Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/01/24 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 24, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Principal Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent), to approve the minutes of December 13, 1995. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried 3-0-1-1 with (Tolstoy absent, Lumpp abstain), to approve the minutes of the December 20, 1995, Joint Meeting with City Council. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13835 - (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-20~ - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved subdivision map consisting of 78 lots on 20 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue - APN: 225-152-01 through 04 and 18. Related Files: Development Agreement 89-03, Annexation 89-03, and Tree Removal Permit 95-09. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Cbnsent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE - A request to conduct entertainment consisting of live bands, disc jockeys, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, in the Community Commercial District within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report and indicated two additional letters and one telephone call had been received in opposition to the project. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Garry Rausa, Manager, Final Score, 8411 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represents his parents, Chades and Dorothy, who own the business. He stated they have a 10-year lease on the building with a 5-year option. He gave a brief history of the project, stating that since taking over the bar a little over three years ago they had improved the property and upgraded the clientele. He stated that when they took over the bar, they had introduced live entertainment, but stopped the entertainment upon receiving notice from Code Enforcement that an Entedainment Permit was necessary. He said they made some improvements based upon recommendations of the noise study and then did a follow up study indicating that noise emitting from the building and parking lot had been reduced by 50 percent to a level below the City's requirements. He commented there have been complaints about the railroad tracks and said that his patrons do not go onto the tracks. He showed pictures of the graffiti on the fence behind the house behind the railroad tracks. He showed a picture of a pathway along the tracks which he said is used by children on their way to and from school and by undesirables at night. He showed a picture of the chain link fence blocking the pathway from his properly and felt the railroad company should be responsible for putting up a fence to cut down on the graffiti. He said the City regularly paints over the graffiti. He proposed a chain link fence be installed to block the pathway. He said his patrons do not wander up on the railroad tracks but it is frequented by gangs and he calls the police when he sees illegal activity along the tracks. He commented his wants and needs have changed since he first submitted the application three years ago. He said he would like to be able to offer live entertainment five nights a week even though it would only average three nights per week. He indicated he wants to be able to offer live entertainment on holidays that may fall on nights of the week other than when he would normally have entertainment. He proposed that the hours of entedainment be from 8:00 p.m. to midnight Monday through Thursday, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, and 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday. He stated that Peppers, Skippers, and Shelleys have live entertainment with no security guards required by the City. He wanted to use his own doormen with three stationed on the doors and one in the parking lot. He stated he would not exceed the maximum occupancy levels of 49 people on the upper level and 27 people on the lower level. He proposed adding larger lights on the building exterior that would not cause a glare on Foothill Boulevard and a chain link fence along the walkway from the existing business to keep people out. He said they made some of the suggested sound attenuation improvements and acquired a temporary use permit from the City for live entertainment on New Year's Eve. He stated no one wandered in the parking lot on that night and they operated at full capacity. He noted their occupancy was monitored by the Fire Depadment and there were no complaints from the local residents. He felt they had fixed the problems that occurred in the past and said he was willing to work with the City and the nearby residents. He read a letter from the Firefighter's Association in appreciation of the work done on the Spark of Love Toy Campaign. He said he also suppods other charities. He commented he has four surveillance camera, two outdoors in the parking lot and two indoors. He said they would like to do the landscaping and lighting, but they are a small business and cannot afford those improvements at this time. He indicated they want to build a fenced outdoor patio area for people to eat and drink. He said the Alcohol Beverage Control Board has approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 24, 1996 serving alcohol outdoors in that area, but he realized that was a different issue. He said he had a petition signed by over 500 of his patrons requesting live entertainment. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant was requesting approvals for different conditions from what staff had recommended. Mr. Rausa said that was correct. He felt that it would not matter what night entertainment is offered because the building has been soundproofed, he would have good people manning the door, and it would not attract extra people to his establishment. He said they currently operate at capacity almost every week because of the showing of sporting events and they have not had complaints from the residents or the City. Chairman Barker noted Mr. Rausa was requesting entertainment five nights a week and asked what other changes the applicant was proposing. Mr. Rausa said he wanted to use his own doormen rather than licensed security guards. He said his insurance company has never had any claims against his establishment. He said they cannot afford outside security and stated that other establishments in town which offer live entertainment do not have licensed security guards. Commissioner Lumpp asked what Mr. Rausa would do if the permit were granted and the residents complain to the City because they are impacted by noise. MF. Rausa said they had a live band on New Year's Eve and there were no complaints. He stated he would go with Planning's recommendation to have bands on Friday and Saturday only in order to prove to the residents and the City that they can have live bands without complaints. He asked that the number of nights be expanded to five if there are no complaints. He said he was worried that the residents may make invalid complaints even if they don't hear the noise just because they want to shut him down. He commented that a car had backfired while ddving down Cedarwood Lane and residents called the police reporting that shots had been fired at the Final Score. He stated there is gang activity on the railroad tracks and the residents have called the police to say that patrons from the bar are on the railroad track. He felt he had been treated unfairly by the residents. He said he had improved the situation because he has made improvements and also educates his customers to leave the parking lot in a quiet manner by not playing loud radios, not loitering, and pushing bikes toward the driveway on Foothill Boulevard before starting them up. He said he asks that his patrons respect the neighbors. Chairman Barker thought he had heard Mr. Rausa say he does not expect to increase the number of customers by offering live entertainment. Mr. Rausa said that was correct because he would cut off at capacity. He said he currently operates at capacity for sporting events. Chairman Barker asked why he would offer live entertainment if he were not going to attract more patrons. Mr. Rausa said he wants to offer an alternative to his customers in addition to sporting events, good food, and pool tables. Shirley Kovar, 8438 Cedarwood Lane. Rancho Cucamonga, stated she did not recognize the rear of her home on the picture Mr. Rausa showed. She said she had called the police and reported that Mr. Rausa had made verbal threats to her over the telephone. She stated she had been verbally abused when she called the bar to complain about the noise. She questioned why he would offer entertainment if he does not hope to increase business. She did not feel he had proved he is a good neighbor. She said he had been on top of the railroad track and made nasty comments to her and Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 24, 1996 her husband when they were sitting on their patio. She felt the bar is too small of a building to do all that he says he wants to do. She noted he had mentioned other establishments which have live music and have not had complaints and said those other establishments are not as close to residences. She thought that the noise reverberates toward them because of the hill on the other side of the street. She said their home shakes from vibrations. She said she has sent letters and she and her neighbors signed a petition a long time ago to ban live entertainment. She agreed the applicant had a right to have a business but she felt it is not in the proper place. She also felt patrons pose a traffic hazard for her neighbors. Commissioner Lumpp asked Mrs. Kovar the last time she had experienced a nuisance in terms of the noise. Mrs. Kovar said she hadn't kept track because she felt her calls were not being taken seriously. Commissioner Lumpp asked if she had called within the last three to four months. Mrs. Kovar responded negatively. She said she was out of state on New Year"s Eve so she had not heard the band then. She feared the situation will become bad again if live entertainment is permitted. Linette Nelander, 8459 Lemon Grove Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a resident of the town homes. She said she has patronized the bar for quite some time because it is a safe place to gO and she likes the closeness to her home. She acknowledged she does not live as close as some of the other residents, but said she has not heard a lot of noise from the bar. She said she had not noticed patrons wandering around outside and Mr. Rausa takes care of his customers. She stated Mr. Rausa had made modifications so that the music would not bother nearby residents and she thought he should have a chance to offer live music. George Leighton, Acoustical Consultant, 1307-A South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, noted that Mrs. Kovar had mentioned noise that disturbed her over four months ago. He acknowledged there may have been a problem at that time because it was before the acoustical upgrades were made to the building. He said that following the acoustical improvements, noise measurements made at the top of the wall indicate that the band music will be inaudible at the residences so long as the doors are closed. He noted the noise measurements were made at 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning so the readings would not include traffic noise. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the noise readings would be the Ioudest at the highest peak of the railroad crossing and would then decline when going down the other side of the embankment. Mr. Leighton said that was correct. He said they calculated the noise levels at the second floor and also at the first floor or back yard of the residences. He stated the back yard is much quieter because the railroad embankment acts as a noise barrier. He said the noise levels were calculated at 27 dB with simulated band noise levels of 100 dB, which would be typical of a bar. Commissioner Lumpp noted the applicant has requested food service outside and stated that noise will escape from the inside each time the door is opened to bring out food or for patrons to arrive or leave. He asked if there is anything that can be done to assist in buffering that area. Mr. Leighton said it would be possible to erect noise barrier walls around the area, but it may be economically impractical. Commissioner McNiel asked what was used as the sound when making the study. Mr. Leighton said they used the typical type of music which would be played there, country western and rock with heavy bass. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 24, 1996 Phil Weinberger, 8459 Lemon Grove Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, said he heard the music on New Year's Eve because either the soundproofing does not work or they left the doors open. He indicated he lives farthest away from the bar, but dght next to the wall. He stated they were standing outside when they heard the music but his doors and windows will be open in the summedime and he hoped he would not have to put up with hearing the music. Bob Fleming, 8434 Cedarwood Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was surprised when he heard a live band on New Year's Eve. He said he was watching television with the doors and windows dosed and his sliding glass door was vibrating from the bass of the music. He said he called to the bar about 11:30 p.m. when he got home and was told they would be stopping the music at midnight. He said he had attended the last Planning Commission meeting when the matter was discussed and Mr. Rausa had indicated at that time that the doors are never left open. He commented that when he drove home that night he drove by the bar and the doors were wide open and he has seen them open on many times since then. He acknowledged that Mr. Rausa has cleaned up the place from when it was the Cub but he did not feel it compares to the other establishments that had been mentioned. Helen DeFina, 8426 Cedarwood Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has heard the noise in the past and would not care to have to go through the experience of their having live entertainment again. She said she had called the police many times because the live entertainment was too loud. Chairman Barker asked if she had any complaints over the last three months. Ms. DeFina said she did not. Tim Atherton, 8475 Lemon Grove Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives furthest away from the bar and does not hear the noise but has seen the results of some of the patrons; i.e., gunshots through windows of houses backing up to the railroad tracks and rocks thrown from the railroad tracks. He said nearby residents have indicated the vandalism happens around closing time of the bar. He stated the residents complain about the noise and activity at the bar at Homeowner's Association Meetings and ask the Association what they will do. He said there are 84 members in the Homeowners Association and he did not think any of them are in favor of the application. He acknowledged that one resident had spoken in favor of permitting live entertainment but said he did not think that resident is a homeowner. He said several homeowners had complained about the noise from New Year's Eve. He feared that property values are lowered. Mr. Leighton commented that obviously if the doors are open, noise will escape the building. He thought that excessive noise should not escape if the doors are opened for only a brief time as people enter and exit the building because the doors are shielded. He said that it would be possible to put a canopy with a roof and wall at the entrance so that patrons would exit at a right angle and that would create a sound trap. He suggested that such a canopy could be required if it is found that too much noise escapes. Ms. Nelander said she does not own but she does pay rent and is a resident of the neighborhood. She observed that the bar had been in place long before the condominiums were built and said she thought the residents should have taken into account that the business may wish to expand before they decided to purchase their homes. Dan Wadis, 1841 Orange, Ontario, said he is a frequent patron and said he would like to have live entertainment because he does not go there for the sports entertainment. He stated that it was extremely windy on New Year's Eve when the live entertainment was there and he did not feel anyone could have heard the band over the wind. He believed that people may be making false complaints. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 24, 1996 Mr. Rausa said they keep the doors open during the daytime but close the doors by 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. during the cooler months and never have the doors open when they have live entertainment. He did not feel thero should be a problem when the front doors are opened for patrons entering and exiting because he felt the noise would go straight. He stated they have not received any complaints for two years and said the incidents brought up, such as gunshots being fired and rocks thrown, occurred before he owned the restaurant. He said he did not receive any complaint calls on New Years Eve and he felt the residents would have called either him or the City to complain if they had heard any noise. He stated he had last talked to Mrs. Kovar three years ago and he had not been rude to her. He said he had asked to attend a Homeowner's Association meeting and was told he could not. He reported he measured the noise level on New Year's Eve from the railroad tracks and the levels were below the City's noise abatement requirements. He said he has many different customer bases and he wanted to be able to offer them live entedainment. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Chairman Barker asked if there have been any recent police reports. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, replied that the police have not supplied that information. Commissioner McNiel stated it is an awkward and difficult issue wherein the business owner wants to expand his business to make it work. He noted there is a history of conflict at the location and those memories do not fade easily. He felt the issue before the Commission was to determine what is fair for the business operator and the residents and in the interest of the common good. He said it sounded as if the business does well on the nights that sporting events are televised but the applicant would like to provide entertainment on the nights there are no sporting events because business is not as good on those nights. He said it is disconcerting to sit in your house and hear loud music. He stated he would like to assist the applicant in his goals for growth and success but he had difficulty doing so because he felt the opportunity for problems is too great. Commissioner Melcher noted that when the application was first brought before the Commission in July 1994, the Commission requested furlher information. He said the test results seem to prove that the noise can be lessened. He stated that staff had professionally reviewed the request and acoustical study and suggested some conditions to restrict the activity to allow some experience before approving it to the extent that the applicant has requested. He favored the application. Commissioner Lumpp stated that when the application first came before the Planning Commission, he wanted to see a noise study related to the use and its relationship to the existing residential area. He noted that the noise study had been made and mitigation measures had already been implemented. He understood Commissioner McNiel's concerns because the Commission had recently denied an application where the applicant admitted he had made a mistake in the past but wanted to try again. He said that denial had been made based on the applicant's past history in terms of providing the mitigations necessary to control the noise experienced by the adjacent residents. He said that applicant had not exhibited the same level of activity to try to address the noise. He felt this applicant deserved an opportunity to be given a chance to succeed. He suggested that a condition be added to require sound attenuation be provided adjacent to the doors. He thought the applicant had gone beyond what requirements call for and met all the conditions called for in the acoustical study and should be given a chance. He noted that the City has recourse if it does not work. Chairman Barker noted that the bar Commissioner Lumpp referenced had originally been opened as a restaurant and later became an entertainment center. He observed the residents in that neighborhood complained to the City several times and sound attenuation techniques were tried. He said a special door was installed which was periodically left open. He noted that the walls were provided with sound proofing materials and very tall sound attenuation walls were built around the Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 24, 1996 property. He said there had been complaints at that location about activities in the parking lot. He stated that particular owner runs a tight ship within the bar but observed that it is more difficult to control the parking lot. He thought that was why staff had requested a uniformed security guard rather than using doormen. He said that there was a disruption in the neighborhood when the door was left open. He acknowledged that Mr. Rausa is trying. He observed that the consultant indicated a canopy could be installed by the door but the applicant had stated the he is a small business owner and cannot afford to spend a lot of money. He was concerned it will not work. He complemented Mr. Rausa in making a good faith attempt but felt that if the application were approved, there would be complaints from the neighbors. He noted that the applicant had stated he would like to have outdoor eating and drinking and he felt that would also be disruptive. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Entedainment Permit 93-03 with modification to require additional sound attenuation around the existing exit doors to mitigate the escape of noise as people enter and exit. Commissioner Melcher felt that this is not a neighborhood bar, but rather a bar on a major thoroughfare and a different case from the other bar which was referenced by the Commissioners. He suggested the design of the proposed canopy modification be submitted to staff along with a commentary by the acoustical engineer prior to installation. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: LUMPP, MELCHER NOES: BARKER, MCNIEL ABSENT: TOLSTOY - failed Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attomey, stated that the effect of a tie vote is that the motion is null and the floor is open to another motion. He suggested the matter be continued to a future date when Commissioner Tolstoy would be present. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. He stated that a copy of the minutes would be made available to Commissioner Tolstoy. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to continue Entedainment Permit 93-03 to February 14, 1996. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:15 P.M. to 8:22 P.M. C. VARIANCE 95~04 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet for the construction of a church facility on 20.14 acres of land in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Associated with the application is Conditional Use Permit 95-16 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 24, 1996 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to construct a church facility and school consisting of a 31,017 square foot church, a 28,480 square foot community center, a 16,460 square foot education center, a 10,898 square foot parish center office, a 9,400 square foot rectory, a 10,110 square foot adult education and youth center, a 5,180 square foot chapel, and a 9,387 square foot adult center on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Associated with the application is Variance 95-04 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the plans posted this evening reflect an increased height for the bell tower up to 72 feet, additional stone work around some of the arches, and a dormer-style window treatment on the community center and church building. He noted that staff had received a call from a resident voicing concern about the impact of the bells. He stated staff was concemed that the bells may be an intrusion on the residential area and had recommended that the bells not be allowed for the church but it was not staffs intent to limit the school bells. He reported that the adjacent property owner to the southwest had submitted a letter requesting a wall along the eastern border of the church property where it abuts his properly. Commissioner McNiel questioned if the applicant had made all the changes which were requested at the January 2 Design Review Committee meeting. ' Mr. Murphy replied that some had been incorporated into the plans shown this evening, including some additional stone work and arches on the rear of the community center building and a similar arch treatment to the walls on both sides of the rotunda. He noted that the Committee had suggested some statues might be added to the rotunda area. Commissioner Lumpp asked if a wall is not being built around the entire property. Mr. Murphy replied that a wrought iron fence will be around the perimeter with a block wall with wrought iron on top being installed only in the areas where a retaining wall would be required. Commissioner Lumpp asked where the adjoining property owner wanted the wall to be placed. Mr. Murphy responded that the property owner wanted the wall to be extended to the south along the east property line to the end of the playground. Commissioner McNiel asked if the wall would be at the foot of the slope. Mr. Murphy replied it would be at the top of the slope. Commissioner Melcher asked the width of the two driveways going out to the east end of the property. Mr. Murphy replied it is 26 feet, the same as a typical perimeter drive aisle in a shopping center. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Father Gaglia, Sacred Head Church, 12704 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had been surprised by the proposed condition prohibiting the use of the bells. He requested that the condition be deleted. He believed that a church has unique functions in a community because it is a unique entity. He stated that church bells are traditional in the Roman Catholic church and remarked that bells were in each mission and along rural highways of early California. He said they have used bells at their present location since it opened in 1953 and had never been told that they Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 24, 1996 are offensive. He felt the bells lend a sense of peacefulness, rather than being a nuisance. He stated that bells are allowed at all the other schools in the City and said it is necessary to sound the school bells throughout the day as classes change, etc. He noted they also have a monthly fire drill. Chairman Barker asked Father Gaglia to describe the pattern and frequency of bell ringing. Father Gaglia responded that, at present, the bells start at 6:00 a.m. He stated that at 6:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 6:00 p.m., the bells dng for approximately 14 seconds with three sequences of three peals each followed by 21 additional rings. He said the bells ring every quarter hour from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., with 3 dings at the quarter hour, 6 dings at the half hour, 9 dings at the three-quarter hour and 12 rings followed by a ding for each hour on the hour. He reported that at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 5:00 p.m., they ring three additional religious hymns, taking approximately seven minutes each time. He indicated the pattern changes on Saturdays and Sundays to accommodate the mass schedule. He said on Saturdays it rings the aforementioned pattern until 5:00 p.m., then through the hour of 7:00 p.m. and the hour of 8:00 p.m. He stated that on Sundays it rings at 6:00 a.m. and then no hourly rings, but a call to mass at 7:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m., and 11:30 a.m., followed by the regular hourly rings from 1:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. Pat Van Daele, 2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25, Riverside, stated he was speaking on behalf of the church. He said their preference was to maintain the wall plan as proposed. He believed there is adequate screening for the residential neighborhood and remarked there is a grade differential between the church site and the area currently zoned for future residential. He felt the additional planting along the church perimeter will provide adequate screening. Mike Cockrell, 12966 Cherokee Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives a couple hundred feet from the bells. He expressed surprise with how far along the project had progressed. He acknowledged that when he moved into his home, signs were up saying future relocation site of the church, but said he and his neighbors were greatly taken back by the size and scope of the operation. He thought most people would feel that a church should not be 120,000 square feet. He felt it is not a church, but a big business roughly the size of a grocery store, pharmacy, bank, video store, and fast food restaurant combined. He felt it is a seven day a week, 365 days a year, morning until night business. He was very concerned about traffic and noise. He thought Etiwanda Avenue should be widened because a lot of traffic will dump onto it. He was not opposed to the appearance and size so long as noise and traffic considerations are addressed. He suggested another entrance onto Highland Avenue. He stated he had spoken to others who are aware of the bells as they exist and are opposed to the bells in their residential neighborhood because they feel they are intrusive. He said it is not a bell to call people to mass, but rather a bell that rings from morning into the night. He observed that t'he bells are not a problem in the church's present location but noted that the bells are easily heard when standing in front of Price Club even with the ambient traffic noise. He felt people had moved to the neighborhood because it is a quiet area and the bells would be out of context. He did not object to using the bells to call people to mass and said his biggest problem is early morning and late evening. He acknowledged that the church members have every right to express their religion, but felt it unfair to have religious bells continually thrust upon him. Kristen Westfall, 6656 Brownstone Place, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated she lives just south of East Avenue, approximately three block down Highland and one block down East Avenue. She stated she moved to the area for peace and quiet and serenity. She felt that most people understand that a church is to provide a community and safe haven for parish members. She felt bells are not a nuisance and they are not unreasonable but rather the practice of religion in a symbolic manner. Gina Johnson, 7895 Ocean Court, Fontana, stated she had contacted the Rutherford Foundation, and was told that nuisance is subjected by law to the reasonable person standard. She did not feel church bells are unreasonable. She thought that it would be against the First Amendment for the City to prohibit the bells because she felt the bells are a part of the church ministry because it is customary for Catholic churches to ring bells. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 24, 1996 Don DLugos, 12902 Cherokee Road, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern about the land use around the church and questioned if property will be salable for residential use once the church is built. He suggested a traffic signal by the church exit because the street will be congested. He felt seven minutes of music is too long. He thought bells for church only would be acceptable, but they should not be pealed at 6:00 a.m. He suggested a buzzer be used for the school rather than the bells. He noted that Father Gaglia had said the tradition of the bells go back hundreds of years to call in the farmers from the field, and said the farmers did not have watches. He thought the bells are not needed any more. He suggested the church expand in its present location. He felt the City will lose out because builders will not construct houses in the area. David Burger, Senior, 7422 Lariat Place, #A, Rancho Cucamonga, felt a community should not be built without a church in it. Sean Judson, 6346 Choctaw, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is employed by the Etiwanda School District. He felt the work of the Planning Commission is important to the aesthetic appeal and overall quati~y that makes Rancho Cucamonga desirable place. He welcomed Sacred Heart Church to his neighborhood and indicated he thinks churches are the center of the community. He stated he hears the Etiwanda School band practicing and bells from Summit Intermediate School, but they are tangible, audible symbols of a community that focuses on children and family. Christine Roski, 6990 Goldenrain Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated bells are not a nuisance and they are a church, not a business. She said she hears the bells of Windrows School welcoming the children. She felt the City has unfairly added architectural demands on the church and it is unreasonable to 'prohibit the bells. She thought bells are part of countryside, rural churches and are a comforting sound and a reminder to give thanks to the Lord. Gweyn Frost. 12996 Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that when other churches were constructed, there were discussions about traffic, but there have not been any problems. She said she can hear bells from a school located approximately a mile away, but she has become used to them and they are not really noticed. Michael Magallis, address unknown, stated he moved to the area partially to be near a church. He said St. Peter & St. Paul has bells and is in the middle of a residential area. He requested approval of the bells and thought that people get used to the sound of bells. He commented that four housing tracts are being built in the area which will bring a lot of noise and traffic and those people will be looking for a church. He said that three other churches on Etiwanda Avenue have bells. Commissioner McNiel questioned if bells are used at St. Peter & St. Paul and if they are the same decibel level and ring the same number of times for the same length of time that the bells at Sacred Heart will ring. Father Gaglia responded that St. Peter & St. Paul has the bells but he did not know the decibel level. He stated they probably have different tunes because they have different tapes. He thought the equipment is the same for both churches. Commissioner Lumpp asked what type of tunes are played. Father Gaglia replied they are classical religious hymns. Mafia Diaz, 6242 Colony Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives four houses from the proposed church and is a padsh member. She said none of her neighbors have complained to her about the bells and she is looking forward to hearing them. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 24, 1996 Ross Jarrette, 12974 Summit Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said he live four houses from the church He felt bells are serene. He thought there will be an increase in traffic just because the community is growing. Floemz Munoz, address unknown, stated he was born in Mexico 57 years ago. He said farmers had no watches and knew it was time to go to church when the bells rang. He stated the City is growing and needs more churches and bells. He felt those near the church would be blessed. Michele Viscone, address unknown, felt the sound of fireworks at Quakes Stadium is obstructive but said she had not heard anyone complain about them. She thought church bells are a lot less intrusive than the fireworks. Frank Landa, 6244 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated he lives adjacent to the church at the northeast corner. He stated he did not know the bells were an issue and did not care about them except he was not happy that they will ring every 15 minutes. He felt the bells should be allowed, but not every 15 minutes. He thought someone from the church should have contacted the neighbors and the church proposal has gotten out of hand. He feared he will lose his privacy. He questioned where block walls will be constructed and asked that one be built adjacent to his properly. Gilbert Cortez, 6645 Brownstone Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, hoped there would be no discrimination against the church. He felt the church will be an asset to the community. Headng no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He observed there were two issues, the bells and the wall. Commissioner Melcher felt the peal of church bells for any denomination is part of the American scene. He thought the bells are part of the church, whether it is a small or large church in the country or a big church in an urban environment. He felt the bells should be permitted and be pealed as often and as long as the church desires. He noted that the Design Review Committee had disagreed about the height of the bell tower and noted that he favored the lowest possible height for the bell tower. He preferred that the bell tower be eliminated because he felt it is not an asset to the architecture. Commissioner Lumpp observed that it is okay for roosters to crow and dogs to bark and he thought it should also be okay for a church to ring its bells. He recognized why staff had suggested the condition, but he disagreed and he felt the church should have the bells as they are currently used in their current facility. He noted that the tradition of bells goes back way before the birth of America. Commissioner McNiel stated this is a very urban church in what will be a very suburban community. He noted that when the City adopted the various specific plans, provisions were made specifically to allow churches in residential neighborhoods. He agreed that it belongs there. He felt that in terms of decibel levels, there are things that are appropriate and things which may no longer be appropriate. He noted there was a time when church bells performed a very functional element, whereas they are now only a symbolic element. He said the bells no longer call people to church because people travel many miles to go to their favorite churches. He felt the bells are an intrusion at certain times of the day into people's lives who are not associated with this particular church but live nearby. He suggested finding out what is being done at St. Peter & St. Paul to see if they have a limited amount of bells or a muted bell. He stated the Planning Commission has a responsibility to not only the church members, but to other community members as well. He observed that there was a time when some communities revolved completely around the church, but he noted that is no longer the case. Chairman Barker stated that when he lived in a small community, the church bells were a pad of life but he did not recall hearing them every hour. He did not remember hearing bells when living in a Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 24, 1996 large city except when attending church because of the traffic noise. He observed that the church is moving into a neighborhood and changing the status quo and asserting it has the right to it and the citizens will get used to it. He said he lives near St. Peter & St. Paul and he did not think they play tunes or bells every 15 minutes. He said he was uncomfortable with a new neighbor coming into an area and indicating they will play seven minutes of tunes. He did not feel it is a First Amendment issue, but rather a new neighbor coming into a neighborhood and changing the pattern. He did not oppose bells in the morning nor did he oppose using bells for the school. He was concerned about whether the current pattern is intrusive. He was surprised that someone would state that what is appropriate on a major thoroughfare in a commercial area may be appropriate to bring into what at the moment is a rural, lower density area. He observed that hundreds of people attended meetings when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was being developed and the residents wanted to maintain the area as rural as possible. He thought bells are rural, but he did not feel long playing songs are rural. He did not support elimination of the bells but he felt there should be room for recognition of the impact the bells will have on the area and residents. He noted that churches are generally good at finding ways to work things out and he hoped things could be worked out with the community. He commented that school bells are functional and not continuous. It was the consensus of the Commission that school bells were acceptable. Chairman Barker asked if Father Gaglia had any response to the concerns he had raised. Father Gaglia stated the church is an important part of the already existing neighborhood because 3! percent of the people who live in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area are members of Sacred Heart Church. He stated the bells dng mostly dudng the day when most people are at work. He observed that when Sacred Heart Church was first built at its present location, it was a rural, grape growing area, not a commercial area. He noted they have had a sign up for 10 years in the new location indicating that they would be moving there. He reiterated that the seven-minute hymn sessions are at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 5:00 p.m. He suggested they would be willing to cut down from four hymns to two hymns in order to reduce the time. Chairman Barker felt that would be a step in the right direction. He noted that one of the residents had indicated he was not overjoyed about the ringing every quarter hour. He felt there should be some negotiating room so far as the songs and materials. He noted that the church is part of the community, but it has not been part of that neighborhood and 69 percent of the residents are not parishioners. He said that once something is there, people know about it when they buy into an area. He was concerned about changing the status quo. Brad Buller, City Planner, felt there was a general majority position by the Commissioners that some level of bells is appropriate. He suggested modifying the condition to read that "The use of bells or other sounds to indicate time of day, time of mass, or school activities may be allowed under separate approval by the Planning Commission, subject to the submittal of a special study identifying the actual proposed use of the bells. He thought that would give an opportunity to determine if there should be sound limitations, if they should they be subject to the noise ordinance of the municipal code, etc. Chairman Barker felt that would allow the City to sit down in a less judicial role and find a satisfactory solution. Commissioner McNiel supported the revised condition because it would give the Commission an opportunity to review it. Commissioners Melcher stated he would prefer just approving the bells, but he was willing to accept the modified condition. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 24, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp concurred. He asked if there is a wall adjacent to the existing house at the northeast corner of the church site. Mr. Murphy replied there is not, but there is a Eucalyptus windrow. Commissioner Lumpp questioned why a wall is being required along the southeast properly line, where there is no adjacent development. Chairman Barker thought it was because of the grade change. Commissioner Lumpp suggested a wall be required to buffer Mr. Landa's residence at the northeast corner of the properly with the details to be worked out with staff. He thought a wall would be appropriate because of the number of vehicles which will be using the driveway. He did not feel the Commission should require a wall along the southeastern border where it abuts the vacant lot and thought a wall should be required in connection with future development of the residential land. Chairman Barker questioned if Mr. Landa wanted a wall. Mr. Landa nodded his approval that he would like a wall. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher said the exhibit depicts a retaining wall to bring the wall up to the level of the "'driveway along the southeast property line. He asked if there will not be a bank. Mr. Murphy indicated that at the Planning Commission workshop and the Design Review Committee meeting there were discussions regarding providing a slope. He said that Condition No. 3 requires the applicant to make a good faith effort to obtain a slope easement from the adjacent property owner and to provide a slope if it is granted. He said if the easement is not granted, the applicant is to construct a retaining wall with a decorative finish with the final design to be approved by the City Planner. Commissioner Melcher observed that at the first workshop on the project, he had contended that the site is planned in such a way that it forces things which would not need to be done if a different approach were taken on the plan. He said they were told that the site plan arrangement had been mandated by the diocese. He expressed disappointment that the site plan had not been modified. He felt the site plan should be revised to eliminate the two right-angle turns at the main building of the ~o long 26-foot wide driveways. He thought the necessity to seek a slope easement from an adjacent property shows that the site plan is too crowded. He said he had heard a lot of things tonight that he agreed with such as the sentiments, reasoning, ideas of community, location of the church, etc. However, as a design professional and a Planning Commissioner, he felt the wall situation indicates the shodcomings of this padicular plan and he thought it will lead to problems for the church in the future. Chairman Barker asked Commissioner Melcher to comment on extending the wall. Commissioner Melcher did not think the Commission should extend walls on the basis of a request from an adjoining property owner. He supported staff's recommendation so far as the walls. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Lumpp that the adjacent existing house on the northeast corner should be buffered by a wall and landscaped. He thought the wall along the southeast side is sufficient as recommended by staff. Chairman Barker stated that the wall is being constructed if necessary for a specific reason, as a retaining wall, not a decorative item. He agreed with Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel regarding Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 24, 1996 the wall to provide privacy for Mr. Landa's property. He observed that Commissioner Lumpp preferred that the tower be tall, while Commissioner Melcher wanted the tower to be shod or non- existing. Commissioner McNiel felt the tower as presented tonight was acceptable. Chairman Barker agreed with the tower. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Vadance 95-04 and Conditional Use Permit 95-16 with modifications to require separate Planning Commission approval of the use of bells following a study and to provide a wall adjacent to the existing residence at the northeast corner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: MELCHER ABSENT: NONE - carried Commissioner Melcher observed that his no vote was not against the church or the land use but because he thought the site plan should be improved. Chairman Barker remarked that Commissioner Melcher had been consistent in voicing that opinion regarding the site plan. The Planning Commission recessed from 10:19 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. PLIES - A request to consider initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Automotive Sales and Leases as a conditionally permitted use to parcels adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway in Subarea 8. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel stated he did not oppose starting the process to consider text changes; however, he said he has reservations about auto sales and their recent tenancies toward freeway adjacent marque signage. Chairman Barker agreed that future signage will be an issue. He was concerned about access with the property in question. He asked if the applicant was present. Daniel Plies, The Plies Companies, 22706 Aspen Street, Suite 701, Lake Forest, stated he owns the property. Chairman Barker asked if he was looking at the surplus Southern California Edison (SCE)strip in the area. Mr. Plies responded affirmatively. He said they had previously sold the land to SCE and they are - now negotiating to purchase it back. He indicated they are also in the process of negotiating to purchase the vacant land to the west. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 24, 1996 Commissioner Melcher stated that he agreed with Commissioner McNiel regarding the signage and he felt the applicant should be cautioned that making automobile dealerships a conditionally permitted use in this Subarea would not necessarily assure approval of any specific project. He said he also had some questions that need to be answered regarding access. Mr. Plies asked what the concern was regarding access. Chairman Barker said he did not understand how it will work. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Plies owns the entire property. Mr. Plies responded affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp agreed the text amendment should be initiated. He felt the City should also be looking at a larger issue, such as an auto mall. It was the consensus of the Commission to support initiation of consideration of text changes to allow Automotive Sales and Leases as a conditionally permitted use to parcels adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway in Subarea 8 upon submission of an application and payment of the associated fees. ._. F. USE DETERMINATION 96-01 - A request to determine if apartments are a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Medium Residential zone of the Victoria Community Plan. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Coleman had worked on the Victoria Community Plan. Mr. Coleman replied he worked for the City at the time but he did not work on the plan. Chairman Barker recalled that the Victoria Plan was not particularly pro-apartments after a period of time. He also thought that when the City Council rezoned various properties several years ago, one of the objectives was to decrease the number of apartments in the community. He stated that at one time he had a responsibility of trying to devise a formula to determine how many children reside in various types of housing. He said the community where he worked had a number of apartments, condominiums, town houses, and single family dwellings. He reported a survey was conducted and it was concluded that an apartment house has an immediate impact on schools because a faidy high percentage of apartment dwellers have children when they move in. He said they discovered that only one out of five condominium units have resident children because condominium owners are quite often downsizing after children have left home or just entering the housing market with no children or just starting a family. He was concerned that adding apartments would produce a major immediate impact on the schools. He also questioned if the City needs more apartments and felt that enough have already been provided for the population. He thought that apartment dwellers are generally short-termed. He did not feel that density is a question, so much as the population, the age of the youngsters, and the impact on schools. He invited public comment. Keith Lampafter, Mark-Taylor, Inc., 6623 North Scottsdale Road, Phoenix, Arizona, gave a brief background of the company and stated their development partners are the largest apartment real estate investment trust in the United States traded on the New York stock exchange. He stated they understand the concerns about apartments. He said they build very high-end apartments with square footages substantially above other apartments in the communities where they locate. He said they would provide attached and detached garages, covered porte-cocheres, private security entrance gates, and security systems and laundry facilities within the units. He observed the City has stdct guidelines for apadments and repoded they had submitted a conceptual plan which would Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 24, 1996 require no variances while providing just under 14 unites per acre. He said their plan exceeds the recreational amenities requirements and provides more open space than necessary. He noted their rental fees are generally higher than owning a house and they do not get many families with children in their developments because of the higher rents. He repoded that he had contacted the school districts and was told they are not operating at capacity and could accommodate their development. He noted they would have to pay school fees of over a million dollars. He pointed out that the Victoda Community Plan states that Medium Residential can have attached and detached residential of 8-14 dwelling units per acre. He said the definitions indicate an apartment is an attached residential unit. He acknowledged that the text does not specifically list apartments as a permitted use but felt that it does not specifically prohibit apartments and states that uses include, but are not necessarily limited to, those which are listed. Commissioner Melcher asked why the applicant does not build a condominium project and rent it out. Mr. Lamparter replied he was told he should not do that because he had already told the City it will be an apartment project. Commissioner Melcher stated accessibility requirements are different for apartments versus condominiums. Mr. Lamparter agreed. COmmissioner Melcher noted there are a lot of condominium projects in the City which are operated as apartments. He said the developers built them that way so that they would not have to meet the accessibility requirements and also so they could sell off the units as condominiums if the economy should change. He questioned why the developer was not taking that approach. Mr. Lamparter said they had considered that but his company philosophically does not like to condo- map any projects at present because of liability problems. He said if he could get direction that it would be permissible to build it under a condo-map, he would do so. Commissioner Melcher noted that Lewis Homes has been doing that for years. Mr. Lampafter did not think it would be wise business to advise a neighborhood they are going to do condominiums and then advise them after the project is built, that it is really an apartment project. Commissioner Lumpp asked for a definition of condominium. Mr. Coleman replied that the Victoria Community Plan refers to the State Subdivision Map Act. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it refers to a type of property ownership, not in fee, but a right to air space or a portion of property and a deed in common for the common area. Commissioner Lumpp stated that as the definition of condominium is ownership of air space, it means that single family detached, town homes, tri-plexes, four-plexes, etc. could be condominiums. He said it has nothing to do with the type of product, but rather the type of ownership. Mr. Lampafter said the text of the plan defines a four-plex as a multi-family use but it was his understanding that multi-family uses are precluded from the zone. Mr. Coleman observed that the Victoria Community Plan defines Multiple Family Use as "The use of a site for two or more dwelling units, which may be in the same building or in separate buildings on the same site." Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 24, 1996 Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant could proceed with a condominium project. Brad Buller, City Planner, confirmed that he could. Commissioner McNiel thought Mr. Lamparter had indicated he would have trouble getting a condominium financed. Mr. Lamparter felt they could get financing if they stipulated that the units could not be sold for a certain number of years. Commissioner Melcher felt that the applicant should let the residents in Victoria know that they are planning to construct apadments. He noted those residents had been some of the most vocal opponents to apartments when the City was considering land use changes. He did not think the Planning Commission should determine that apartments are a permitted or conditionally permitted use without informing those residents. Mr. Bullet indicated that staff felt the applicant had made some good arguments that the omission of the word "apartments"' does not necessarily mean that the use is prohibited so staff brought the matter to the Commission to make a determination. He acknowledged there has been opposition to apartments in Victoda but he noted there is a successful apartment project immediately adjacent to this property which was well received by the community and there have been no issues. He observed that the property immediately to the south is zoned for High density. He noted the applicant had committed to hosting a neighborhood meeting to introduce their project. He stated the COmmission could make a finding that apartments are not prohibited merely because they have been omitted from the definitions or it could direct that the applicant could file for an amendment to the plan to add apartments to the definition. Commissioner Lumpp asked why condominium was being considered a product rather than a type of ownership. Mr. Buller replied that staff thought the intent of the writers of the Victoria Community Plan was that they did not envision apartments in the Medium Residential area but they envisioned single family. Commissioner McNiel stated he was on the Commission when the plan was proposed. He recalled that when the William Lyon Company approached the City, they did not intend to have any apartments at all. He said that condominiums were in vogue at the time, so that use was included in the text. Chairman Barker recalled that the William Lyon Company wanted only single family housing, not condominiums, but certain members of the community and Commission had pushed to have a wider selection of housing available. He noted that condominiums were thought of as a product type and they were considered an alternative to single family homes. Mr. Buller reported that this parcel was envisioned as being a higher density and was originally specified as Medium High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) but it had been rezoned during the last cycle of zoning considerations. Commissioner Melcher remarked that in 1991 the City Council decided the City would have too many apartments at build-out. Mr. Lamparter said they focused on this property because it is near the entrance to the planned community but is not truly within it. He observed it is bounded on the north by railroad tracks and a 200-foot buffer with two-story homes and they propose two-story apartments. He noted there is Commercial and Medium-High Residential to the east, a mini-storage facility to the west, and Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 24, 1996 30 units per acre planned across the street on Base Line Road. He said they felt this would be a good transition for that area. Commissioner Lumpp stated he would support a determination that apadments are not a permitted use. He thought the Commission would be making a grave mistake by defining apadments as a permitted use because he felt it would be disrespectful to the residents to make such a determination without allowing community input. Chairman Barker wondered if Victoria has changed and the community attitude has changed. He agreed with Commissioners Melcher and Lumpp that the community should be advised before the Commission made a decision that apadments are an acceptable use. Commissioner Lumpp observed that if the Commission were to allow apartments, another applicant may not provide an upscale project such as what this applicant proposes. Commissioner Melcher noted that the staff report indicated there are nine sites in Victoria which could be affected. Commissioner McNiel remarked that the Commission would still have authority to deny an application if apartments were a conditionally permitted use. Chairman Barker felt such a determination would still bypass the direction from the City Council and be contrary to previous community input. Commissioner McNiel said he understood the potential for criticism if the Commission were to make that determination but he saw the project as a potential opportunity. He thought that if the applicant were to construct in an upscale apartment building, it could be used as leverage to upgrade apartment projects to be built elsewhere in the City. He thought the location is adjacent to Victoria in the eyes of many residents. He felt the City might have any opportunity to bring in higher end apartments. Chairman Barker agreed it may be an opportunity but he questioned if allowing the use would not be bypassing the desires of the residents. Commissioner McNiel did not think so because the applicant had committed to holding neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner McNiel that it may be an opportunity. He said he could support apartments if the action would apply only to the applicant's site, but he observed that the determination will affect nine sites. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried 3-1-1 (Melcher no, Tolstoy absent) to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Melcher that allowing apartments at this site would open Pandora's Box as the other sites had not been analyzed. He thought the public has a right to comment. In response to a question, Mr. Buller stated the Commission could send out notices and have a public hearing on a Use Determination. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 24, 1996 Commissioner Melcher suggested that if the applicant wanted to pursue apartments, that staff contact the newspaper to write a story, have an article published in the Active Bulletin, and contact known community activists and bring the matter back in four weeks. He suggested the applicant could also pursue a condominium map. Commissioner McNiel felt that the City is missing an opportunity to do better. Chairman Barker suggested contacting the neighbors. He asked where the application is in the process. Mr. Lampader replied they submitted a fairly well detailed concept site plan today. Chairman Barker asked if it is detailed enough to bring to a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Lamparter responded that it is. He said they would also like to get initial input on the concept site plan. He thought they could produce detailed colored renderings within the next three to four weeks. Chairman Barker said he was uncomfortable making a decision that affects all nine locations. Commissioner Lumpp felt the Commission should not make such a determination that will affect all the parcels. COmmissioner McNiel asked if a decision could be made on a site specific basis. Mr. Bullet thought the Commission could find that the plan does not preclude the concept of apadments, but is subject to Planning Commission review on a case-by-case basis to determine if apadments fit into an area. He felt that would give the Commission the opportunity to determine on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis if apartments are acceptable. He said the project could be presented to the community. He observed the applicant could also change the proposal to a condominium because the plan does specify that condominiums are allowed. He said if another applicant then indicates that apadments are a matter of right in the Medium designation, the Commission could still interpret the Plan to say that is not the case. Commissioner Lumpp felt it is not possible to tell which building is a condominiums and which is an apartment unless you know how an operation is run. He noted that staff has indicated you can build a condominium, but not an apartment. He said he would not support making apartments a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Medium district in the Victoria Community Plan. Commissioner Melcher noted that the staff report states that a use determination would affect more than the applicant's site; however, he understood Mr. Buller to now say the Commission could make a determination that it would be acceptable on this site, while not on other sites. Mr. Buller responded that a determination on this site would affect other sites only in that a developer on the next site may claim that a precedent had been set if apartments are permitted on this site. He said the cleanest way to approach the question would be to indicate that all Medium sites can have the same types of development. Chairman Barker indicated he was not willing to accept apartments on the other sites without specifically studying them. He asked what else the applicant could do. Mr. Hanson stated it would be necessary to rezone the parcel if the Commission wanted to create a special zone. Planning Commission Minutes -19- January 24, 1996 Chairman Barker felt it would be best to rezone the property to Medium High, which would allow apartments. Commissioner Melcher noted that a zone change is expensive and time consuming. Mr. Buller sensed that the Commission wanted to say that apartments are not permitted in the Medium Residential zone. He suggested the applicant could submit a Pre-Application review for the Commission to look at the design and concurrently introduce the project to the community. He stated the applicant should advise the community that he is filing a condominium plan, which is a permitted use; however, he intends to rent the project. It was the general consensus of the Commission that, in light of the text of the Victoria Community Plan, they could not determine that apartments are a permitted use in the Medium Residential zone. However, the Commission indicated that Mr. Lamparter could proceed with the project using a condominium map and that he should meet with the neighbors and explain what he plans to do. G. COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION Commissioner Melcher asked if there was any crucial reason that the matter needed to be discussed this evening. He noted that it was 11:40 p.m. and he suggested that the discussion be deferred until the next meeting if possible. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that the item is also included on the February 14 agenda. He observed that the Commission had previously received a letter from Peter Desforges raising a question about the study and staff had included the matter on tonight's agenda at the Commission's direction. Commissioner Melcher suggested that a meeting be held on January 31 if there is urgency regarding the matter. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to continue the Commercial Land Study Discussion to January 31 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the Commission had a memorandum from staff regarding the McDonalds site at Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue. Commissioner Lumpp asked when McDonalds expects to be in compliance with the conditions. Mr. Buller responded that McDonalds has indicated they plan to have the work done within 14 days. Planning Commission Minutes °20- January 24, 1996 Chairman Barker stated that he observed that he would request that the City Attorney draft a show cause letter asking McDonalds to show cause why the City should not hold a hearing to withdraw the Conditional Use Permit if the corrections are not made or staff does not feel that due progress is being made within that 14 day period of time. He felt that procrastination is not acceptable. He said he resented a powerful, highly organized company not living up to conditions of their project approval. Commissioner Melcher observed that many concessions were given by the City when the project was approved. Commissioner Lumpp stated he wanted to go on record as being in full support of Chairman Barkers comments. Commissioner Melcher observed that the memorandum from staff indicated that Base Line Road screening is to be accomplished with plant material. Chairman Barker thought the landscaping was to be in addition to berming. Mr. Buller said there will be no additional mounding on Base Line Road, but rather a shrub hedge. Chairman Barker thought the Base Line Road frontage was to be betreed. He did not want to negotiate away what the conditions call for. Mr. Buller stated that staff approved plans which do not show a berm on Base Line Road and staff had discussed landscaping with the applicant because the primary intent was to screen the drive- thru. Chairman Barker said the berm was to remain and it had been discussed in Design Review. He observed he had even raised a question if the high berm might cause a security issue. He said the other Commissioners had indicated the berm should be so high that cars could not be seen. Commissioner Melcher felt the drive-thru lane must be completely screened because that is the normal requirement of drive-thrus in the City. Commissioner Lumpp said he was looking for a softer screening of the building through the berming process. Mr. Buller said he would pursue berming on Base Line Road. Chairman Barker stated that the applicant knew what the Commission had asked for regarding berming. Commissioner Melcher observed that there was also supposed to be $100,000 worth of improvements to the Exchange property. Mr. Bullet stated that some of the paving work has started but the painting has not. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the Commission also had an update memorandum regarding Tetra Vista Promenade. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the tower which was in the original plans and discussed early in the process appears to be shrinking. He said the tower must be there. Planning Commission Minutes -21- January 24, 1996 Mr. Buller remarked that the tower is included with a future phase. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the Commission was invited to a Regional Planning Commissioners Meeting on February 15 in Fontana. Chairman Barker remarked that Commissioners Melcher and Lumpp were working on proposed guidelines for drive-thru restaurants and said he hoped they would be coming to the Commission shortly. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent), to adjourn. 11:55 p.m. -The Planning Commission adjourned to 7:00 p.m. on January 31, 1996, for a meeting regarding the Commercial Land Study. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -22- January 24, 1996