Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/05/23 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 23, 2007 Chairman Stewart 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 Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL • COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Michael Diaz, Senior Planner; Jerry Dyer, Senior Civil Engineer; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Rina Leung, Senior Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director * * * * * • ANNOUNCEMENTS • Chairman Stewart presented a Resolution of Commendation to Cris McPhail for her service on the Commission from 2003-2007. The remaining Commissioners expressed their thanks and admiration for her contributions to the City and wished her well on her retirement. * * * * APPROVAL OF MINUTES No action was taken on the minutes of May 9, 2007. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2007-00296-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- An amendment to Section 17.08.030 E of the Development Code to establish regulations for yard sales in residential zones. This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Rina Leung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart asked what triggers a code enforcement action in this case if there is no permit issued. James Troyer, Planning Director, stated that it is done on a compliance basis. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment,closed the public hearing. Chairman Stewart commented that the proposed amendment is straightforward and was brought on because some people are having routine garage sales that are becoming more like retail outlets. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00296. The item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006-00224- CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES for Baseline Victoria Park Partners LLC - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Village Commercial to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) designation for approximately 6 acres of land at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court -APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447, Tentative Tract SUBTT18212, Development Review DRC2006-00730, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT . DRC2006-00447-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES for Baseline Victoria Park Partners LLC - A request to change the Victoria Community Plan land use designation from Village Commercial to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)designation for approximately 6 acres of land at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court - APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224, Development Review DRC2006-00730, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007- 00081. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to develop 82 residential condominiums on 6 net acres of land in the proposed Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court-APN: 1089-581-01. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224; Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447; Tentative Tract SUBTT18212, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide 6 net acres of land into 82 residential condominium units in the proposed Medium Residential district (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court -APN: 1089-581- 01. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224; Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447; Development Review DRC2006-00730, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 23, 2007 Mike Diaz, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that there is an easement on the southeast portion of the property which is used for parking by the commercial center to the south. He reported that following the preparation of the report,staff became aware of an unresolved issue regarding the easement which would be addressed by the applicant. He noted that a question arose regarding notification to Indian tribes. He reported that notification of the project to the Native American Heritage Commission was done in accordance with State law via certified mail. They responded by giving us a list of tribes to notify. He said none of the mailings were returned as undeliverable and no comment was received from any of the various councils. He noted a change to the standard conditions which eliminates condition R-1. He said this change effectively makes the homeowners'association rather than the City responsible for the maintenance of the public and parking areas of the development. Chairman Stewart asked if we have received an official document regarding the easement and what does it indicate. Mr. Diaz reported that we have received the documentation and that it favors the development to the south. . Chairman Stewart asked if there was a question regarding our notification to the Native American tribes. Mr. Diaz said that there was a question about it and he located copies of our letters and certified mail receipts evidencing our mailings. He stated no response was received from the tribal councils. Commissioner Munoz asked what the exact issue is with the easement and how binding is it. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, said it is a perpetual easement. He said it gives the property owner to the south the right to park cars there for their commercial center. He said our review of the documents reveals that it is in perpetuity and does not go away in any certain period of time. He said there is no resolution for the issue at this time. He noted that a faxed letter was received from the law offices of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, which comments on this matter and other issues pertaining to the development as well. Commissioner Fletcher asked how the easement originated and if there are monetary considerations. Mr. Diaz stated that it has to do with the original plan to develop the entire site with commercial development. He said it is possible that this parking provided by the easement would supplement the parking for that future development, but that after the first phase, the remaining portions were never developed. He said this is just his opinion as to what it could be. He said he had no information regarding what other agreements may be in place. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. • Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, stated he represents the applicant. He said the recent issue of the easement has complicated things. He reported that he has worked with staff and the neighbors diligently to work out any issues. He said the project was brought to him in 2005 and at that time the plan was different with a proposal for 300 units. He said they scrapped that plan and started over. He noted the development accents and enhances the winery. He reported that they had a neighborhood meeting and notified all the residents within 600 feet of the project. He said that at the neighborhood meeting there were some concerns and questions specifically regarding parking on San Carmelo Court and regarding pedestrian access to the development from San Carmelo Court. He said he had analyzed the ownership of the parcels and it is his belief that the easement in question was intended for parking Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 23, 2007 and access only, and that he did not become aware of the issue until recently. He said his analysis was to ensure that there is sufficient parking for the existing use. He said the previous 20 year old plan anticipated the site being fully developed with a retail commercial site. He thought that the • original plan was for the entire site to be commercial and the easement was to allow for access and reciprocal circulation from one commercial portion to the next. He said there is no benefit for the commercial center to have access to the residential portion of the site nor is there benefit for the residents to have access to the commercial portion. He said the current project was intentionally designed to avoid conflicts with the neighbors on San Carmelo Court. He said the owner of the easement has known the project was coming and now at the 11th hour they are raising this issue. He said that his client would support the idea of approving the project with an added condition that states that no improvements or development would go on the easement area until the concerns regarding the easement are resolved to the satisfaction of the City. He said this would also allow the principal's time to sit down and work out an agreement. He said to delay or defer the project would be a burden and create a hardship for his client. Commissioner Fletcher asked if access for the development runs through the easement. Mr. Buquet said no it does not. Mr. Buquet said that it involves the buildings planned for the southeast portion of the property. He said the intent of the condition is not to touch it until the easement issue is resolved. He said because it is a private easement, it typically would not be one that the City would be concerned with, that he has dealt with these before and the project can go forward and it will be worked out before the recording of the final map. Commissioner Fletcher asked how many units are in the easement area. Mr. Buquet stated there are three buildings affected, a 4-plex and a.3-plex and another building on the frontage in the corner. He said the location of these buildings is important for the"curb appeal" of the project. Commissioner Fletcher commented that it is puzzling how with the application and review process how this easement problem was not raised before. He noted that the Design Review process included that portion of the site. Mr. Buquet commented that the title of the property shows his client owns it, but there is a private property easement relative to the commercial center. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that if it needs to get resolved and if it did not, and if the Commission approved it, then there would be resulting design issues of views of a parking lot that were not intended to be there. Mr. Buquet said it could be handled as part of the final map process to clear and cure these issues. He said the worst case scenario would be that if they were not resolved we would have to preserve that area as"not a part"and there would be a parking lot there. He did not feel the client should be subjected to denial or delay of the entire project because of this particular area in question. Chairman Stewart noted that because of the legal concerns, they would defer to counsel later in the hearing for further explanation and that there are additional challenges in the document submitted by Rutan &Tucker, LLP as well. Hans Van Lighton, of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, an attorney representing the owner of the easement, stated his client understands the developer's desire for a quality project. He said this is not an access easement and the agreement is perpetual. He said the use is exclusive to his client until a commercial site was built and that the builder paid for the lot improvements and for the maintenance of the parking lot. He remarked that the developer's Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 23, 2007 troubles are self inflicted. He noted that the map even indicates an easement,and to build buildings and common areas on someone else's easement is a problem. He said the Commission cannot approve the project presented to them tonight because the project without the easement area would be very different that what has been presented. He commented that his client only learned of the project last week. He said he had not received the notice and therefore hurriedly prepared their response for tonight. He reported that joint ventures had previously been proposed by the applicant/property owner and that his client said no,therefore his remarks about not knowing of the easement issue are untrue and they put their improvements on the plans anyway. He said there are other issues raised in the letter before the Commissioners. He remarked that it is not his client's fault that the easement is there, that staff even made note of it in the staff report. He said his client was even told that the developer intended to ignore the easement. He said the entire project is poisoned by the mistake. He commented that the proposed resolutions for the map and the DR are ambiguous because the findings are not in line with what is currently allowed by the General Plan nor the Victoria Community Plan. He asked for clarification as to when those actions were to be approved. He questioned the air quality portion of the EIR. He said it is not appropriate to rely upon the 2001 EIR for General Plan Amendments in that they can not be analyzed if they are now being modified as it pertains to traffic, air and water quality. He noted that the studies for the EIR are different than the development plan with different designations and density. He said that it would be acceptable to continue the item but if it is approved he would be compelled to challenge the decision because they do not have the right to develop the property. Abe Kash, the holder of the easement agreement, said when he entered into the agreement it was because with the restaurants, the center gets busy and becomes underparked. He stated the applicant has been in contact with him over the course of the last two years with requests to partner • with them in the proposed development. He said he had a copy of the proposal from the applicant that he refused to agree to; it required him to give up his rights to the easement. He was surprised that after a period of silence that he was then informed of the public hearing tonight. Chairman Stewart asked if he owns one of the businesses in the commercial center to the east of the proposed project. Mr. Kash stated he owns the existing commercial development and he paid for the rights to the easement in question. Commissioner Fletcher said he heard the applicant state that even without the easement, there is enough parking according to our Codes. Mr. Kash said that is not correct. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that there are 69 spaces there now and that is a lot of spaces. Mr. Kash remarked that for the applicant to say that he has worked on this project for 2-3 years and not know of the easement is a joke especially when he has a copy of the proposal to join the owner in a joint venture and that the property owner should be honest. Commissioner Fletcher commented that the attorney recommends a continuance. He asked if there is any room for negotiation on this issue. Mr. Kash asked to make no comment on that at this time. He said there needs to be an honest partner on the other side. Randy Sweedan, 7228 San Carmelo Court,stated he lives on the property just west of the proposed project. He stated he attended the neighborhood meeting where there were about 25 attendees. He said they discussed the parking concerns and were pleasantly surprised at how quickly he Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 23, 2007 received a letter noting the resolution of the concern. He said he favors the project. He said everything was communicated properly and diffused the situation and all was done in 'a timely manner. Mr. Buquet said Mr. Kash has now applied for a recycling center to be placed on the easement and this has created a problem. He said when the parking analysis was prepared it applied to the entire site and met the Code requirements. He affirmed that there was no attempt to take advantage or misrepresent the facts and that staff can verify the parking requirements. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, commented that there are four possible courses of action regarding this project proposal tonight and then the receipt of the letter shifted some of that. First, it could be continued to allow resolution of the easement issue between the property owners. He noted two weeks may not be sufficient time to do this, and that it would most likely take at least to the second meeting in June; second, he said the General Plan and Victoria Plan Amendments and tentative map could go forward with a condition providing that no development occur on the easement portion of the site unless the easement is rescinded and evidenced by appropriate documentation. He noted that this would be a bit complex because of the proposed driveways and building configurations in that these affect more than just the easement area, that some buildings traverse that easement line; third, he said the Commission could consider approving the project subject to the development in the easement area be deleted which would require a re-design of the rest of the project; fourth, deny the design out right because of the question of the ability of the applicant to develop the property as presented because removal of the easement area would pose a limitation on a significant portion of the property. He remarked that in reviewing the letter received from the opponents, he said there are also concerns regarding CEQA and the proposed resolutions that need to be addressed. He commented that he is not comfortable with approving the project with the condition suggested by the applicant because of the uncertainty of what will be affected in the rest of the plan nor does he believe deleting the area of the easement from the proposal resolves the problem because it would require a substantial re-design. He suggested the best approach to be a continuance, to review the issues raised in the letter, to review CEQA concems, and to give the applicant and property owners time to discuss this and come to a resolution. He suggested they bring it back to the second meeting in June and that it may even have to be postponed to a more future meeting if additional CEQA review/circulation is needed. He said this is a significant complication. He commented that the City would not be well served to go through this process quickly. Commissioner Fletcher asked if staff had reviewed the parking earlier for the adjacent commercial property. Mr. Diaz reported that it was taken into consideration in 1988 and that all that was required was 62 spaces and that a total of 75 was provided. He said that when this project proposal began, a planner confirmed that the parking was ok. He added that in 1988,the project proposed was in two phases with the assumption that the first phase was for 3 buildings and 2 restaurants. He noted that phase 2 (6 acres) was for the remaining portion of the property and it was originally intended for commercial development. He added that he confirmed notification was sent to the surrounding property owners and he confirmed a mailing label addressed to Bellflower Investments was used, and that no return mail was received. He noted that the property has been posted with a large 4X8 posting sign for about a year. Chairman Stewart asked what the date was of the letter sent to Bellflower Investments. Mr. Diaz stated he believed it was in early May and that the address is correct. Commissioner Munoz asked if the existing commercial development has sufficient parking without considering the easement parking. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 23, 2007 Mr. Diaz said it does based upon the information that we have. James Troyer, Planning Director, commented that staff will verify those numbers and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Munoz commented that he believes this proposal needs more research and suggested a continuance. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that it is too bad and that it would have been nice if this issue had been handled sooner. He said it appears the adjacent property owner has a valid easement and financial interest. He said that if the property was developed'as proposed it would probably be more of a benefit to the existing commercial complex than to have another new commercial development. He said he did not feel that they could proceed with this tonight. He commented that the easement issue significantly affects the prior review and project review before them tonight and therefore recommended a continuance. Chairman Stewart commented that when this project proposal was brought to the Design Review Committee it looked like a winner for everyone; it was a positive development for the neighbors and for the winery across the street. She said it is troubling that this letter was delivered today at 4:37 p.m. She commented that a land owner,should know and keep abreast of the development on property. She remarked that she did not believe the legal issues could be settled tonight and could change what the DRC approved. She moved they continue the project to a date non-specific to allow for resolution of the issues. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to continue General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447; Development Review DRC2006-00730 and Tentative Tract SUBTT18212 to a date non-specific to allow the property owners time to resolve their issues. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried F. TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINHURST INC. - A request for a time extension for a previously approved tentative tract map to subdivide 150.79 acres into 359 lots in the Low(2-4 dwelling units per acre)and Very Low(0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts,with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Related files: Development Agreement DRC2002-0156, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by City Council on June 16, 2004 by Resolution 04-204 and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Environmental Impact Report. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Chairman Stewart noted the request for a continuance and commented that the item is advertised for the June 13, meeting. She opened the public hearing for the benefit of those who would want to comment and is unable to attend the requested meeting date. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to continue Time Extension and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 to the June 13, 2007 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 23, 2007 AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried G. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18543 - DANJON ENGINEERING: A request to subdivide Building 2 on Parcel 2 of an existing industrial office/warehouse complex of about 7.27 acres,into four condominium units (The office/warehouse complex consists of 10 parcels; only Parcel 2 is subject to this request)in the General Industrial(GI)District, Subarea 5,located at 9850 6th Street; APN: 0209-211-52. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445 and Development Review DRC2003-01185. This action is categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301(k) Existing Facilities. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that there is only one building that will be designated for condos. Mr. Smith stated that is correct and the other buildings will be unaffected by the request. Commissioner Munoz asked if there is a parking agreement. Mr. Smith replied that when the original development and map was processed, the applicant was required to record an agreement for shared access and maintenance. He said that agreement is being continued now. He added that each building has enough parking even apart from an agreement. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Jim Schreder, the civil engineer representing the applicant, said he has read and agrees to the proposed resolution and conditions. Commissioner Fletcher asked what was the thinking behind only dividing one of the buildings for condos. Mr. Schreder stated that for size, configuration,and marketing purposes,they decided to only divide one building into condos. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Mr. Smith noted that a paragraph related to the findings and conclusions was inadvertently left out of the resolution of approval and the corrected pages have been placed before the Commissioners for their review. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher,to adopt the corrected resolution with conditions for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18543. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18649 - PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC A request to subdivide Building Don Parcel 4 Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 23, 2007 of a recently completed commercial/office center of about 5.3 acres into 8 condominium units (the office/commercial complex consists of 4 parcels but only Parcel 4 is subject to this request) in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard I and Milliken Avenue; APN: 0229-011-98. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999, and June 28,2000,respectively,and a Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on February 13,2002. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declarations. Related Files: DR99-11, DRCDR99-11 MOD, SUBTPM15630, SUBTPM18649, DRC2004-01125, and DRC2005-00764. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mike Latham, Development Manager for Panattoni, stated he is available for questions. Commissioner Fletcher asked for the average unit size. Mr. Latham responded about 3,000 square feet. He said they had spent a considerable amount of time on the project and he hopes the Commission is pleased with it. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and seeing, hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher commented that this is a similar application to the prior item presented. He remarked that he favors business condo applications because they are good for businesses and this is a good location. 1 Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the resolution with conditions for - • Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18649. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried * * * * * DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. ENGINEERING DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 Jerry Dyer, Sr. Civil Engineer, presented the staff report and noted a correction on #4 of the attachment that should read"Landscape and Trails" rather than"Streetlights"as shown. He briefly summarized and highlighted some of the projects. Commissioner Fletcher asked about installing new traffic controllers on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Dyer commented that the signals are old and do not interface well with the synchronized newer systems, therefore they will be replaced. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a budgeted plan for Archibald Avenue traffic coordination and if studies are being done. • I Mr. Dyer reported that they are studies for now and will be budgeted for the future. Commissioner Fletcher asked what is going on with the Fire Administration Building. •Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 23, 2007 Mr. Dyer said he did not have the current status of that at this point. He noted they are expanding with the new building to be constructed east of the east employee parking lot. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are plans to improve Archibald Avenue north of Wilson Avenue. Mr. Dyer said yes,the improvements should be completed at Wilson Avenue and to the north of that a few years from now. Commissioner Munoz asked if the 4 million dollar figure for the park is the same figure presented last year. Mr. Dyer said it is still being considered, and it is a carryover from last year. Chairman Stewart commented that it is a good report and it is nice to see all these projects here including work on the trails. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney said it is appropriate for the Commission to find the report in conformance with the General Plan. Motion: Moved by Munoz,seconded by Fletcher,to receive the report and find it in conformance with the General Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Terri Smith, 10343 Ridgeview Court,commented on Hillside Community Church and stating that the church does not have a pre-school, only a Sunday school. She said there are signs all around noting that the property is private property and it is not a playground. She presented a photograph of a sign to the Commission. She said she e-mailed Tracy at Hillside Church, (a name and contact provided by our planner) and did not get a real response. She said she was told Hillside officials were meeting with City officials but no meetings have been set in the last four weeks to take place with the neighbors. She reported that on Monday evening, May 21, there was a verbal altercation with people on the bleachers and her husband. She said she was then verbally threatened and therefore called the police. She said she had asked for the location of the bleachers to be moved and church officials said no, they do not have to. She asked for the review of the Church's CUP be agendized. She said this issue is not one of a separation of church and state; it is a public nuisance problem. She said she does not want to stop the church from doing their ministry; she just wants some peace and quiet. She gave directions to her home in case any of the Commissioners would like to make a visit to observe for themselves. Commissioner Fletcher asked why the presence or non-presence of a pre-school is significant. Ms. Smith stated she believes because there was a pre-school noted in one of the earlier applications, that it gave the church the ability to make noise 15-17 hours per day. Commissioner Fletcher asked if moving the backstop would help. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 23, 2007 Ms. Smith stated she believed it might help a bit. She said the backstop is currently next to the adjacent homes. She said distancing it might stop the screaming matches between the sports participants and the neighbors. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Munoz asked staff to present a report at the June 13, 2007 meeting to update the Commission on the progress regarding the concerns of the neighbors with Hillside Community Church. ADJOURNMENT • • . Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1 (Macias absent) to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 /� Ja is R. Troyer, AICP Se•retary Approved: June 13, 2007 • • • Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 23, 2007