Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/04/13 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Cha~3er at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of December 21, 1993, as amended. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 2, 1994. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-0-1 with McNiel abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 9, 1994, as amended. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of March 23, 1994, as amended. , , , · , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-16 (GOVERNMENT REFERRAL 89-08) - CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - A request for a time extension to establish a wastewater treatment plan on 32.5 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-283-62. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-03 - RYDER TRUCK RENTALS - A request to install a 1,152 square foot temporary office module on a 4.23 acre parcel currently containing a 3,404 square foot shop building and open truck storage areas within the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9366 Santa Anita Avenue - APN: 229-321-11. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher referenced the applicant'e February 14, 1994, letter. He asked if the applicant was agreeable to the conditions. Mr. Hayes replied that he had had numerous conversations with the applicant, and the applicant seemed comfortable with a majority of the conditions but may wish to discuss some of the conditions. Commissioner Melcher asked if the public would be coming to the building. Mr. Hayes suggested the question be directed to the applicant. Commissioner Melcher asked if a building permit would be required. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. James Fantocone, Regional Used Truck Manager for Ryder Truck Rental, 8815 Santiago Circle, Riverside, introduced David Crero, Rancho Cucamonga Sales Manager for Ryder, and Chuck Vahovick, PCS Construction. He stated Mr. Slack was unable to attend. He said they were generally in agreement with the conditions but they had a few areas of concern. He pointed out the conditions specify an 8-foot block wall but the current wall on the north side of the driveway is 6 feet. He asked if they could continue the 6-foot wall. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 13, 1994 Chuck Vahovick, PCS Construction 21999 Van Buren, Suite 2, Grand Terrace, observed that the wall on the north side of the driveway is only 6 feet tall and a wall located across the street is only 6 feet high. Me said they would like to maintain the 6-foot height. He noted the existing wall is 23 feet from the street and the conditions call for a 25-foot landscaped area. He asked if the existing wall and landscaping could be left at 23 feet until a new building is constructed when the wall would be replaced. He commented that the new portion of the wall they would now be constructing would be at 25 feet. He stated that the facility has two driveway approaches basically adjoining each other because the property had been designed to be divided. He requested that they not be required to reconstruct the driveway at this time because he believed that when they construct their permanent facility, the driveway would have to be redone, as the ultimate site plan is not yet completed. Commissioner McNiel asked when the new building would be going in. Mr. Vahovick said they intend to have it completed within a 5-year period. Mr. Fantocone said their lease runs until the year 2001 with an option for an extension. He said they would begin planning after the trailer has been in operation about two years. Mr. Vahovick said they had not had time to meet with Southern California Edison (SCE) to figure out where they would be able to hook into lines in order to install a street light. He said they were willing to install a street light if the SCE planner indicated they could just tie into a nearby conduit, but they would want to negotiate on installing a street light if they would have to connect at the other end of the street because they did not know what the cost would entail. Commissioner Melcher asked if they would be doing business with the public. Mr. Fantocone said the purpose of the facility is to sell used Ryder trucks to the public and the trailer is being installed in order to provide a more professional appearance to the public. Chairman Barker asked if staff had been aware that the current wall is only 6 feet high. Brad Bullet, City Planner, said staff did not oppose leaving the existing wall at 6 feet, but would recommend that any new wall be built at 8 feet in order to be consistent with other walls required for screening outdoor storage. Chairman Barker asked if staff had considered the possibility of forgiving the 25-foot landscape setback where the wall currently exists 23 feet from the street. Mr. Hayes said the standards call for an average 25-foot landscape requirement. He suggested the new wall be built at 26 or 27 feet to attain the 25-foot average. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 13, 1994 Chairman Barker noted the applicant had requested that the 25-foot requirement be temporarily forgiven pending a new wall on the north side of the.driveway when a permanent building is constructed. Commissioner Melcher thought the applicant did not want to build a wall on the southern portion of the property. Mr. Hayes said one of the conditions requires that the wall be built. Commissioner Melcher asked if the 6-foot wall would have to be replaced when the modular structure is removed and a permanent structure is built. Mr. Buller thought the applicant may wish to front their permanent office building on the street rather than behind a wall. He thought the wall may become moot as the result of the design of the building. Chairman Barker requested that staff address the driveway issue. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, noted there are two existing drive approaches at the street and they do not comply with the City standard policies for driveway spacing or construction. He said when the sidewalk is installed, handicap access will have to be added where there is currently a 6-inch curb. Chairman Barker commented the applicant was concerned that if they install a new driveway at this time it will have to be moved when they construct the permanent building. Mr. James responded that may be true. He suggested the City could defer the reconstruction with a lien agreement. He said that currently Santa Anita does not go through all the way so the traffic is not at full volume. However, he noted it is unknown whether Santa Anita will be pushed through prior to redevelopment. He felt if Santa Anita attained full volume, having two driveways so close together could be cause for concern. Commissioner McNiel asked if the City was requiring that one of the driveways be closed. Mr. James replied that the condition stated that the current driveway approaches do not conform to City policy and they should be .removed or reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He said they have the possibility for two drive approaches if one is moved to the southern end of the site. Mr. Vahovick felt any alterations to the driveway at this time would be a waste of money. He suggested that a condition be added that upon the completion of the permanent building, City standards would be met. He said the street ends approximately 65 feet to the north of their property, so there would not be any left-turns coming from the property until the other properties on the street get developed. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 13, 1994 Chairman Barker asked about staff's comment that a lien agreement could be used. Mr. James replied that Ordinance 58 allows a lien agreement to be placed on a property when it is impractical to install a public improvement (generally for drainage reasons). Commissioner McNiel noted the applicant would be pouring concrete for the sidewalk. He felt the yardage of concrete and forming for a driveway would be nominal if it's done at the same time as the sidewalk. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. height and setback for the wall. He asked for comments on the Commissioner Melcher felt the non-conforming wall should be tied to this conditional use permit so that when the permit expires or redevelopment occurs, the wall must be removed. He suggested that the new portion be built at the required 8-foot height and set back at 25 feet rather than 27 feet. Commissioners Tolstoy and McNiel agreed. Mr. Buller suggested an option of planting 2 feet of landscaping behind the existing wall to provide additional buffering in order to meet the 25-foot average standard. Commissioner Melcher did not feel the applicant should be required to landscape on the interior side of the fence. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and felt that 2 feet would not permit significant landscaping. Chairman Barker reiterated that the applicant may decide to front the permanent building closer to the street which would make the wall a moot point. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher's suggestion. Chairman Barker requested comments on the driveway. Commissioner McNiel noted that curb and gutter exist. He said if the driveway is torn out, the curb and gutter would have to be replaced. He commented they would be pumping concrete in order to put in the sidewalk. He asked if the existing driveway is an unsafe condition. Mr. James replied that it has a full 6-inch curb return back to the property line and the standard driveway approach calls for the last four feet to be flush with the sidewalk in order to provide handicap access. He said if the driveways were to remain, they would have to be reworked to eliminate the step off. Commissioner McNiel stated that since the driveways are of legal width, it could mean a couple of curb cuts and a throat. He said it may be an Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 13, 1994 inconvenience and may appear to be a waste, but he felt some forms and a couple of yards of concrete should not be a major issue. Chairman Barker asked if Commissioner McNiel saw this as a minor modification. Commissioner McNiel said he felt that was correct. He said one of the driveways could be blocked off and since they were already doing concrete work, he thought it should not be a big problem. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Vahovick stated they could cut the curb and taper the sidewalks for handicap access and he requested they be able to leave the driveways as they currently exist until they further develop the property. Mr. James said that would be the bare minimum the City could accept for public access. Commissioner Melcher felt that all public improvements associated with a project should be installed at the time the use of a piece of property necessitates an application to the City which comes before the Commission unless there is a compelling reason for delaying such installation. He did not feel the fact that the future development of the property is not currently planned to be a compelling reason. Therefore, he thought it would be appropriate to require installation of everything outside the property line and within the right-of-way, i.e. sidewalk, drive approach, street light, etc., at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed so far as the driveway. He also felt the street lights are needed now and the location of the nearest SCE conduit is immaterial. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. He noted that the applicant had also stated the public will be using the facility and he feared the City would be placing itself in an awkward position if it did not require the drive approaches to meet City standards. Chairman Barker asked for further comments on the street lights. Commissioner McNiel agreed the street light should be installed now. Chairman Barker summarized that the conditions providing for the street light and driveway reconstruction were to remain and that the conditions would be rewritten to allow the flexibility previously described regarding the wall. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-03 with modification to provide that the existing 6-foot wall may remain until such time as the permit expires or a permanent building is constructed. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 13, 1994 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , , OLD BUSINESS Ce ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-20 - WILKINSON - The development of a 33,000 square foot office building on 3 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-144-80. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 9, 1994.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Marshall Wilkinson, 20401 Bayview Avenue, Santa Ana Heights, stated he was amenable to doing the project as laid out. Commissioner Melcher thanked Mr. Wilkinson for his positive and affirmative response made to the comments made at the March 9 meeting. Tim Beedle, K & B Associates, stated they were pleased they were able to address all the comments. There were no further public comments on this item. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to issue a negative declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review 93-20. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 119 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - A request to amend the Uniform Sign Program for Foothill Marketplace to change the definition of. a "major tenant" within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-27 through 44. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked the source of Exhibit F. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 13, 1994 Brad Buller, City Planner, responded it had come from a study reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission in the past. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that it had been submitted by a sign contractor. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, 3620 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, believed that small, out of scale signs would ruin the architecture. He thought what they were proposing would be aesthetically pleasing and in scale with the architecture. He remarked that although Sports Chalet is a major tenant entitling them to the larger sign letters, their store frontage is actually less than Office Depot and PetsMart and the same as Michaels, which are not considered majors. He felt the massing of the entries of the latter three is comparable to Sports Chalet. He commented that the stores are national tenants and their leases are 15 to 25 years in length; therefore, he thought the store names should not be changing in the near future. He stated that an approval by the Commission would not automatically approve any future 36-inch signs, as such future signs would require Design Review Committee approval. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher stated he had favored the larger signs when the matter had last been before the Commission and he still favored it. He felt the sign size should be more a matter of the relationship of the sign to the building face than to an arbitrary number in a sign program. He was not sure how the signs would relate to the other buildings and the respective distances to Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the PetCo sign in the Hughes center appears enormous because of the thickness of the letters and thought merely trying to control sign size by relating it to the tenant size does not necessarily give the best results. He felt that none of the signs would be out of proportion to the facade with 36-inch letters and he favored the request. Commissioner McNiel questioned the distance to Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Murphy replied that PetsMart would be the closest at 395 feet and the furthest would be Office Depot at 420 feet. Commissioner McNiel felt that there would be no need to expand the letters in order for the signs to be read from Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Murphy observed that the Price Club building is set back 520 feet and has a 54-inch sign. Chairman Barker acknowledged that the Commission had been careful through the years in making sure that the major criteria of signage was for business identification, but he felt the Commission should also consider the applicant's point that the smaller signs would be architecturally out of scale. He felt that some of the buildings have massive building fronts and 36-inch signs would be acceptable in this situation whereas another building at another location with another font may be inappropriate. Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 13, 1994 Commissioner McNiel thought that a good example of an out-of-scale sign is the Willie & Pie sign with 24-inch letters which are too bold and overwhelming. He felt that PetsMart signs typically read very large. He was concerned that the Michaels sign appears weak because of the font width. Chairman Barker stated his understanding of tonight's action would be to permit 30-inch letters with an ability to request 36-inch letters with Design Review approval. Me said he was more concerned with the fonts and designs. He felt there are examples of signs which may be within a numerical propriety but distract from the building. He thought so long as the signs go through the Design Review process, the larger size would not detract from the center but could enhance the building. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He commented that in many jurisdictions it is permissible to have 2 square feet of sign area for every linear foot of frontage. He observed that would work out to a 200 square foot sign for a 100-foot frontage. He believed in the aesthetic quality of the community and he did not think 36-inch signs would be out of scale but felt the smaller signs would be out of scale with the character of the building. He supported the applicant's request. Commissioner McNiel asked the size of the letters on Target. Mr. Murphy replied the letters are 51 inches and the bull's eye is 60 inches high. Mr. Buller requested that the Commission approve the actual signs if it felt that 36-inch letters would be appropriate rather than sending the applicant back to the Design Review Committee for final approval. He suggested the Commission may also wish to leave the stores as intermediate with 24-inch high permitted signs but change the sign program to allow signs up to 36 inches in height with approval by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Lumpp felt that made sense. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Mr. Buller's recommendation. Commissioner Tolstoy felt 36 inches is appropriate because of the building mass, the distance from the street, the fonts used, and the shortness of the names but he did want a precedent set that intermediate tenants would automatically get 36-inch letters. Commissioner Melcher felt that if intermediates are permitted an option of going to 36-inch letters, there would be more applications and each one would be a fight for the Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy said that was why he felt the reasoning for granting the larger signs should be based on the building mass and the distance from the street. Mr. Bullet said the Commission already has seen the site plan and the project is being built. Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 13, 1994 Chairman Barker noted the Commission's action would pertain solely to the Foothill Marketplace Center. Commissioner Melcher observed the applicant had requested 30-inch letters with the flexibility to go to 36 inches and he thought that request was appropriate. Commissioner McNiel felt the Commission was looking at the weakness of the Michaels sign and not considering the other signs. Commissioner Melcher did not agree with the suggestion that the requested signs be approved this evening without final review by the Design Review Committee. Chairman Barker said he did not have any problems with approving the three requested signs. Commissioner Tolstoy did not want to make the applicant go back to Design Review for these three signs. Chairman Barker agreed he would prefer to approve the signs tonight. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve an amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 119 for Foothill Marketplace to lower the major tenant square footage to 17,000 square feet and to approve the 36-inch signs proposed for Office Depot, PetsMart, and Michaels. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: B~tKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY MCNIEL NONE -carried Commissioner McNiel stated he was still concerned that the Commission was giving undue consideration to the weakest sign. , , , , , NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATION TO A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-03 - POMONA FIRST FEDERAL - A request to delete the condition to install a street light for the requested use of an Automated Teller Machine (ATM), located on the north side of 5th Street, east of Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-341-08. Dan James, Senior Civil. Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the applicant had stated that Southern California Edison (SCE) had indicated the nearest conduit is over 230 feet away. He asked if staff had been in touch with SCE. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 13, 1994 Mr. James replied that although staff had not contacted SCE, he had no reason to doubt the statement. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Police Department has to verify the foot- candle ratio because of the ATM. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that state law prescribes a certain foot- candle for all ATMs and it does not have to be reviewed or approved by the local Police Department. Mr. James said it is just coincidental that the ATM is near the required street light location. He commented that the street light was conditioned, not because of the ATM, but because of potential increased night traffic in an area which had been designed for industrial uses. Chairman Barker asked how staff related a traffic number to the introduction of an ATM in an industrial area. Mr. James said it was just an estimate and no exact numbers were generated. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there are any uses surrounding the location which are open 24 hours. Mr. James replied that State Farm does have night activities and they installed a street light at the corner of Milliken and Fifth Street. He thought the California Highway Patrol is also open 24 hours per day. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had been to the site at night and he felt the area is very dark. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Ken Salyer, Williams Architects, Inc. 276 North Second Avenue, Upland, stated the applicant feels that the size of the project does not justify the enormous expense and the delays of putting in the street light. He said the ATM is being put in to serve the surrounding work force in the area and they feel there will be very little increase in night traffic on Fifth Street. He noted State Assembly Bill 244 requires a very high level of lighting within a 50-foot radius of any ATM and said that the ATM kiosk will be near enough to the street that light spill-over will address any lighting concerns at the entry points to the site. He said that although the street light spacing is constructed per standards in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the area had been master planned for many years as a business park. He thought perhaps a street light should have been included with the Bixby Business Park master plan, and felt it was unfair to now request one of only one user. Commissioner Lumpp asked where the ATM will be located on the site. Mr. Salyer showed the location of the proposed ATM and the location of on-site lighting in the area and said the canopy of the kiosk will include additional lighting. He noted the ATM will be located 27 feet from the street and stated that the required 50-foot radius would extend out to the center of the street. Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 13, 1994 Chairman Barker asked if any other banking services are provided at the site. Mr. Salyer responded that people with construction vouchers get checks at the site during the day but no other banking services are provided there. Commissioner Lumpp asked if a street light could be tied into the electrical line used by the ATM. Mr. Salyer replied that they could provide additional lighting on-site, but a street light would require a separate conduit so that Pomona First Federal would not have to pay for the power for the street light. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there would be a way to shut down the ATM at night. Mr. Salyer replied he would guess it could be done. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy said it was his understanding that the early approvals for the Bixby Ranch project were for an industrial project. Mr. Buller confirmed it was originally a general industrial project. Commissioner Tolstoy observed the applicant had brought up the issue that the street light should have been required when Bixby Ranch was first designed. He felt that since the project was originally an industrial project, street lights had been designed for an industrial project. He thought that because of the change in use with State Farm, the Highway Patrol, and Sears, it has been turned into an office park but the project was not designed as such. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that public safety on the street requires a street light. He felt that any use which was not intended would require an upgrade of the street lighting because the facility has the potential for increasing night street traffic. Commissioner Melcher stated his understanding is that the use may be different from that which is contemplated by the original zoning but believed to be appropriate within the existing zone subject to conditions which may or may not include modifications to improvements within the right-of-way. Me thought that if the street light spacing was based on City standards for an industrial area, perhaps the City should reconsider the standards because industrial uses tend to be 24-hour operations. He observed that staff has indicated there will be more night traffic and the applicant felt the night use would be negligible. He suggested deferring the installation for a year and then enforcing the requirement if it is still felt necessary based on the experience of the Police Department with respect to crime and traffic problems in the area. Commissioner McNiel noted that ATMs serve two purposes: convenience during the day when the banks are crowded and availability at night when the banks are closed. He felt that it is important that nearby areas also be well Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 13, 1994 lit. He did not think the management of Pomona First Federal would be willing to shut down the ATM at night. Commissioner Lumpp did not think an ATM should be installed in the area because of the darkness of the area, the surroundings, and the landscaping. He thought a street light should be required to provide better visibility. Chairman Barker stated that although he would like to say there would not be so much additional traffic that a street light would be necessary, he now found it impossible to do anything but support the street light because several of the other Commissioners had brought up the public safety issue. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution denying a modification to the conditions of approval for Minor Development Review 94-03. 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 8:39 p.m. to 8:46 p.m. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. REVIEW OF OFF-SITE HAND-HELD ADVERTISING - REQUESTED BY CITATION HOMES Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker expressed concern that the Planning Commission not be placed in a position of adjudicating where it does not have authority. He said the Commission can set policies, recommend City Codes, and determine what is consistent with policy. He stated that a violation of a code is an enforcement factor which should be enforced through due process. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the applicant had requested a hearing before the Planning Commission because Section 14.16,040.E of the Municipal Code gives the owner of a sign the right to ask for a hearing before removal of the sign. Mr. Bullet said he had informed the applicant that the reference in the Code refers to permanent signs which require some construction so that the owners of such signs would be permitted a hearing before the City physically removes such signs, but Mr. Linton still requested a hearing before the Commission. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission hear the applicant and defer the matter back to staff and the attorneys for processing. Chairman Barker felt the Commission could hear the matter, but reiterated the Commission does not have the right or expertise to function as a municipal judge. He invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 13, 1994 Jerry Linton, Citation Builders, 15101 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin, felt their situation is unique. He said they had been building in the City for almost 10 years and had played by the rules in the past. He indicated they currently have a tract near the southeast corner of Highland and East Avenues which does not front on any major street and is not near any other new housing tracts, with the nearest development area almost a mile away. He said they are a men~ber of the Building Industry Association (BIA) kiosk program and use those sings but have found during the last year that their traffic was down substantially because of the economic downturn. He reported they researched and found that some of the tracts to the north were receiving substantially more traffic that they were. He indicated that after contracting with a company which hires college students to hold up directional arrows, their traffic increased almost 100 percent and their sales improved significantly. He commented they had used the program almost a month before the Code Enforcement staff contacted him. He said he had agreed with Mr. Buller that they would not continue to post people within the City while awaiting the meeting with the Commission. He presented two notebooks with data regarding their traffic counts and some pictures of students holding the directional signs as well as some people in clown costumes and other signs found within the community. He questioned why other violators were not being forced to remove their clowns or illegal signs. He asked that the Commission direct staff to not be so aggressive in their enforcement of the Sign Ordinance. He said he did not believe the students holding directional arrows constitute a sign, but are merely directional aids. He noted that the students are only there during the days on weekends. He commented that if he built a large illegal sign it would remain in place while they were going through the court system and the arrow program leaves no litter on the streets and creates no traffic impediments and there are no signs during the week. Commissioner McNiel asked how far along they are in their sales program. Mr. Linton replied they still have approximately 20 homes left to sell and he anticipated they would probably finish selling in October if they are permitted to continue using the arrow program. He said when they first opened up, they put up flags in the back of the development by the freeway but the City had forced them to remove the flags. Frank Williams, Executive Director of BIA, 10356 Mahogany Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher asked if he knew of any other builders in the City or area making use of people holding directional signs. Mr. Williams replied that on the last Saturday he had seen three clowns directing people into apartment complexes and one building tract on Haven Avenue. He said he also had seen someone flagging people into a pizza parlor on Foothill Boulevard. He agreed the Citation project is difficult to see. Commissioner Melcher felt the intent of the kiosk program was to remove illegal, bootleg advertising. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 13, 1994 Mr. Williams said that is part of the agreement for participation in the kiosk program. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Williams had any thoughts on how the City could help developers who do not have a good window for their project. Mr. Williams replied that Victorville has a very strong sign ordinance and there were a number of projects that were not pulling in sufficient traffic. He said the BIA, builders, and Victorville Planning Commission had a workshop and the City approved a program to allow each development to erect up to four temporary signs on Friday evenings with the signs to be removed each Sunday. Commissioner Lumpp asked if a kiosk is located near the project. Mr. Linton replied there is one located at the intersection of Base Line Road and East Avenue and another on Highland just before East Avenue, but the traffic goes by very quickly. He said the project cannot be seen from Highland and East Avenue because there are large trees on Highland and the development does not front on Highland. He reported that hand-held directional aids are approved in a number of cities including Adelanto, Victorville, Irvine, and Newport Beach. He said the program has become necessary for tracts with difficult locations because of hard economic times. He stated they had tried all kinds of advertising campaigns. Chairman Barker asked if the Sign Task Force had considered this matter. Commissioner McNiel replied they touched on temporary signs, but in the context of duration of time they may be posted. He said they did not discuss hand-held signs. Chairman Barker asked if hand-held signs are specifically mentioned in any City regulations. Mr. Buller replied they are not. Chairman Barker asked if the clowns are legal. Mr. Buller replied the City has permitted clowns without signs. He noted that Lewis Homes has used clowns at intersections where permitted signs are located and the clowns point to the permitted signs. Chairman Barker said he would like to be able to do something to assist business people in drawing attention so long as it does not completely disrupt traffic. He felt that most business people are not interested in long-term temporary signs. Commissioner McNiel felt the clowns and directional arrow people are a product of the times. He said Santa Claus and other characters have been located on Christmas tree lots and pumpkin lots, etc. in the past, but they were on-site and temporary. He thought there has now been an increase in the use of clowns. Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 13, 1994 Mr. Buller recalled the kiosk program was instituted to eliminate all the bootleg signs which were located throughout the City and to .bring a professional conformance into how residential projects are identified within the City. He thought it may be time to reevaluate the program and meet with the BIA and developers to try to look at other options. Me suggested the Commission could direct staff to work with the BIA to see what other communities are doing and what other options are available. He said it was his understanding that members of the program agreed to abide by the rules and not create a disturbance. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that when the kiosk program was set up there had been a proliferation of trailer signs and there had been no thought of people holding signs. He said he has seen a lot of clowns lately but they are pointing to on-site signs or businesses. Chairman Barker suggested staff meet with the BIA to consider the matter and possible modification to the Sign Ordinance. He thought such types of advertising were probably not considered at the time the ordinance was approved. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed there were no clowns 10 years ago. Commissioner Melcher felt that when the City was in its infancy, some of the rigidity was probably necessary to get the City going in the right direction. He thought the City is now recognized as being fairly sophisticated and should be willing to "let its hair down" on weekends to try to help sell houses. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if such an attitude should be extended to pizza parlors, bowling alleys, etc. Me did not support the use of hand-held signs. Commissioner Melcher felt there is a difference between an established business and a process of manufacturing and selling a product, which is a lengthy process. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Melcher about the length of time to manufacture and sell housing. He stated he does not object to a clown standing on a corner pointing to a house because it is much cleaner than some of the illegal signs which are left out and are uncontrolled. He observed that the people holding signs go home at night. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that they are also not there during the week. Mr. Linton felt that the college students they use are less obtrusive than clowns. Chairman Barker felt clowns are acceptable. Commissioner McNiel stated he is sympathetic to the situation that exists but he observed that real estate is a risky business. He said that the location of property, along with its access and view corridors, is known at the time the land is purchased and less desirable locations would probably mean lower Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 13, 1994 acquisition costs. He agreed that the economy has turned down and he was not opposed to trying to help Mr. Linton but he was opposed to becoming lax and liberal with the sign criteria. He felt the City is a cut above others and he wanted to hold onto that image. Chairman Barker agreed that he was not advocating carte blanche clowns on every corner. He asked if staff had sufficient direction. Mr. Buller said he would work with the BIA on a permanent solution to addressing the issue. Commissioner Melcher felt that the Code Enforcement staff should be praised for their work. Commissioner Lumpp asked about clowns. Chairman Barker said he thought if someone is on their own property pointing to an existing sign, that person is not considered a sign. He thought a person would become a sign when they carry a sign. Commissioner McNiel said that the people are rarely on their own property because they are out at the street or across the street. Mr. Alcorn said staff has contacted many builders and businesses regarding this situation and staff has taken the position that there is a difference between a sign and a costumed character without a sign. Me stated a costumed character is a pedestrian and can be on either public or private property as a pedestrian. He said that typically when the costumed characters are at off- site locations, they have no correlation to what they are advertising unless they have a sign. He said people are cautioned regarding inherent problems with traffic. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:23 p.m. to a workshop in the Rains Room regarding Development Review 94-04, the North Town affordable housing project. Chairman Barker called the regular meeting back into session at 11:15 p.m. G. FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 ENGINEERING'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Following a brief discussion of the projects, it was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed 1994/95 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. H. STREAMLINING THE PLANNING PROCESS Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 13, 1994 Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. The Planning Commission agreed with the proposed direction and asked staff to set a hearing for the proposed changes. I. 1994 DESIGN AWARDS Brad Buller, City Planner, reported on the status of the program. The Commissioners agreed to submit their individual selections to staff by April 18, 1994. COMMISSION BUSINESS J. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEES Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Development Review Processing Committee and the Route 30 Committee would no longer be standing committees. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission agreed to work with the City Council on any future issues relating to the development review process. Commissioners Tolstoy and Melcher were asked to observe the Route 30 Forum activities and keep the full Commission informed. It was also the consensus of the Commission that because of the major change in the membership of the Tree Preservation Ordinance Committee, the Commission's participation would be at the request of the City Council and the Commission appointments would be rescinded until otherwise notified by City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 13, 1994