacted. He observed that staff had suggested that the applicant and other interested homeowners work with the Homeowners' Association and staff to develop a prototypical fence extension design that could be used consistently throughout the project and the applicant had responded that was unrealistic and requires much time and agreement between all homeowners. He felt that was what Homeowners' Associations are for and if one is unwilling to live with the compromises required of a Homeowners' Association, then the property owner should not live in such communities. He supported staff's decision. Commissioner Melcher noted the homeowner would have the ability to appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Lumpp hoped the applicant would be able to work out the situation with the Homeowners' Association. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution denying the appeal of City Planner's decision to deny Minor Exception 94-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY -carried Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 8, 1994 The Planning Commission recessed from 10:11 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 94-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request for various streamlining amendments to the development/ design review procedures and land use regulations. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Land Use Types, Land Use Type Definitions, and the permitted and conditionally permitted uses of various subareas. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Land Use Regulations for Subarea 1, 2, 3, and 4 regarding permitted and conditionally permitted uses. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Land Use Provisions regarding permitted and conditionally permitted uses for Office and Commercial Districts. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the Neighborhood Commercial District. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the Office and Commercial areas. TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 94-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the Office and Commercial areas. N. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the time extension provisions. Commissioner Lumpp stated it would be his preference to list tattoo parlors as a use requiring a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. Brad Buller, City Planner, said there are currently discussions under way at the staff level. He stated there is a new tattoo parlor in town and staff is researching the issues. He observed that most cities are finding that the location is not a land use issue, but tattoo parlors are a health safety issue. He reported that Claremont recently chose to prohibit tattoo parlors but others have chosen to deem tattoo parlors to be adult businesses. He suggested further evaluation be undertaken prior to listing them as a conditional use in certain areas. Commissioner Lumpp stated it is sufficient that staff is in the process of reviewing. He preferred not to have another tattoo parlor open in the City without some additional review. Planning Commission Minutes -21- June 8, 1994 Mr. Buller stated that currently tattoo parlors are not identified in any City documents, and it could therefore be interpreted that it is not a permitted use. Chairman Barker asked if that meant that if a use is not listed, it is not permitted. Mr. Bullet said an applicant can approach the City and request a use determination to indicate where a use is most appropriate. He said the City Planner or the Planning Commission can make that determination. He said the City could determine that a particular use is not permitted by placing the use in a category that is not permitted. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the document is evolving and not intended to have an all-inclusive listing of uses. He said it is open to some interpretation as to use categories. Commissioner Melcher observed that he recently read something that said in effect that the changes in handling of projects are designed to facilitate processing for the applicant by shortening time frames but will not change the City Planning Division's workload because the staff report that would have been prepared for the Commission will now be prepared for the City Planner. Mr. Buller said that he had made that statement in response to a question on how streamlining would affect staff resources available for special projects. He said his time would become more involved in processing projects and staff would still have to do the same level of investigation and analysis for projects coming before the City Planner as those coming before the Commission. He said over the course of time, he would consider how such reports could be shortened. Commissioner Melcher stated that the Commission had felt that streamlining would allow the Commission to shift its focus to planning and policy issues, but he was now concerned that such a shift in focus would be difficult for staff because it would require the development of additional staff reports being written by those whose jobs are already more than full time. Chairman Barker said he had heard Mr. Buller state that he would initially require the same level of detail in staff reports. Commissioner Melcher said that the Advance Planning staff is busily working on forward planning issues and not currently bringing those matters to the Commission very often. He felt that is an area where the Commission should be more involved. Mr. Buller understood the Commission's concerns. He understood it had been the Commission's intent to be able to focus more on long range planning issues such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan. He said some of those visionary matters do take quite a bit of staff research time and the Planning staff has been attrited to a point where it will be difficult to maintain the same level of service which has been provided in the past. He commented the Advance Planners are not truly "advance" planners today as they are all doing Planning Commission Minutes -22- June 8, 1994 "current" planning tasks as part of their daily duties. He said he would be able to discuss staff resources when the Commission discusses the work program. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 94-01 to amend the time extension provisions was being proposed in order to be consistent with state law. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 94-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 94-03, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 94-01, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 94-01, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment 94-01, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 94-01, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 94-02, and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 94-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY -carried The Commissioners commended Mr. Coleman for his work on the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Melcher questioned when the Cultural Resources Mitigation Task Force would be meeting. Mr. Buller said the meeting should be scheduled within the next two weeks. Commissioner Melcher distributed flyers announcing the Inland Empire Section of APA would be having their annual awards banquet on June 23 and an American Institute of Architects' golf tournament to be held in August. Chairman Barker stated he had asked staff to advise him what he could do and to do whatever could be done to inhibit destruction of the gas station or its canopy west of Archibald on Foothill Boulevard. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes -23- June 8, 1994 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. 11:50 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -24- June 8, 1994