Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/05/12 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 12, 2010 Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: Francisco Oaxaca STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Jennifer Nakamura,Associate Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith,Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Senior Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director • ANNOUNCEMENTS I None • APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Howdyshell, carried (3-0-1-1 Munoz abstain, Oaxaca absent), to approve the minutes of April 28, 2010. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2009-00880 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A proposal to remodel the exterior of Buildings A through K (Buildings L through N are not-a-part) and install new landscaping at an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road-APN: 1076-481-25 through-35. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities. Chairman Fletcher noted that a letter was received from the applicant on May 10; 2010, requesting withdrawal of their application and therefore the item would not be heard. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00397 - NORWALK BOULEVARD BAPTIST CHURCH -JOHN KIM -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for the development of a 7,442 square foot church on 1.04-acres of land in two phases(Phase I:4,977 square feet; Phase II: 2,472 square feet) in the Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre)within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of East Avenue,generally south of the 210 Freeway and south of the 1-15 Freeway at 7384 East Avenue -APN: 1100- 051-03. This action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-Fill Development Project. James Troyer, Planning Director noted that staff would like to continue the item and re-notice it to be heard at a later date. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit application needed to be combined with a Design Review application. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. No comments were made. The public hearing remained open. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell,to continue the item to a later date. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: OAXACA, - carried f t * * Vice Chairman Munoz recused himself from the following hearing item because of his employment with AT & T and left the Council Chambers at approximately 7:20 p.m. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2009-00681-AT&T WIRELESS -A request to install a 45 foot- high wireless communication equipment mounted on a 50 foot-high monopalm in the Regional Related Office Commercial District, in the Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 4, located at 12879 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0229-031-28. This project is categorically exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). Jennifer Nakamura,Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that corrections have been made to the draft resolution. She reported that the stealth design of the cell site will be a monopalm and not a monopine as noted in conditions 5 and 8 of the resolution. She added that the CEQA exemption noted in the resolution has been expanded to include a Class 32 exemption, 15332 - Infill Projects. Commissioner Howdyshell noted a newspaper article and asked if staff has received any comment on the project. Ms. Nakamura stated no calls or correspondence have been received. She added that the original proposal sited the facility closer to the neighbors, but the design now reflects that the facility is now about 150 feet further from the residential neighborhood. Chairman Fletcher remarked that the facility is to the rear of the site and that the view of the site from the north will be minimal except for the monopalm portion of the facility. Ms. Nakamura reported that the monopalm will also be within the enclosure with minimal access for security and public safety reasons. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 12, 2010 • Kathy O'Conner-Phelps thanked staff for the assistance and noted that the additional site will assist in providing good cell coverage. She said they have reviewed and agree to all the conditions of approval. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wimberly said he is pleased with the application and that he worked with the applicant at the DRC and he has no problem with the request. Commissioner Howdyshell concurred and said that it is a straightforward application. Chairman Fletcher noted it is a stealth design and he favors a monopalm to a monopine. He said the proposal is acceptable and he is glad for more cell sites. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly,to adopt the Resolution of Approval with conditions for DRC2009-00681 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:. FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: OAXACA, ABSTAIN: MUNOZ, - carried Vice Chairman Munoz returned to the Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. D. NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2010-00152-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to operate a heavy equipment sales and rental business that will sell and lease trailers for heavy trucks on a partially developed property of approximately 4.2-acres in the General Industrial (GI) District (Subarea 14), located at 9366 Santa Anita Avenue - APN: 0229-321-11. This project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City CEQA Guidelines. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Munoz asked if the applicant responded to staffs suggestions that were brought to the Commission. Mr. Smith reported that there was some discussion of the suggestions with the applicants prior to the preparation of the staff report, but that he had not heard from them since. Chairman Fletcher asked if this is a conforming use on a non-conforming property. Mr. Smith said some permits can be found for the previous use and they were operating legally. He reported that in 1994 approvals were given for the site and for the temporary modular building only and not for the rest of the use. Chairman Fletcher asked how long Ryder Trucks had been there. Mr. Smith said he was unsure, about 20-years. James Troyer, Planning Director said the applicant's letter indicates 30 years. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 12, 2010 • Chairman Fletcher asked if our Codes were in place at that time. Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney, stated that portions of our Code had been adopted but that the use was non-conforming even then. He stated that the use was discontinued in 2008. Chairman Fletcher stated that according to the staff report, it is up to the Planning Commission to determine what requirements to apply to this project and that only the Planning Commission can change from one non-conforming use to different non-conforming use. He asked if there are other restrictions for that. Mr. Flower stated that this application should be considered a new Conditional Use Permit because this would bring it up to Code for a new conforming use. Chairman Fletcher asked if it is at the Planning Commission's pleasure to make a determination and the Planning Commission does not agree with staff's recommendation then the Commission has the authority to do that. Mr. Flower advised that the Commission choose from the three options given regarding paving. Vice Chairman Munoz referred to page D-4 of the staff report, the first paragraph. He stated that it indicates the Commission makes the call on that. Mr. Flower said that was correct. Chairman Fletcher asked if in the conversations with the applicant if a cost to pave the 3 acres had been mentioned. • James Troyer, Planning Director, stated that the applicant's letter indicates $300,000. Mr. Flower stated that this number is not supported by any other accounting. Chuck Buquet spoke on behalf of the applicant, Charles Joseph Associates. He passed out a 7-- page document of materials to the Commission and staff. He stated that the applicant agreed to everything but the paving condition. He claimed there have been no complaints from the adjacent property owners regarding dust issues and the previous tenant was there for 30 years. He said he disagreed with staff regarding non-conforming sites. He claimed the owner has brought many projects to the City. He said that these are difficult economic times and that staff should be looking at the context of the application. He asserted that this use should not be treated like a regular parking lot and that it had previously been used for the same purpose for 30 years. He claimed that if the CUP process had not taken so long, they would have made it within the 180-day period. He claimed the previous use moved out in 2009 and that Ryder had all their applicable approvals, He said the CUP application under consideration relates to sales and leasing. He said that the barbed wire has been removed and that the applicant has already slurried the parking area in the front. He said he could not see spending $300,000 to grade and pave an area for trailers to sit on. He referred to the Development Code Section 17.12.030 for the design of industrial parking. He said the Code provides for alternate materials and that the area in question would only be for the holding and staging trailers. He claimed the Planning Director had said he was only comfortable with paving the site. Mr. Buquet claimed it was the under the Director's purview to approve the application. He claimed that Minor Development Review application DRC2010-00225 was approved last month for something very similar. He claimed the paving would be cost prohibitive because it would take so long to recapture the cost that the owner might be prevented from building a building there in the future. He referred to Section 17.42.110 of the Development Code regarding Storm Water Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 12, 2010 • Prevention Plan Best Management Practices. He said a gravel material would allow percolation of water. He claimed that non-construction CUP's do not normally come to the Commission. He claimed that compliance with the Development Code standards impose a substantial hardship and could lead to deterioration of the site and/or a red-tag issue. He said Section 17.04.030 of the Development code says"the purpose of Conditional Use Permits is to create flexibility." He said the owner has agreed to make sure they create no dust and they would apply a bonding agent to the gravel. He claimed the City Yard has not been required to pave their lot. He claimed that phasing the paving would not be cost effective or feasible. He said the owners want the use approved without any further modifications to the property. He said the Planning Commission and the City Council need to talk about the policy regarding bringing up to Code non-conforming sites because it is problematic. He said a bike rack is not really needed because the proposed use is a small operation and bike storage could be found inside the building. He claimed the requirement for more parking lot lights is not necessary because of the limited hours of the operation and there is sufficient lighting already on site. He claimed there is no precedent for requiring a new trash enclosure. He claimed that the single trash dumpster on site had been moved into the building. He claimed the wall is slump stone, which he believes is an approved decorative material. He said the requirement for a landscape improvement plan is excessive. He said the applicant agreed to trim the trees and enhance the landscaping along the frontage. He referred to#10 on page D-5 of the staff report regarding outdoor storage of sales products and said the applicant wants to be sure that this would not prohibit tractor-related equipment. He referred to#11 on page D-5 of the staff report regarding signs and said the sign permit should stay the same. He said again that the requirements refer to parking lot standards but this is not a parking lot. He said again that the barbed wire has been removed and the gate will be painted. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if Mr. Buquet's handout had been presented to staff. Mr. Buquet said this document was prepared for the Commission. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if this document is a surprise to staff. Mr. Buquet said the issues were not because they were already presented to staff item by item. Mr. Flower stated that this is the first time staff has seen the document. Mr. Troyer confirmed that staff has not seen it previously. Mr. Buquet said that staff has not seen the document, but claimed staff had reviewed all the items noted in the document. Mr. Troyer stated that is untrue. Commissioner Howdyshell asked about the approval of DRC2010-00225 and if that had been pointed out to staff. • Mr. Buquet said he had pointed it out to staff. He claimed that the approval was for the City Yard. He said he took exception to Mr. Troyer's comment about that being untrue: He claimed that Charlie Buquet had several discussions with Mike Smith and that the only issue brought up by staff was the paving. He said the applicant thought they were in concurrence with staff. He claimed the staff report was substantially modified by the time they received it. He said the requirements, if imposed, would be "moving the finish line," and would have adverse affects. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 12, 2010 • Commissioner Wimberly stated that staff said that Ryder Trucks did not have the proper permits but Mr. Buquet said they did. He asked for clarification. Mr. Buquet claimed that Ryder had a prior permit to operate but that the Municipal Code has changed since then. He said Ryder had some permits and licenses but he said that they were told some things were issued in error. He stated again that he thought the only issue was the paving. Chairman Fletcher noted that one staff recommendation was for a binding agent to be applied to the gravel surface. Mr. Buquet said a number of these agents are available and the applicant agreed to do that. Mr. Flower stated that one option presented by staff was paving or an alternate surface noted in the report. Mr. Flower stated that the applicant is only objecting to the paving but not objecting to an alternative surface. Mr. Buquet said they did not object to an alternative surface. Commissioner Howdyshell stated that the applicant's document does provide for an alternative surface, although since the Commission had not seen his document before tonight, she also wanted to know if staff had seen it. Mr. Buquet stated the document he handed out is just a presentation format of what the applicant had already reviewed with staff. • Darrel Butler stated he is the owner of the property. He claimed he has built 30 buildings in Rancho Cucamonga totaling over 4 million square feet. He said he purchased this property in June, 2008 and Ryder moved out in June of 2009. He said when he bought the property, the goal was to build a 72,000 square foot building, but that they cannot do that right now because of the economy. He reported that it took 6 months to find a tenant and that they were close to the 180-day time limit. He said Trailer Fleet is the new tenant and that they negotiated the lease in January of 2009, they submitted a Conditional Use Permit application in February. He said that they were told that . because they exceeded the 180-days, they would have to apply for a CUP. He said they already agreed to all the conditions with the exception of the paving. He claimed that to do all the required improvements would cost $400,000 and that is not feasible. He said it would be wasted money when a new building is constructed. He said the City allows for alternative surfaces and the current surface is an alternative that works well. He suggested the Commission consider LEED standards; and claimed that the current surface is the best material because pavement would increase water runoff and can create heat islands because it is not solar reflective. He claimed asphalt fails both LEED tests. He claimed that if he is required to pave the property the old building and asphalt heat island will remain for many years. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Howdyshell said the report contains a laundry list of standards and requests,some of which have already been addressed. She said the issue she sees is to address is the alternative surface. She commented that she is not a LEED expert and did not know if gravel is truly an alternative surface. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 12, 2010 Commissioner Wimberly stated that from their various tours, gravel is within LEED standards and that they could consider having the option to coat it but that he believed the applicant and staff should work that out. Chairman Fletcher stated that his personal goal in land use and development decisions is to see that every new development be equal or better than what we already have but that this is different in that there is no new construction; it is a Non-Construction CUP. He said he sees many conflicting things in the report and that he is disappointed in this laundry list of requirements for an existing business in the midst of one the worst recessions in our lifetime. He asked staff to concentrate on customer service and help applicants through the process to meet the applicant's goals and the goals of the City. He said the requirements would be okay if the application was for new construction. He reported that he has visited the site and that in his own business he has financed many truck/trailer dealers. He said in referring to the staff report that the requirements proposed are more in tune with a regular parking lot for automobiles/vehicles rather than industrial parking. He said essentially the same business is being proposed. He stated the site was vacant for 6 months which is not too long for this economy. He said we need to help the applicant. He stated the property had fallen into disrepair and there are weeds and dead trees, but the barbed wire has • already been removed. He said a property down the road had been recently vandalized with graffiti, which indicated a security issue. He stated that Fontana has reported many tire thefts off of trailers parked at other businesses. He said that if we impose requirements that are not economically feasible, then the site might stay vacant and deteriorate. He referred to the Development Code and said that the complaint is that Rancho is paving too much and losing groundwater. He said he would like to see a tenant on the subject property. He said the applicant already worked on the front landscaping and slurried the front portion of the lot. He said the wall on the south side of the property is stucco on the outside and construction block on the inside. He said the purpose of the Code is to make it nice for the neighbors and this accomplishes that. He said the other wall to the north is mostly obscured by oleander bushes and most of the site is well screened from Santa Anita Avenue. He said the gates are rusty now but should be fine with a new coat of paint. He said the City is going overboard on required improvements to the interior of the site, that paving three acres is unreasonable and does not benefit the applicant or the City. He said these requirements are more appropriate for new construction. He said the lot is for staging and leasing trailers, that the property is fairly well developed for the use. He said that if the applicant is okay with using the coating agent then he believes that is fine. He said there are no complaints about fugitive dust mentioned in the staff report. He said the applicant asked staff to ensure the current signage is acceptable. He said that landscaped planters and curbs are not necessary, and that the issue of a bike rack is up to staff but that he did not think many people would ride their bike to a General Industrial facility. He said that the requirement for the trash enclosure is not appropriate because this is a non-construction CUP. He said that he would like to see fresh paint. He said that the he would like the requirement for landscaping and replacing trees, but said that hiring a landscape architect is not necessary for this. He said his biggest concern is that this issue got this far and he is disappointed. He said he could see why the Planning Director and staff did not want to make the call because it is a non-conforming property under the Code. Mr. Troyer commented related to the 180-day requirement. He said the list of requirements shown in the staff report are not intended to hammer the applicant, it is just to present to the Commission the requirements that would be imposed if the property is deemed non-conforming. He said the purpose was to inform the Commission of what the Code requirements are and it is for the Planning Commission to decide what improvements are appropriate. Commissioner Howdyshell said that she interprets it, "to establish standards." Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 12, 2010 Chairman Fletcher stated that the Code applies to new construction applications where those costs can be absorbed. He said they are only trying to bring in a new tenant in an existing business and that improvement will be seen with or without pavement, it will still be better than imposing the requirements which will have a deteriorating effect. Vice Chairman Munoz stated that the applicant's representative has some problems with staff. He stated the City has an excellent staff. He said that he is a believer in standards and that the applicant will get a better deal with staff than with the Commission. He said if the application comes before him again with 18 items he would vote to have every standard upheld. Chairman Fletcher said that staff asked for the Commission's recommendation. He said they should specifically discuss the four proposals. Vice Chairman Munoz said he would not discuss these conditions with the representative if they cannot work with staff. He said it is apparent that the applicant's representative cannot work with staff. He said that he does not agree that these standards are only for new building projects. He said he did not feel that the City should lessen their standards because of the economy. He said he has to tell people while serving on the DRC that they have to meet standards and asked how he make that play out with the applicant when we do not require it of others. He asked what standard he should use: a pro-forma statement, their ability to pay? Chairman Fletcher said there is room for flexibility and common sense and that he would not send this back to staff to haggle it out there. He said it is at the Commission's discretion to make this decision. Vice Chairman Munoz said that if it was one or two items to look at then he could use a little flexibility. He said the applicant has a problem with every thing that staff suggested. Commissioner Howdyshell said that some of the requirements are already accomplished and some are not. She said she would like the report cleaned up so they are assured of what they are looking at. Chairman Fletcher said he favors paving option #4 (compacted gravel surface) but the applicant agrees with option #2 (apply a binder to the compacted gravel surface). Vice Chairman Munoz asked Counsel if it is appropriate to make a motion to send this back to staff to get it resolved. Mr. Flower said an appropriate motion to accomplish that would be to move to continue the item and send it back to staff to work with the applicant towards a resolution. Vice Chairman Munoz made such a motion. Commissioner Howdyshell offered a second to the motion. Chairman Fletcher said the Planning Commission would be shirking its job and that staff brought no recommendation to them. He said he personally does not agree with all these requirements. He said there is no reason this could not be accomplished tonight in the framework of the meeting. He said staff asked for a directive and that the Commission would not be doing its job if it did not provide one. He said if the Commission sends it back without a directive then it would be a waste of time for staff and the applicants. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 12, 2010 • Commissioner Wimberly said in this case they can only direct staff to work with the client, they cannot direct the client to work with the staff. He said he believes that is giving them direction and that if they brought it back again like this it would not be pleasant for anyone and he did not believe it would go that way. He stated that there was a motion with a second and based upon that motion he suggested they direct staff to work with the client. Mr. Flower advised the Commission that if the CUP is approved without bringing the property up to Code then the Commission would be legalizing a non-conforming use until the property should change to another use. He said there might be no other opportunity to bring the property up to Code at a later time and that is a potential impact of this decision. He said he had not been asked to engage in the application process up to this point but that he would be willing to work with staff towards a resolution with the applicant. Commissioner Howdyshell said she agreed with Counsel because the Commission and staff only received the applicant's hand out tonight and that staff needs the opportunity to review it. Chairman Fletcher asked the Planning Director if he wanted to bring the Commission back to the table for more discussion. Mr. Troyer said there is motion on the floor with a second. He pointed out that the decision is at the pleasure of the Commission. He said that the owner had not agreed to the 6 improvements listed on page D-4 of the staff report, and that is why we are here. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if#11 (regarding signs)on page D-5 of the staff report needed to go back to the DRC. Mr. Troyer said that the owner need only comply with the City Ordinance. He said if there is a name change they need a sign permit. Vice Chairman Munoz asked if they were going to vote on the seconded motion. Chairman Fletcher said that he was not done with the discussion yet. Vice Chairman Munoz said they could add Counsel's suggestion for Counsel to get involved with the solution. Chairman Fletcher said items 1 through 5 on page D-4 of the staff report are staff suggestions not requirements. Mr. Flower said that some of those are stated in the Development Code as requirements. Chairman Fletcher said that the Commission can approve the change a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. He said the Commission needs to use common sense and that in a recession we need to work for solutions. He said that the business was there for 30 years and that with variances the Code makes allowances for economics. He said there is some flexibility and there should be some economic considerations given to the property owner. He said the City could be taking it to the point of no longer considering the people we serve. He said at some point the property will be improved. He said we do this with variances. He said the Planning Commission has the ability to approve this. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 12, 2010 • Commissioner Wimberly stated that there was a motion before the Commission. He said the applicant and staff can have the opportunity to work it out and that the application can be brought back to them. Vice Chairman Munoz said the Code is fairly applied across the board to each project and each project is treated equally. He said the findings expose the decision to analysis as to how the Commission arrived at a decision, He said the Commission has no methodology to decide which parts of the Code to apply. He asked if it should be based upon the applicants ability to pay. He said the Commission would be setting a precedent. He asked how would the Commission give others the same advantage that was given to this applicant-a similar dollar concession, and what would they tell other trucking businesses when we require them to meet the standards: He asked at what point could the Commission determine when the market has turned around. He said he did not see how to apply the methodology. He noted the motion on the floor. He said they should send it back to staff and get a resolution and come up with some decisions. He said that the applicant seems more willing to come to an agreement than his representative. Chairman Fletcher said the application was brought to the Commission because the Planning Director was uncomfortable making a decision for a non-conforming property. Mr. Troyer said that was not his word. He said he did not believe the Code gave him the authority to make that decision. He said the Planning Commission has the authority to either continue a non- conforming use or change a non-conforming use. He said there is nothing in the Code that gives the Planning Director that authority. He noted that once the property is vacated for over 180 days than the property must meet the requirements for the development district as listed in the report. Chairman Fletcher said that he did not see that much disagreement, so if it goes back to staff and they talk about it, then would it come back to the Commission for action. Mr. Troyer said that staff will narrow the list. He said he believed that was the intent of the motion and the second. Chairman Fletcher asked if this could be done in a prompt manner. Mr. Troyer said it could be brought back in two weeks. Vice Chairman Munoz said it would take however long it takes and a time frame was not part of his motion. Chairman Fletcher said he took issue with Vice Chairman Munoz's attitude regarding businesses and he said that it is not all about the Code. He said there are a lot of items, and it is not a first application and that there is not much common sense being used. Vice Chairman Munoz said we have a motion and the Chair is out of order. Chairman Fletcher said he is the Chair and they can have discussion until he calls for the Commission to take a vote. He said this application is not the first that has come before them where some concessions were made. He said that if the Commission tries to apply the Code to every situation it won't work. Mr. Flower repeated the motion noting that it is to continue the item with the direction for staff to work with the applicant to resolve the issues and that there is no date attached specifically to that motion. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 12, 2010 Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, to continue the item with the direction for staff to work with the applicant to resolve the remaining issues. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: FLETCHER, ABSENT: OAXACA - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Ed Dietl asked how these problems come to the Planning Department and if they originate with the Planning Department. He noted the red-tagged buildings. He asked how Code Enforcement was notified. Commissioner Howdyshell remarked that she could understand the issue at the Wilson property and that it was a public safety issue and that is why it was red-tagged. She said Code Enforcement is out there for the public safety and she is glad about that. Chairman Fletcher noted that Code Enforcement responds to complaints and because there are new homes across the street from that property, it is possible that someone made a complaint and they responded. t R ! k f COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS Chairman Fletcher added that he wants to see Planning Staff be more customer service oriented and that they are to help the applicant. He said many applicants go through more than they should and he was disappointed that the last hearing item was not handled at the staff level and also that it was not handled at the Planning Commission level. He said if the City and the applicant benefits then it is a "win-win". ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Oaxaca absent),to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m. spectfully submittVcj �• �LL1I ames R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: May 26, 2010 • Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 12, 2010