Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/09/27 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 27, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Secretary; Kill Coury, Associate Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Mike Smith, Planning Technician ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, asked the Planning Commission to hear Items C, E, and F together, prior to hearing Item D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy abstain), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 23, 2000. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY (V-174)—GOODYEAR RUBBER—A request to vacate an excess right of way located on the west side of Industrial Lane south of Feron Boulevard —APN: 209-032-39. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-33. B. VACATION OF EXCESS STREET EASEMENT N-175)—CRESTWOOD CORPORATION— II A request to vacate excess street easement located south of Banyan Street, east of Archibald Avenue and west of London Avenue—APN: 201-503-50. Related file Tract No. 15963. Planning Commission Minutes -1- September 27, 2000 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES Chairman McNiel pulled item C from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, carried 5-0 to adopt Items A and B of the Consent Calendar. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES-The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay District in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road — APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Tentative Tract 16105, Variance 00-04, and Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PUBLIC HEARINGS E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16105-FORECAST HOMES- A residential subdivision of 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay District in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road — APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Development Review 00-34, Variance 00-04, and Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. VARIANCE 00-04 — FORECAST HOMES —A request to increase the wall height up to 15 feet for sound attenuation along the western boundary of proposed Tentative Tract 16105 in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road — APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Tentative Tract 16105, Development Review 00-34, and Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report in which he noted that because of some modifications to the Site Plan resulting from the requirement of the sound wall, an additional 4 trees will be removed from the site for a total of 71 trees. He added that the trees would be replaced as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He reported that Cul-de-sacs E and F would be modified to add turf strips and additional landscaping at the end of the cul-de-sacs to eliminate the "concrete look." Mr. Coury also mentioned that a clarifying revision had been made to the resolution found on Page C, E, F — 69 of the agenda packet. He noted that Condition #2 of the Planning Division conditions has been modified for clarification to read "The decorative perimeter wall along East Avenue shall incorporate large river rock stone pilasters and a river rock planter wall in its design. The river rock stone pilasters shall be developed at a minimum of 30 inches squared and added to the most northern and southern ends of the wall." Chairman McNiel asked the size of the planter. Mr. Coury said it is 2 feet which meets the 4-foot requirement of the Building and Safety Division and the Health Department (in the event a pool is built in the yard). Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 27, 2000 Chairman McNiel asked if there were any questions regarding the staff report. Hearing none, he opened the public hearing. Jimmy Previti, representing Forecast Homes, 10670 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that they agreed with all the conditions modified and requested that he have the flexibility to work with staff on the location and placement of the planters so as to make more of an entry statement into the community. Chairman McNiel stated that it would be acceptable for him to work with staff on the issue of the planters. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the Variance is really needed in this situation. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolutions approving Design Review 00-34, Tentative Tract 16105 and Variance 00-04 as modified. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13-THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES—An appeal of the City Planner's approval of a minor revision to the grading plan of Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single-family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive -APN: 1074-511-27 to 31 and 1074-621-01 to 35. The staff report was given by Tom Grahn,Associate Planner. Mr. Grahn reviewed the chronology of the applications and subsequent approvals on the project. He noted that the item before the Commissioners Is a modification and subsequent revision of the conditions which pertain to the drainage channel above the project site and that it had been approved by the City Planner and then appealed by William Hawkins and Melissa McKeith. Mr. Grahn advised the Planning Commissioners that additional materials submitted by the appellants, as well as modified resolutions had been placed in front of them for review. Mr. Grahn reported that information had been submitted at 5:00p.m. today by Tom Bradford, a resident of Haven View Estates. He added that copies had been provided to the Commissioners and the applicant, which challenges the prior approval. He added that a report had also been submitted by Exponent Analysis which rebuts statements made by the Army Corp of Engineers. Mr. Grahn submitted copies to the Commissioners. Mr. Grahn explained that the resolutions had been revised beginning on Pages D 28 and D 31 to clarify the recital portions on the Resolution for the Environmental Assessment and the Design Resolution and that Conditions 3 and 4 have been clarified. In addition a condition was added stating that all prior conditions in the previous approvals would apply to this approval. Commissioner Mannerino asked if Mr. Grahn had an opportunity to read and review the new report that had been placed before them. Mr. Grahn stated that he had not specifically read this report but that as far as he could tell, most of the information remained the same as what has been presented in previous hearings. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 27, 2000 Commissioner Mannerino asked if there was anything there that could affect staffs position on the appeal being considered. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that any technical questions about the issue at hand or the materials submitted, be referred to Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer or the consultant. He also noted that the appellant will most likely explain what he believes to be new information. Commissioner Mannerino asked for staffs position. Mr. Buller commented that the information arrived at the end of the day today, but no changes in staffs position had been made. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John AlIday, P.O. Box 790, Agoura Hills, CA, indicated that he represents The Heights at Haven View Estates. He encouraged the Commissioners to keep in mind the issue before them; a minor modification to a minor aspect of the drainage channel at the north edge of the project, an already approved project. He added that the approved project had been reviewed numerous times by various officials including Stan Morse for MDS Consultants, who has consulted the Army Corp of Engineers, the City and County engineers He added that Bob Christiano, Bill Ford and Attorney at Law, Andrew Hartsell of Hewitt Mac Guire and the City Attorney are available for questions. He added that a total of 15 lawsuits had been filed on this project and that to date, the appellants have lost all suits that have been settled in the courts. He noted that material submitted to the Planning Commission was an .expected stall tactic and that he believes there is no substance to the documents as they may apply to the issue of the drainage channel, the issue before the Planning Commission. Bill Hawkins, 4987 Ginger Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is an appellant to the item. He indicated he was unaware of what was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. He pointed out the following issue: He stated that the Army Corp of Engineers has rejected the channel design 4 times and that it is under review again. He mentioned the Exponent Failure Analysis Report dated September 18, the 3 page analysis of the San Bernardino Flood Control District dated February 1, a Memo from Douglas Hamilton to the Army Corp of Engineers re: MDS, The Sediment Transport Model of Tract 14771, a letter dated August 31, 2000, from Secretary of State Westfall, Department of the Army to Malissa McKeith, September 1, 2000, letter from the Office of Emergency Services to Ken Gidria, San Bemardino Flood Control District and the Declaration of Wolfgang/Roth and the supporting documents pages 001-150. Mr. Hawkins urged the Commissioners to make a responsible action for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He added that the issue involves the safety of thousands of residents and that they could take a blind eye to the issue stating that it does not concern them because they are only dealing with the issue before them but that this is not the case. He added that the Sediment Transport report had not been addressed to his satisfaction. He reported that Doug Hamilton has not received a response to his questions or concems. He stated that he believes it would be prudent for the Commissioner to wait until the Army Corp of Engineers approves the hookup and come back with their findings. He stated that it he feels it is important for the Commission to read the Exponent report, which rebuts the August 4, 2000 letter. He added that he is not participating in delay tactics and that they have proven their position regarding the debris basin which is no longer rated for a 100 year event and has been subsequently downgraded to a 33 year event. He noted that he was not sure if the report he was submitting was the same report submitted to the Commission at 5:00p.m. John Lyons, reported that he is appalled at how this issue has continued on. He commented that he believes the appellants have used an "iron triangle," i.e. the courts, the State, and the Federal government to stranglehold us and to limit local control. He reported that the appellants attempt to Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 27, 2000 de-certify the dam above the project would have resulted in all the residents purchasing flood insurance, an impact of several thousand dollars per year to each homeowner. He noted that the City has paid 200 million dollars in a flood control system and even with the new system, the old system is also still in place along with the re-design of some streets which could take over if the other systems failed. He mentioned the Army Corp of Engineers does not address the fact that we have a back-up system. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino stated that in the absence of any changes in staffs position based upon the documents presented, he felt a denial of the appeal and upholding the decision of the City Planner was the only choice. He added he would move in that regard. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that he did not see any problems and that the changes do not affect the environmental impacts. He, therefore would vote to deny the appeal and uphold the City Planner's decision. Commissioner Stewart concurred and that the issue is only a minor modification and that she requested a ruling from the City Attorney in regard to Commissioner Mannerino's comment about the documents presented. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, reported that the City is not aware of any information from the Army Corp of Engineers that has specifically disapproved the debris basin,although there have been many inquiries and requests for their review and findings, the City has not received anything from them determining the basin insufficient to meet their requirements. He added that the materials submitted are consistent with the materials submitted several weeks ago by the appellants. He 111 noted the materials address the adequacy of the debris basin and that the issue before the Commissioners deals with the drainage channel, the grading, the retaining walls and the height of the walls. He added that the Resolutions of Approval deal with no subsequent environmental review deemed necessary and the Resolution that denies the appeal and approves the modifications. He recommended that action regarding the denial of the appeal should come first followed by a motion for the approval of the modification. Commissioner Mannerino then amended his motion to deny the appeal based upon the fact that there is nothing, which would require additional environmental review. Commissioner Macias had no further comment. Chairman McNiel expressed appreciation the proponents and the appellant's brief comments and gentlemanly behavior. He then called for the question. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias to adopt the Resolution to deny the appeal determining that no subsequent environmental review is necessary. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias for the Modification of Development Review 98-13 and to adopt the Resolution Denying the appeals of the City Planner decision to approve the Modification of Development Review 98-13, thereby upholding the City Planner's prior approval of those modifications including the revisions to the resolution. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 27, 2000 AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02A—LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS —A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue — APN: 227-351-65. Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02,General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02—LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS—A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider Community Plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area—APN: 227-351-65. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02C—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)to Neighborhood Commercial for approximately.24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-03—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider community plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and General Plan Amendment 00-02C. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Alan Warren,Associate Planner presented the staff report and briefly explained the limits applied to General Plan Amendments and the remaining calendar year. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gerry Bryan, P. O. Box 670, Rancho Cucamonga, of Lewis Investment Company, stated he had not attended the neighborhood meeting but understands the concems of the residents, however, he noted that he believes the appropriate time to address those concerns is when interested parties are before the Commission and at that time they can determine the appropriateness of the user of the property. He indicated that a user would have to be found before moving on to the next step. He added that the property lines to the north and west of the property are restricted by Caltrans and that Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 27, 2000 there is no vehicular access to the onramp or from Day Creek Boulevard, resulting in the only access from Highland Avenue. Chairman McNiel asked what kind of tenants would the applicants foresee on the property. Mr. Bryan responded that they had a brief discussion about a gas station or car wash, but it has not yet been fully marketed before moving to the next step. Chairman McNiel asked if the property to the west also belongs to Lewis and also the Village Commercial property that is west and south of the property. Mr. Bryan indicated that those pieces do not belong to Lewis but belong to William Lyon. Commissioner Stewart asked if negotiations are nearly completed with Caltrans for property that had to be sold to them. Mr. Bryan said they are very near the conclusion of their purchase. He added that 24 tenths of an acre would in effect be added to the parcel because it is a remnant piece, that is too small for them to work with. James Martin, 6527 Mimosa Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he is in opposition to the project for the following reasons: 1) The incompatibility of the project with existing adjacent homes. The suggestion of a gas station with a convenience retail center, car wash or drive-through restaurants are incompatible with a quiet residential neighborhood. 2) The Environmental Information form is wrong and intentionally misleading. It relates the project with the surrounding area without noting impacts to residents. Additionally it notes traffic noise as not exceeding existing levels but does not take into consideration additional traffic from the freeway. 3) The Environmental Information Form attachment indicates a response to Question #32 which disregards the Police Department and any acknowledgement that mini- marts are high-risk crime occupancies. The City's police department has a reputation of slow response times as well as slow\understaffed service from the Code Enforcement unit especially at night. 4) The Environmental Information Form does not recognize the storage of gasoline as involving "temporary or long term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials." 5) The Environmental Checklist Form, Initial Study, Part II, Item #1, comments a-d explain significant traffic would expose residents to high levels of traffic noise, yet the form indicates a less than significant impact. 6) Item#3, a-c comments that the site is close to many faults yet less than significant impact is indicated. Fuel circulation systems are not covered by the UBC and are still vulnerable to heavy shaking. ' 7) Item #5 d —Air Quality states no impact from objectionable odors. Fast food restaurants can produce such objectionable odors next to homes. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 27, 2000 8) Item #6b regarding transportation and circulation does not identify hazards from sharp curves. Nightly, speeders squeal tires rounding the new curves on Highland Avenue. The access point will create issues. 9) It is improper to suggest that no impact could result from spillage of hazardous materials, fuels, oils, etc. 10) Item 13c states no impact from light or glare,yet the comments indicate light or glare could result from a future project. 11) Item#16c ignores the cumulative impacts of this application and any probable future project including a car wash, fueling station restaurant and min-mart. Mr. Martin asked that if vehicles do not negatively impact traffic as a whole, why does the City collect traffic impact fees from the developers of gas stations. Additionally, he added that Graffiti was not mentioned, but that the wall behind his home has been tagged 20-30 times since the tract was built 15 years ago. He remarked that negative impacts with the sale of beer and wine such as loitering, debris, and broken or thrown bottles could not be excluded as well as the problem of a teenage hangout with pre-teens scaling the wall and jaywalking across Highland for a shortcut to the mart. He stated that the issue of open space had been omitted noting that residents had been paying into a maintenance district over the last 15 years and therefore the area should remain open space. Mr. Martin noted that the City spent thousands of dollars fighting the approval of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher and now the City is open to a greater intrusion across the street. Mr. Martin claimed the project is only for monetary gain to Lewis Corp and asked the Commission to return the property to open space and to those who have paid to maintain it for the past 15 years. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that references to a project is speculative and that any prospective users will be subject a Conditional Use Permit as well as Environmental Review. The request is for a change in land use and that it makes no sense for the property to remain as a residential designation. He added that Village Commercial is the lowest intensity commercial designation permitted in Victoria and that the Planning Commission and City Council will have other opportunities to review proposed uses and any related environmental impacts. Alan Warren concurred stating the use is subject to discretionary review and that the City can approve, modify, or deny any proposed use. He added that the analysis prepared is broad in nature and that there may be other possible uses that may have less impact, reiterating that staff will know more when a specific application is proposed. He cited that if an office building was proposed, then the answer to there being any impacts from hazardous materials would in fact be"no." He clarified that the responses referred to by Mr. Martin were staff responses and not those of the applicant. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he does not believe there is any sense in leaving a piece of land that small as a residential designation. He added that Neighborhood Commercial would be the best designation but the caveat would be to keep in mind that we do not want to see a freeway sign. Commissioner Stewart indicated that she concurs, it makes no sense to keep it as residential. She added that to allay Mr. Martin's concems, this Commission offers protection through design review and also reviews environmental concerns thoroughly. Ms. Stewart moved for approval. Chairman McNiel clarified that her motion pertains to all 4 resolutions. Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 27, 2000 Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend approval for all 4 resolutions pertaining to General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. All 4 items will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02B — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — A request to change the land use designation from Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. Related files: Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development Agreement 00-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-03— SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — A request to change the zoning designation from General Commercial to High Residential(24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B and Development Agreement 00-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southem California Housing Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project pursuant the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District(Section 27.020.040 of the Development Code), including deviation from certain development standards, for 48 senior apartment units and one manager unit on a High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre)site of 1.3 acres of land at the southwest intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN: 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B, and Development District Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Alan Warren,Associate Planner gave the staff report. Mr. Warren noted that a petition opposing the project was received bearing 90 signatures. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Traies Roe, a housing officer for Southern California Housing Development Corporation gave a lengthy presentation covering the history of Southern California Housing Development Corporation, the need for affordable senior housing in Rancho Cucamonga and addressed the concerns of the residents. She added that she had 5 letters of support in addition to a brochure outlining the services and activities offered by their projects. She noted that Julie Monga, a manager of one of their projects as well as Angel Rogers, a property manager for one of their projects and Peter Pitassi, Architect were also in attendance. She noted that Villa Pacifica is the only other facility existing in town that offers affordable senior apartments with a waiting list of 300 people. She stated that the concern about the site location next to a school/park is unfounded, that her survey reflects that Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 27, 2000 seniors like to be connected to the activities around them. She noted that her research indicates that there would be no demonstrable decline in property values and that it may even improve the value of the neighborhood. She added that the site is currently zoned for Neighborhood Commercial,which could have an even higher impact on the neighborhood than a Senior Housing project. She noted that the design is in progress and that with Mr. Pitassi's experience with similar projects, the neighbors could feel assured that the end result would be appealing, would respect the neighborhood, and be a contribution to the block. She commented on the issue of parking and traffic, noting that most seniors do not drive and the number of their trips is significantly less than General Commercial or other uses. Ms. Roe continued by noting that there are ways to discourage traffic resulting from the project and that parking will be provided as per Development Code standards. She added that a walkway will be provided for students attending the school located adjacent to the project. Chairman McNiel asked if there were any questions and opened the public hearing. Carla Luis, 9841 Salina Street, Rancho Cucamonga, reported that traffic on Malvern is dangerous now and will be more dangerous with senior housing there. She mentioned that a 6-foot wall in the passageway might be a hideout for child molesters or kids wanting to fight, laying in wait. She noted that most of the residents did not attend the meeting because most of them are Hispanic and did not understand the invitation sent to them in English. She added that a petition has been signed by 150 residents. She noted that most in the neighborhood are long term residents and that they do not want to look out on a 3-story apartment building everyday. She mentioned another concem regarding the possible failure of the senior project and a fear that it might be converted to a low- income project, attracting undesirables and criminals to the neighborhood. She noted that she is carrying twins and would like to see them playing in the street 5 years from now without worry about traffic issues. She added that she would like them to be safe. Glen Sears, 8605 Ramona, Rancho Cucamonga noted that the traffic is bad now and that many seniors still work and drive, creating traffic. He noted that he believes that for the acreage noted in the application, the applicant is proposing too many units for what is allowed. He added that the services within walking distance are not what seniors would want. He added that it takes 3-5 minutes to get out onto Arrow in the morning off Ramona, and would take even longer off of Malvem. He asked what the deviation from the development standards was. He commented that when the Senior Center holds neighborhood luncheons and special events, all the lots are full and they are parking on the streets as well. He questioned the accuracy of the traffic analysis. Mr. Warren addressed the question about the number of units by stating that the Development agreement for a SHOD(Senior Housing Overlay District) is mandated by the State and it allows a 25 percent density increase for properties designated for senior housing, reductions in parking standards and setbacks requirements, all included in the Development Agreement. He noted that many of them are not specific because the precise development plan was not yet available. Chairman McNiel asked what would happen to the building if the senior project failed. Mr. Warren stated that it has never happened but qualified the issue by noting that the Development Agreement is for 30 years with a 5 year limit for the applicant to get a certificate of occupancy. He referred to the attorney. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, noted that the Development Agreement provides a restriction that for the term of the agreement, the units could only be rented by qualified seniors; following the term, another limitation on the tenants exists,which goes on into perpetuity. He stated that facilities such as this must maintain certain requirements in order to gain tax benefits. He said there are long term requirements, which they must abide by that do restrict the facility to senior housing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 27, 2000 Chairman McNiel asked for the age requirement for a tenant to qualify for this housing. Mr. Ennis responded that the agreement states 55 years and older. Chairman McNiel asked if it is in the Commission's purview to adjust the age requirement. Mr. Ennis stated that possibility could be checked out but that he did not feel that could be adjusted, it falls within the State and Federal standards. Una Hoyt, 8615 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she also has difficulty pulling out onto Arrow off of Ramona and Malvem. She cited problems with parking issues and traffic that would be heightened by driving seniors. She asked if all the Commissioners had visited the site. She claimed the seniors' visitors would create additional parking problems. Chairman McNiel stated they had all visited the site. Ms. Hoyt felt that the site is too small for any development. She commented that all of the comments on the Environmental Report are negative. She noted that she believes seniors do not like noise. She commented that the first floor residents will be looking at a block wall. She noted her main concern is traffic and felt that the services nearby are not what the seniors would want. She added that kids have to walk in the street because there is no sidewalk on Ramona. Esther Mott, 8593 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, President of the Assistance League of Upland, stated that they lease parking to the Senior Center and they own the property under consideration. She stated that the undeveloped property attracts loiterers, transients,debris,weeds and graffiti. She voiced her support for the project. Carl Brandstetter, 601 W. Colton Avenue, Redlands, indicated he is a real estate broker and consultant. He offered his support for the project noting that he is active in the senior housing market, locating senior sites. He commented that senior housing makes a wonderful neighbor with low crime rates, they create little noise and traffic and their projects are nicely landscaped and maintained. He noted that seniors look for amenities such as a close proximity to goods and services, health care, and public transportation. He commented that the principal of Deer Creek Elementary School offered his full support of the project on 19th and Hermosa. The principal had a very positive past experience with adjacent senior housing where the students provided programs involving the seniors which were appreciated by all. He added that some of the same concems brought forward with the 19th and Hermosa project are being raised with this application before the Commission. He pointed out that the traffic concems were addressed by moving an access driveway. He also mentioned that an appraiser had performed a study in regard to property values surrounding senior housing and indicated that home values and median income did not suffer any losses. He noted that the site boasts additional amenities such as the Senior Center. He added Southern California Housing Development Corporation has many other successful projects and that seniors make great neighbors. Kent Barrett, 8651 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that everyone he spoke to in the neighborhood are against the proposed project. He remarked that he attended the first neighborhood meeting and he circulated petitions to residents. He noted that they are against it because of parking and traffic problems, specifically pointing out the dangerous curve on Malvem and Salina especially with parking on both sides. He remarked that if that area is designated for no parking, the residents and their visitors will be parking on their streets, Salina and Ramona. He added that any additional traffic will worsen the traffic problems they already experience. He noted that they might like a senior housing development over another type of development if their was an additional access onto Archibald via a corridor through the Assistance League property and build a Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 27, 2000 2-story parking structure to handle the additional cars. He pointed out that many of the neighbors had not received a notice and that many people impacted live further than the 500-foot noticing area. He felt that the noticing was not adequate. He suggested lowering the number of units allowed, adding a traffic light at Ramona and adding a corridor for access to Archibald might be ways to correct the situation, but that senior housing changes the nature of the residential area and should not be approved as it is currently designed. Chairman McNiel pointed out that only a conceptual proposal has been presented and that a design is not being considered yet and the numbers are not set at this point. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that the current zoning for the property is commercial and if it is developed as a commercial property, the traffic impact would be far greater than the proposed senior housing. He added that the location is ideal because of the proximity to the Senior Center, services and a school, that many seniors like. He commented that there is enough buffering between the proposed facility and the residential neighborhood. He added that his other concem is with the size of the 3-story building and that it may be intrusive on the property. Commissioner Stewart added that she concurs with Commissioner Tolstoy on all points and she reminded the attendees that the item before them is not a Design Review, it is a land use change, zoning change and a Development Agreement, and that there will be many more opportunities for comment on the actual design of the facility in the future. She assured the residents that from her experience in law enforcement, seniors make good, watchful neighbors. Commissioner Macias added that the City is required by law to provide low- income housing, and that it does not necessarily have to be for seniors. He noted that this is a positive aspect and that the ' there are many checks and balances in place within the Design Review process that will hammer out concems. Commissioner Mannerino emphatically expressed shock regarding some of the reactions of the residents because of the high probability of a commercial project being placed on the property if the senior housing had not already been slated for the property. He lamented that traffic issues and noise would be far greater with a neighborhood commercial center on the site. He voiced his strong support for the senior project and assured the attendees that he would comment on the design when the design is ready for review. Chairman McNiel commented that in his past personal experience he made frequent visits to his Mother in law's senior home at which he noticed very few cars and very few visitors. He added his support of the site slated for this use. He continued by noting that the project would have to go through Design Review. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino to recommend approval by the City Council for all four items as presented by adopting the Resolutions of Approval for General Plan Amendment 00- 03, General Plan Amendment 00-02B, Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development Agreement 00-02 AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman McNiel called for a recess at 9:20p.m. and suggested the Planning Commission reconvene at 9:30p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 27, 2000 Mr. Buller reminded the attendees that all four items would be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. N. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-38 MODIFICATION — CLUB MATRIXX — A request to expand the hours of operation for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery Plaza, in the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard —APN: 208-101-23. O. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 97-04 MODIFICATION—CLUB MATRIXX—A request to modify conditions of approval regarding hours of operation, entertainment uses, and ages of patrons for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery Plaza, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard —APN: 208-101-23. Chairman McNiel reconvened the public hearing at 9:35p.m. and noted that staff had requested to continue items N and 0 to October 11, 2000. He then asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on the items that could not attend the meeting on October 11, 2000. Hearing and seeing none, he called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to continue both items to October 11, 2000. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS P. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL — WHITE — An appeal of the City Planner's denial of a building permit to re-roof with standing seam metal on a house located at 6875 Pecan Avenue—APN:227-254-02. Brad Buller, City Planner, gave the staff report, briefly giving a chronology of the events that led up to the appeal before the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Buller noted that there had been much discussion regarding the criteria outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the subject of metal roofs in the City in general. He reported that Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Stewart visited the site and both had recommended denial of the proposed roof based upon the design elements listed in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He stated that the home was built prior to the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and they observed that the appellant's home would be the only one in the neighborhood with a standing seam metal roof. He noted that they have tried to explain the design elements of the ESP with the owner and contractor. Mr. Buller noted that the Etiwanda Specific Plan does not specifically prohibit metal roofs but that staff is aware of some metal roofs in the area, however, they are simulated to look like tile and or shingles in design and therefore project a different character than a standing seam metal roof. Mr. Buller reported that the issue of the roof came to staffs attention after the project had been started. He noted the Building Official was in attendance to answer questions regarding permits and materials. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if there were any questions. Bill White, 6875 Pecan Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, the appellant, stated he and his wife built the house in 1960 and have resided there for 40 years. He stated that he has seen copper roofs that Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 27, 2000 cost $60,000 to install but because of the cost, he decided to go with a copper looking metal roof. He reported that his contractor, Tim Brown, showed him many examples of metal roofs on very expensive homes in other cities. He reported that he called the Building and Safety Department prior to purchasing the roof material and asked what was required. He reported that they said the roof had to be a Class "C" roof or better to be installed for high wind conditions. He added that nothing was said about aesthetic requirements. He noted that the roof he chose withstands 120 mile per hour winds and that the paint is guaranteed for 30 years. He said that all work was stopped because they did not have a permit and now the uninstalled portion of the roof is in his backyard. Mr. White placed a picture of a home in Rancho Cucamonga with a metal roof on the overhead projector. He noted that he and his wife Dorothy feel discriminated against. He added that all of the Planning staff he came in contact with were very courteous. Chairman McNiel asked where the picture was taken. Mr. White chose not to answer the question, stating that he did not wish to cause any trouble for anyone else. Commissioner Stewart reported that she was a member of the Design Review Committee. She asked Mr. White if he realized that the issue could be resolved if metal shingles were used instead of the standing seam metal and that they are only trying to resolve the issue. She asked Mr. White if he had been offered the alternative. Mr. White initially responded, that he had not been offered an alternative by the contractor, but then responded "yes," adding that he would have copper if it was paid for by someone else. Then he stated that he does not want anything else other than what he bought. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the work on the roof installation was already in progress when the person came in for the permit. Mr. Responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it is the preferred way to do things in this City, to pull a permit before a project is begun. Mr. Buller stated that it is. Commissioner Mannerino interjected that it is the law to do so. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Lyons, stated that Bill White is a legend in Etiwanda because of his collection of antiques in his yard. He added that he (Mr. White) is known for doing everything "first class." He expressed his opinion that Mr. White should be allowed to have the roof he wants and that the City Council allowed the other appellant to "slide" (Badder), why not let Mr. White slide as well. Rory Davis, 11618 Rosano Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works for Fanning Roofing and that his company installed the roof. He stated that it is unfortunate that a portion of the roof was laid prior to a permit being pulled, and that the material was bought and paid for before they even arrived on the job site. He stated that he has never been denied a permit for this type of roof because of how it looks. He reported that he had spoken with the Building Official and that he was told by the Official that what was laid may have to be lifted to facilitate inspection. Mr. Davis said he wants to appease his client and to give him the best roof for him. He noted that Mr. White is mainly concerned about the longevity of the material, high wind resistance, resistance to fire and the weight of the material. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 27, 2000 He suggested that they look at what performs well in the City. Mr. Davis reported that the handouts supplied by the Building and Safety Department are based upon high winds but nothing else is mentioned. He added that it is a homeowner's right to paint his/her house purple or pink if he/she chooses to do so; Mr. White chose a roof that lasts. He admitted that there was a mix-up with obtaining the permit but asked the Commissioners to make an intellectual decision as opposed to an emotional one. Jim Frost, 12996 Victoria Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga remarked that he is the past Chairman of the Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee and that many modifications have taken place since the plan was put into place, some he agreed with, some not. He commented that there is diversity and variety in Etiwanda and that there are some who have violated the standards. Mr. Frost stated that he feels the City needs to fix its design requirements and get standardized. He said that in his opinion, Mr. Buller has been forced into a comer because of the plan and that the current plan prevents staff and citizens from being creative. He added that the"Victoria Tract"has no standards. He rhetorically asked if a precedent was being set and how would the staff handle things when a new and better material comes into the marketplace. He commented that there would not be a proliferation of standing seam metal roofs because they are too costly. He felt the decision should be made to protect future residents and that he does not feel there is a violation. He asked the Planning Commission to come back to what is reasonable. Carolyn Preschem, 9616 Lemon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that she and her husband are contractors working all over the United States and soon, worldwide. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the appeal because contractors should follow the set procedures and take care of business in the proper way. She voiced her support of Mr. Buller and the staff in the issue. She added that permits are pulled first and plans should be thoroughly discussed with staff before starting a job. She commended staff for upholding good standards. Lynette Allen, 13054 Larrera Street, Rancho Cucamonga, reported that she had written a letter to Mr. Rappaport of the Inland Valley Bulletin. She noted that the letter is being forwarded to the City Council. She mentioned that the roof looks rural to her, much like a bam roof. She added that she supports Mr. White's choice and that she lives in the neighborhood and she approves. She commented that his home is beautiful and that she does not understand the opposition. She pointed out that the there is a home next to the Etiwanda Fire Station that is formal in design, a stucco box that sticks out and that it does not fit in with a rural setting. She stated she contacted 60 homeowners and collected 65 signatures. She added that there is no law that says he can't have the metal roof and that is what he purchased. She asked what the Etiwanda Specific Plan was and what it was for. Chairman McNiel explained that the Etiwanda Specific Plan was developed in 1982 to identify and outline what would be developed in that area. He noted that he was unfamiliar with the house she referred to in her comments. He stated that the plan says what you can use and that there are policy decisions, not all issues are "cast in stone" or are part of an ordinance. He asserted that the Commissioners advised Mr. Buller in this decision and that there are issues where City Council gives them guidance as well. David Long, 13021 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga; Yvonne Dempsey, 13067 Larrera Street, Rancho Cucamonga; Antonio Rodriguez, 13130 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga; and Andrea Bonanno, 6841 Pecan Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, voiced their support for the appellant for the following reasons: 1. They like the way it looks, and since they live in the neighborhood, their opinion should matter. Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 27, 2000 2. Mr. White is a good neighbor. 3. If a person makes a mistake, do not penalize him over a technicality. 4. Mr. White has a beautiful home 5. The existing neighborhood already has a wide variety of roofing materials 6. Metal roofs do exist in Etiwanda. The roofing at Etiwanda Intermediate School has 2 different kinds of metal roof. Tim Brown, 6581 Wrenfield, Huntington Beach, stated that he is the sales rep for the manufacturer that sold Mr. White the roof material. He stated that one way or the other, he would see to it that Mr. White gets a roof. He explained that because Mr. White's house has a low pitch, the standing seam roof is the only type of roof that will work on the house including tile, slate and shake. He said that it he has started a job Monday morning and pulled the permit later in the day and that he has done it 100 times, it is common in the industry. He added that he has never been denied a permit and that he has pulled permits many times after starting a job. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel commented that if someone actually paints their house purple or pink, someone would pay attention. He added that the City does not have jurisdiction over what materials schools use, only cursory review. He added that there are a number of metal roofs in the City in the commercial and industrial areas and that the Planning Commission has had many bad experiences with them. He added that many do not look good after several years. He added that we do not have many of them in residential areas. He noted that because of the negative experiences, metal roofs became a policy issue. He asserted that they (the Planning Commissioners) gave Mr. Buller the direction and that the policy is a good one; it prevents a proliferation of metal roofs. He explained that the home shown on the overhead earlier is the Maloof house, and that the original house was done when the area was still county jurisdiction. He explained that they discussed in Design Review that there was no reason to change their position, the policy is in place to protect the entire community and that if we approve this one, more will follow. He added that he understands the sentiment of the neighbors and their support of Mr. White. Commissioner Macias recalled a similar issue a few months ago (gadder) where the roof was already on before a permit was pulled. He asserted that Design Guidelines and processes are in place. He said that staff does not need to defend its process, it works. It is similar in that someone made a mistake and that it is between the applicant and the contractor. He added that the process is to apply for permits. He pointed out that the design elements shown on Page P-2 of the agenda packet are vague and that they may need to look at them, but that he feels it is important to be consistent with how he viewed the issue a few months ago, and that was to deny the appeal, not because the process is flawed but because to approve the appeal would be an affront to those who do things correctly. He concluded by supporting the staff position to deny the appeal. that this is a difficult issue because he, in the previous issue Commissioner Mannerino said th p (Badder), voted to grant the appeal, because he had some objections to the standards. He noted that the fact that the roof was non-permitted initially ended the issue in his mind legally until he heard tonight's testimony. He stated he was not moved to deny the appeal, but that he was inclined to vote and that there is a penalty to pay if procedures are not followed. He added that Code Enforcement was within their right to stop the project. He commented that he did not like the aesthetics of the roof nor does he like the standards that rely upon the whim of whomever may occupy his chair on the Commission. He expressed his concern over the way the law is written, and that if a great, new roof Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 27, 2000 material came out, we would have no way to approve it the way our standards are written. He added that with no permit he will support the City Planner because pulling a permit is required. He said that he does not like the roof ordinance. Commissioner Tolstoy said that the metal roof is not compatible with the neighborhood or the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He added that he did not feel the language in the plan is specific enough. He added that he is not against metal roofs, just the appearance of this one. Commissioner Stewart stated she had nothing to add. Chairman McNiel called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart, to deny the appeal. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: MANNERINO ABSENT: NONE - carried Mr. Buller commented that because of the presence of many community members that served on the team that developed the Etiwanda Specific Plan, he suggested that there are provisions in the process to go back and revisit the standards for roofing material, and if standing seam metal roofs are something that the community would like to see more of, concerned community members can use the appropriate forum and go through the process to have the standards for the Etiwanda area amended. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Q. USE DETERMINATION 00-01 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES — A request to determine that a wedding chapel, reception hall, and banquet facility is a conditionally permitted use under the Church or Private, Non-Commercial Club and Lodge category within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Mannerino abstained from hearing this item because of a conflict of interest in that he has been Mr. Heilman's attorney and therefore excused himself. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, 10681 Foothill Boulevard Suite 395, stated he represents the applicant. He stated that they had spent some time reviewing the project with staff in the interest of assuring his client that the proposed use would in fact be acceptable for the proposed site. He noted that the site has been vacant for years and would be perfect for weddings, banquets etc. He added that he is aware that the Conditional Use Permit process would still be necessary, but asked for the Planning Commission's approval for the Use Determination. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the proposed use would be a non-profit enterprise. Mr. Buquet assured him that it is for profit, a business enterprise. They plan to refurbish the grounds in a campus, park-like setting. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 27, 2000 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it is located within a residential area. Brad Buller, City Planner clarified that the site is zoned Residential to the north, and Office Professional to the south. It is a mixed-use area but the actual site is zoned Office\Professional. Mr. Buquet clarified that the site is Office Professional, but that a determination had to be made for the use as proposed to be conditionally permitted in the Office\Professional zone within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias to approve Use Determination 00-01. AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MANNERINO -carried • R. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 00-03-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to initiate an amendment to the Development Code regarding wireless communications facilities. Mike Smith, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and hearing no comment closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Mannerino, approve the initiation of the amendment to the Development Code as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe Castillo, 11206 Amarillo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the current President of the Deer Canyon Little League. He reported that the Little League is looking for a home for the 400 kids in their league and they would like to locate their facility in the Rancho Etiwanda project and that they need lighted fields. He commented that they have the support of Councilmen Dutton and Biane. He asked to distribute copies of the Resolution of the Board of Directors of Deer Canyon Little League to fully support and approve the development of a Little League Baseball Facility within the Rancho Etiwanda Development Project. Chairman McNiel thanked Mr. Castillo for coming and suggested that he may want to make a similar presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission and perhaps meet with them or send them a letter. COMMISSION BUSINESS S. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 27, 2000 Brad Buller, City Planner, gave the report. He noted that the main focus is on the completion of the 3 major policy chapters. He stated that the Introduction is finished and the Health Safety chapter is ' ready. He added that he would be contacting Commissioners Mannerino and Macias to find an available Wednesday, October 18th or thereafter, along with the rest of the task force to meet. He stated that following that, they would then review the Managing Environmental Resources section followed by the Developing the Community (land use section). He let them know that in October, November and December these task force meetings would be occurring. Commissioner McNiel noted that he has postponed accepting a Chaffey College Foundation Chairmanship to serve on the task force. Commissioner Macias quipped that he had put off serving on Design Review for the same reason. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino to carried 5-0 to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Br rller V Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 27, 2000