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