Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/09/14 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 14, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher ABSENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that under the streamlining changes, certain procedures permit a public hearing before the City Planner rather than the Planning Commission. He said the first such meeting was held on September 13, 1994. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 2-0-2-1 with McNiel and Tolstoy absent and Barker abstaining, to approve the minutes of August 10, 1994. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Barker, carried 2-0-2-1 with McNiel and Tolstoy absent and Lumpp abstaining, to approve the minutes of August 24, 1994. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae VACATION OF THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF A 60 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT WEST OF BUCKTHORN AVENUE AND NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE - V-129 - STACHE - APN: 1062-121-25. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-01 - HONG - Review of a single family residence in the hillside area, located on Lot 29 of Tract 11626, west of Beryl Street on Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-801-29. Commissioner Melcher requested that Item B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy absent, to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-01 - HONG Commissioner Melcher stated he had no concerns regarding this application. He observed that the Hillside Development Ordinance requires that the Commission approve such applications and he suggested that the ordinance be changed so that the City Planner could approve such applications. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy absent, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-20 - PARKER - A request to establish the sale of antiques and artwork within the existing Demens-Tolstoy House, a local historic landmark, on 3.16 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (2 dwelling units or less per acre) at 9686 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-561-04. Chairman Barker noted that public hearing on this item had been opened at the August 24, 1994, meeting of the Planning Commission and the comments made at that time were reflected in the minutes of the meeting. He said that although Commissioner Lumpp had not been present at the August 24 meeting, he had been given an opportunity to review the minutes and tapes of that meeting and would be hearing the matter tonight. Chairman Barker noted that a number of residents had expressed concerns regarding the proposed project. He said that once the Commission convenes a public hearing, it cannot work in a problem solving or workshop manner but must function in a judicial manner hearing arguments for and against a specific proposal and make its decision based on law. He did not think that is a good way to solve problems or answer community questions and concerns. He felt it may be better to have people meet and try to address solutions. However, he stated that if the applicant did not wish to do that and wanted to proceed with a hearing, the Commission would conduct the hearing and make a decision and the applicant or any other individual would then have a right to appeal that decision to the City Council. He observed that if someone does not like the decision made by the City Council, the matter can then be litigated which can delay action for quite some time. He noted that at the last meeting the Parkers had heard the concerns of the neighbors and he questioned if the Parkers had met with any of the neighbors to address those concerns. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 14, 1994 Dennis Parker, 9686 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he had printed up 1,000 brochures to announce an open house on Saturday, September 3 to address any concerns. He said they did not deliver the flyers house-to- house, but rather distributed them at the supermarkets and donut shops because they wanted all the people of Rancho Cucamonga to be aware of what they are trying to do, rather than just the neighbors in the Regency Equestrian Estates. He reported three couples came to the open house and two others later visited the property and, following discussions, all of those people stated they had no objections to what the Parkers propose. He remarked that one of the neighbors had brought him a flyer which someone had printed up and hand delivered door-to-door and the flyer is not accurate and misrepresents what they intend to do. He said it had been brought to his attention, that people feel they own the empty lot at the corner of Hillside and Amethyst but their property is only in front of their home. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Parker was satisfied that he had communicated with his neighbors and was he ready for the Commission to go ahead and conduct the hearing and make a decision tonight. Mr. Parker said that the people who oppose what they are doing have not come forward and addressed them so he was not sure who they are and had not been given a chance to show what he wants to do. He felt the residents are hearing misinformation from one or two people. He said those in opposition had not come to their door even though they placed an open house sign on Hillside on Saturday, September 3. He felt the people from the Equestrian Estates would not give him an opportunity to talk even if the matter were postponed. He requested that the hearing be conducted. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He commented that additional conditions had been suggested requiring that all antique and artwork displays and sales be conducted inside the house, the outward appearance of the building or premises could not be changed except that a sign of 4 square feet could be constructed, the use would have to be incidental to its use as a private residence, and only family members could engage in the antique and artwork sales. He said three additional letters of opposition, one letter of support, and a letter from the applicant had been received following distribution of the staff report and they had been placed in front of the Commissioners. Commissioner Melcher requested clarification of what the applicant intends. He noted there were conflicts between the staff report presentation, what the applicant indicated in his presentation, and the documents submitted with the application. He said Mr. Parker indicated he would use the lower floor, the staff report indicates the first floor and the lower level with both references being for the sale of antiques, but an exhibit shows tours of all three levels of the house. Chairman Barker reopened the'public hearing. Mr. Parker stated they originally submitted the application prior to talking with the Planning Division and had indicated they would use the basement and the first floor of the house even though they anticipate only having one or Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 14, 1994 two people in the houses at a time for the antique business. He said that after learning from the Planning Division that some of the requirements may be predicated on square footage, they decided to keep the antiques in one room of the downstairs basement. He remarked that the extent of the antique sales would be some of their own furniture and dishes. He stated there would be no charge for tours and they do not plan to contact tour companies to bring people through the home. He said they merely wanted to share the property with the neighbors, schools, and the City because he they thought the community would like tours based on the number of people who had knocked on their door. He felt that having hours of operation for the sale of antiques would make it convenient for tours. He did not expect more than two or three people in the home at any one time. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification that they plan to operate the antique business in the basement with a set schedule of hours. Mr. Parker responded they plan to be open from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. He said the hours could be subject to change by the City. Commissioner Melcher asked if tours for individuals and small groups would be during those hours or by appointment only. Mr. Parker stated the tours have previously been by request but he would not require people to call ahead during the hours the antique business is open and tours could be by appointment at other times. He said they do not have a scheduled tour, they just walk people through the home, which takes approximately 10 minutes. Commissioner Lumpp questioned where the antiques would come from. Mr. Parker replied they are antiques which they have accumulated over the years and would be anywhere from a 50¢ dish to approximately $200 furniture pieces. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Parker planned to show furniture belonging to others on a consignment basis. Mr. Parker responded they have visited the antique shops on 2nd Street and in Barstow and those shops are operated on a larger scale with 20 to 200 consignment people. He said their. purpose is not to allow others to put something in the home and that would be abnormal. He commented they do not have the square footage available. He stated that at this time there are no dealers and no intent to put in dealers. Commissioner Lumpp asked what Mr. Parker's response would be if he approached him and said he had a piece of antique furniture and would like to place it in the home with a commission being paid if the furniture sells. Mr. Parker replied that he might do it as a favor for someone he knew. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 14, 1994 Chairman Barker observed that at the last meeting Mr. Parker had indicated he was not aware of how many people were interested in going through the house at the time he purchased the property. He said he recalled that Mr. Parker had said they purchased the house as a residence and later came up with the idea of selling antiques. Mr. Parker stated he bought the home to live in. He observed they have six children and a business in Orange County. He said the idea for antique sales came about because they were being asked to show the home on what they felt was a consistent basis and the schools had expressed interest in visiting the home. He said they felt that it would be convenient to allow visits to the home. He indicated that they planned to take the money from any antique sales and put it back into the property. Chairman Barker asked if it was a consideration when he bought the home. Mr. Parker responded it was not. Chairman Barker asked when Mr. Parker became aware of the regulations concerning conditional use permits and historic buildings. Mr. Parker replied it was part of the sales pitch from the real estate firm but it was not the reason they purchased the home. Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Parker to explain how the proposed business would be different from running an ongoing garage sale. Mr. Parker responded that an ongoing garage sale would be a mixture of all different types of product and would be on a larger scale than what he proposes. He said that people visiting antique shops generally go in for an enjoyment factor more than to spend money. The following residents spoke in opposition to the project: A1 Abram, 9747 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga Cyndi Testa, 9738 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho Cucamonga Vic Cherbak, 9820 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho Cucamonga A1 Cherbak, 222 Avenue F, Redondo Beach Sandra Sraberg, 9494 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga Edna Allen, 9731 Peach Tree Lane, Rancho Cucamonga Alan Shapiro, 9737 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga Clifford Bennett, 9718 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga Paul Mock, 5506 Malachite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Merlin Clarke, 9729 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga Jim Morgan, 9760 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga Eugene Illsley, 8375 Vicara Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Dale Cummins, 9738 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga In addition a petition of opposition signed by 27 residents was presented. A1 Cherbak discussed the history of Alta Loma and zoning provided for in revisions of the Chaffey College General Plan by the Alta Loma Community Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 14, 1994 Chamber of Commerce which provided for industrial commercial and high density residential in the southerly area and lower density residential and some commercial in the central area up to Lemon Avenue. He said a service station was permitted on the corner of Lemon Avenue and Haven because of Charley College and strip commercial soon followed surrounding the service station. Concerns were raised about a change in the status quo; increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic; potential for conflict between vehicular traffic and equestrian uses; designation of one third of the living space to the business; a business 'being open six days a week; potential for popularity of the store with an increase in traffic; increased dust from gravel parking area; setting of a precedent; a change in zoning; a commercial entity in a residential area; potential for sale of antique cars, buggies, and smudge pots; desire to keep area as low density equestrian area; potential for consignment; reduction of historic home to a "cheap swap meet"; potential for disturbing of the peace and quiet of neighborhood; driveway being too close to Archibald; lack of planning; fear that the applicant may expand the use in order to improve cash flow; fear that auctions may be held on weekends; fear that City would not enforce conditions or respond to complaints about the business; fear of a bond issue; and discrepancies between original request and staff report vs. what was presented this evening (i.e., initially 4,600 square feet for antiques and art gallery vs. 280 square feet for antiques with no artwork sales mentioned this evening). It was observed that the Parkers previously had large vehicles for sale on property. Comments were made that because the home had been a private residence for its entire existence, the use should not be changed; and the application should not be approved because the neighbors do not approve-- therefore, it disrupts the neighborhood. One resident stated he was proud to live near an historical home but did not feel he would be proud to live by an antique store. Questions were raised as to who would enforce hours, where antiques would come from when they have sold what they currently have; if the City would get anything out of an approval; and if federal and state agencies are going to contribute. One resident expressed appreciation that Mr. Parker had addressed some of the concerns raised at the last meeting and felt that if what was stated this evening had been originally presented, there may have been less concern. Comments were made that Mr. Parker had made no attempt to contact surrounding residents because no one would attach any importance to a flyer passed out in a shopping center. One resident commented that he never saw advertising of an open house but saw three children with a lined paper sign by the mailbox advertising an open party. Chairman Barker asked what the bond issue referred to. Mr. Coleman replied that Mr. Parker had mentioned at the last meeting that he and his wife would be willing to work with the City, perhaps on a low interest bond, to improve the corner prior to development. Chairman Barker remarked that there is no advantage or disadvantage to the City if the use is approved. He also stated that any bonds would have to be passed by residents and could not be approved by the City. Commissioner Lumpp asked several speakers if they had noticed any traffic impacts based on the current operation of the residence. One resident Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 14, 1994 responded he had never seen anyone visiting or touring the home, one replied he had observed very minor activity when some items were placed for sale on the corner but there was no impact at current levels, one stated he had been impacted when oranges or knickknacks were sold on the corner, and one replied he had been impacted. Chairman Barker asked staff to explain the historic regulations under which the proposal was submitted. Mr. Coleman replied that as an incentive to encourage the preservation of historic structures, the City code allows certain limited activities including retail such as boutiques, bed-and-breakfast inns, etc. He said this is an incentive for the owners to derive some income to make it viable to preserve the structures in the community as an important resource. Mr. Parker felt that people are skeptical that he wants to help the children or the community by opening up the house. He stated the antique shop is not meant to be a money making venture, but simply a convenience to be open to the public. He commented that the Regency Estates is approximately 400 to 600 feet away and is buffered by orange trees, a driveway, and a wall. He said that one of the residents of Regency Estates had written that they had to live with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which refers to 10-inch high concrete figures which are located 411 feet off Hillside Road behind the groves and a parapet wall. He felt having antiques in one room of the house would not generate any additional traffic over what already occurs. He said they may buy additional antiques to place for sale but their intent was not to go out and buy $10,000 worth of inventory. He commented they could not sell cars or other large pieces because they would not fit in the room. He stated they would certainly not do anything that would endanger their children or make the property into a circus. He showed a proposed landscaping sketch. He said the equestrian trails are to be installed when the property that surrounds them is developed and the current owners of that property have indicated they have no intentions of developing the property in the near future. He said they have made an offer to purchase the property and if they bought the property they would not develop it. He stated that at the last meeting he had suggested that if the City would work with them, they would take out a low interest bond or loan to pay for installation of the equestrian trails because they do not want the property to look the way it does for the next four years. He said dust had been mentioned as a concern from traffic on the gravel driveway but stated he creates more dust when he is removing weeds from the property or when horses walk in the future horse trail area. He showed a picture of a property at the corner of Wilson and Archibald which depicted items strewn all over the yard and said they would not allow the Demens-Tolstoy property to look like that. He said they were willing to put up a new sign rather than using the water tank as he had first proposed. He acknowledged that real estate values are down but stated that it is not caused by anything he is planning to do to his property, but rather because prices were previously grossly inflated and the banks are now foreclosing and liquidating properties that were over mortgaged. He stated that 10 school buses travel twice a day on Hillside so the addition of a bus or two a year to bring school children to his property would not create any danger from fumes. He stated that zoning would not be changed and they were not requesting any favoritism, but merely Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 14, 1994 something that is already in the code. He commented that Regency Estates is a closed, gated community and they had no way of getting into the community to discuss what they plan to do. He disclosed that they had contacted the Superintendent of the Alta Loma Schools to offer a one-day field trip history class to show the process of irrigation and cultivation. He said the Superintendent had expressed interest and they plan to go ahead with that proposal because that subject is taught. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He observed that there is no need to obtain a permit to allow schools to tour a home. He commented that the Commission had three options: grant approval for the proposal with modifications suggested by staff, grant approval with other conditions, or deny the application. Commissioner Melcher felt it important to clear up some misconceptions. He commented that the planning process is not a majority rules process. He stated that state law gives the City Council the ability to establish a Planning Commission which can detach itself from the political process, as it is an appointed body rather than an elected one. He said the Commission's constituency is the five City Council members as well as the entire City. He observed the Commission has to determine whether the request complies with the ordinances, which do in fact allow for the limited commercial use of historic properties subject to a conditional use permit procedure in order to encourage preservation, and whether the application will do that in an appropriate manner. He stated he had heard the comment that the application and the business notions that it embodies do not seem particularly well planned and he agreed with that comment. He felt that if the application were to be approved, the Commission may wish to require a comprehensive written plan of operations be provided as part of the approval as he felt the application still appeared to be in flux. He suggested staff inform the audience regarding the procedures for the review of conditional use permits and revocation procedures. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained what a conditional use permit is and stated that through a public hearing process conditions are applied to make uses .compatible with neighboring properties and uses. He observed that conditional use permits can be revoked if it is found the use causes a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or if there are specific violations of the conditions of approval. He reported thata revocation hearing is a public meeting with surrounding property owners being notified of the hearing and the applicant and the public have an opportunity to comment before the Commission makes a determination as to whether the permit should be revoked. Commissioner Lumpp stated that by state law, a conditional use permit is a tool that allows a city to add certain requirements to make a use more palatable in a neighborhood or an area. He said tonight's hearing is part of the fundamental process. He observed that the 300 foot notice requirement is not something the City arbitrarily does, but is mandated by state law. He affirmed that the City goes beyond what the law requires and provide notice in a newspaper and posting of the property. He noted that some of the residents commented about traffic impacts adjacent to the property and observed that Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 14, 1994 when he asked how those residents were currently being impacted by traffic caused by people visiting the Demens-Tolstoy House, it appeared there is limited impact. He commented that it appears that the predominance of the traffic impact is unrelated to the project, but is as a result of students going to Chaffey College and people driving on Archibald. He stated he was somewhat confused between what the staff report indicates and what Mr. Parker stated he really wishes to do. He expressed concern about that confusion and stated that because of that confusion combined with issues related to health and safety of the neighborhood, he was not convinced that this would be a good use of the property. He felt the two existing historical structures which are being used for commercial purposes are in totally different areas and the area of the Demens-Tolstoy House is remote and exclusive. He stated he was not opposed to the applicant's placing a sign in front of their house offering tours. He said he could not make Finding 3.b. in the resolution--that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Chairman Barker felt neighborhood negotiations could have perhaps addressed most of the concerns; however, he noted there was distrust and the matter was now being handled in a hearing forum. He suggested that producing 1,000 flyers and not distributing those flyers to the neighbors was not an attempt at open communication, in that the problems lie in the neighborhood rather than elsewhere in the community. He observed that the type of use requested is allowed in the City in order to encourage improvement of historic properties, and, although he was aware of the incentive, Mr. Parker had stated it was a not a factor in his decision to buy. He commented that the applicant had stated money was not a factor and he felt the proposed sales were not enough to make an impact on the cost of buying or maintaining the property. He agreed that Archibald is a busy street and he was not comfortable with the staff report's assertion that there would be no impact on traffic. He agreed that the other historic structures being used for commercial purposes are in mixed use areas. He understood the fear of outdoor auctions but he did not see that as a potential use. He echoed the concerns that the proposal was not well defined with the changes from first and second floor to only the basement to a certain number of square feet. He observed the proposal was not solid and he stated he could not make the findings necessary for approval. Commissioner Melcher stated that he sensed that the proposition was about to lose and said he preferred to offer the possibility of a continuance to better define the plans to see if that would alleviate the concerns. Chairman Barker stated he did not feel any obligation to continue the hearing because the applicant had indicated he wanted the matter to be heard tonight. Commissioner Lumpp agreed the applicant had been given an opportunity to have the matter continued, and he was not sure it would change anything about what he wants to do. He observed that the applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial without prejudice for adoption on the Consent Calendar at the September 28, 1994, meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 14, 1994 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER NONE MCNIEL, TOLSTOY -carried Chairman Barker advised the applicant that he had the right to appeal the decision after the resolution is adopted. He observed that consent calendar items can be pulled from the calendar but they are usually not except for points of information. He explained the difference between denial and denial without prejudice. , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 9:40 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. , , , , De VARIANCE 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request to increase the sign area for the Project Identification Monument Sign from 24 to 49 square feet; increase the sign area for the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from 24 to 49 square feet; and increase the maximum number of tenant names on the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from three to five per face, for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenues - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related File: Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 88. (Continued from August 10, 1994) Chairman Barker observed that Item D had been withdrawn by the applicant and no action was necessary. , , , , OLD BUSINESS Ee AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 88 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Sign Program to allow a Project Identification Monument Sign, internally illuminated Tenant Identification Monument Signs, and various changes to the sign criteria for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related file: Variance 93-05. (Continued from August 10, 1994) Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the applicant had informed staff that the application would be revised and resubmitted to be consistent with the recent amendment to the Sign Ordinance. , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE REGULATIONS ORDINANCE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Review of proposed ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 14, 1994 Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Me stated that the definition of a convenience store would be expanded to indicate that it would not exceed 7,500 square feet. Commissioner Melcher asked for elaboration on the Police Department statistics. Mr. Henderson responded that the Police Department provided an analysis of the number of occurrences over the last four years, and the number has dropped. Commissioner Melcher asked if statistics had been prepared to support the statement in the proposed ordinance that the number of homicides and robberies at convenience stores exceed the number of such incidents at other establishments between the hours of 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. Mr. Henderson replied that is typical nationally. He said the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department had not supplied those statistics and had indicated they did not anticipate that it would be that significantly different from other businesses in the community. Commissioner Melcher asked if there was an incident or series of incidents which prompted the City Council to request that an ordinance be prepared. Brad Buller, City Planner, said the request was in response to the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) training which the City Council attended. He stated that during that training the Gainsrills, Florida ordinance was mentioned and the Mayor requested that staff look at it further for a possible Rancho Cucamonga City ordinance. He remarked it was felt that it would be better to be proactive instead of being reactire. He said it was felt that convenience stores are more subject to robberies and the City could possibly address those issues in a proactive manner. Commissioner Melcher suggested that a voluntary program be tried to see if it works. Chairman Barker noted that the letter from the California Grocers Association (CGA) advocates a voluntary program. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the two-person concept came from the Gainsville ordinance. Mr. Henderson replied that it did. Commissioner Lumpp asked if staff had contacted Gainsville to see how it is working. Mr. Henderson responded that the City had not contacted Gainsville, but the Chamber of Commerce indicated they had contacted Gainsrills. Mr. Bullet said that they were informed there was a reduction in crime but also in the number of convenience stores, particularly the Mom-and-Pop stores. He said many of the smaller stores moved out of the area. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 14, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp asked if the ordinance would become effective immediately upon adoption. Mr. Buller replied that the ordinance is simply a draft ordinance as the City Council had asked that staff prepare a draft ordinance based on the Gainsville ordinance with community input. He said, as drafted, the effective date would be immediately; however, it could be modified so that existing businesses could be grandfathered with compliance to be achieved within a period of time--i.e., one year, two years, five years. He also said the City Attorney had suggested we further clarify the definition of a convenience store and perhaps square footage should be considered. He reported staff then researched it and found that 7,500 square feet would include most convenience stores but not grocery stores or large markets. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the ordinance as presently drafted is not a zoning ordinance and would be a presently effective business regulation unless revised. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Gary Christian, president of Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, 8280 Utica Avenue, Suite 160, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that in their conversations with Gainsville they were informed that although crime went down in convenience stores, residential burglaries increased and he felt the issue of shifting of crime should be considered. He agreed the proposed ordinance includes some good ideas and businesses should be encouraged to implement them, as they are by Southland Corporation and the CGA. He observed that the CGA letter cited three studies indicating that one clerk vs. two clerks is not statistically significant in reducing crime and that crime in convenience stores is being reduced nationally. He noted that Money Magazine had recently stated that Rancho Cucamonga is the llth safest City with populations over 100,000 in the United States. He said business people already take steps to protect themselves and their employees and customers. He also felt it would be difficult to enforce such an ordinance. He said the Police Department had remarked that it goes out and discusses crime prevention measures whenever requested to do so by the business owner. He thought it would not be reasonable to have the Police Department checking to make sure that businesses have two employees and not more than $50 in the register. He offered the services of th~ Chamber of Commerce to do whatever they can to help the convenience stores but he felt there is not a problem. He provided a copy of a Police Department summary of convenience store statistics, which indicated that larceny and violent crimes at convenience stores had generally decreased over the last four years. He noted that a few stores still could use some help. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Chamber of Commerce was recommending that an ordinance not be adopted. Mr. Christian replied that an ordinance encouraging steps may be acceptable but he indicated likely opposition to an ordinance mandating steps. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 14, 1994 Commissioner Melcher noted that some of the requirements in the ordinance deal with CPTED issues, primarily visibility into the store, of the cashier, and customer, etc. He asked if the Chamber objected to those issues, or only requiring more employees and security cameras. Mr. Christian replied that was correct. He noted that the Sign Ordinance deals with the issue of signs blocking visibility into the store but he noted it does not cover the issue of stacked boxes blocking that visibility. He felt that boxes should not block visibility from the standpoint of good business sense. He agreed it does help to have good visibility into the store. Commissioner Melcher thought that such provisions would not significantly impact business and do make sense. He felt some of the other provisions do not seem appropriate for the community. Mr. Christian asked if the next step would be to require that every automobile in the City have a club and all residences have a guard dog. He said he understood that the government wants to protect its citizens, but he thought there is currently not a problem and the measures go too far. He thought the Police Department should be commended for the job they do. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Rancho Cucamonga is a safe City because the City Council and the Planning Commission have not developed programs in a reactionary mode, but rather in a positive, proactive sense. He thought this ordinance was an attempt to be proactive. He supported the idea but did not think all of the provisions apply. He thought that adding an additional clerk would not stop a robbery. He questioned if convenience stores could not have a panic button which connects to the Police Department in lieu of two people or a security camera. Mr. Christian said that may lead to false alarms. Art Perez, Loss Prevention Manager for Southland Corporation, 120 South State College Boulevard, Brea, indicated he has approximately 22 years experience in law enforcement and retail. He provided a copy of materials they use in the Robbery/Violence Prevention training. He offered his services to assist in helping draft an ordinance. He said the latest FBI report has shown a double- digit drop in robberies in the convenience industry while fast food businesses and banks are showing an increase. He stated that Southland utilizes two clerks where it is economically feasible and they are trying to install a camera system in each of their 1,200 stores as time goes by. He observed their camera system utilizes a color monitor on which patrons can see themselves. He reported when they installed such equipment, ~crime took a 70 percent drop, but he noted it is a very expensive system. He said they also have a hold up button which is tied to a security company which dispatches the Police. Because 7-11 stores are already slated to get such equipment, he felt the ordinance would probably not cause a severe impact on those stores; however, he felt it could be too large of a burden on the small independent stores. He said there are other things which can be done such as training and providing clear visibility into the store with reduced signage and low aisles. He said he is currently working with several police departments to Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 14, 1994 help them establish programs. He said they also offer their services to other companies. Commissioner Lumpp asked how they feel about the panic button. Mr. Perez replied they are comfortable with the buttons but they educate their people not to push the button until after the robbery has occurred. He said they try to prevent robberies but if one occurs, they want the person out as soon as possible. Chairman Barker observed that there are no or minimal costs associated with some of the ideas while others are cost items--such as two persons, drop or time-release safes, and security cameras. He felt that it is illogical for a store to block visibility with window signs or stacks or boxes. Commissioner Melche~ noted such cluttering signs are more commonly found on small independent stores. Chairman Barker commented that 7-11 already has a major crime prevention program. He said small independent stores do not have such a program and may put themselves at risk by trying to cram in extra advertising or extra storage space. He thought that is not a cost item but he questioned how far the City wants to go in regulating the stores. He was not comfortable with mandating a policy that only $50 be available at one time because of enforcement problems. He felt the City should try to help prevent occurrences rather than being reactive. Commissioner Lumpp felt that additional lighting could potentially be a cost item as well. Chairman Barker noted there are current regulations regarding lighting. asked if that provision would mean additional costs for businesses. He Mr. Buller replied that it might entail additional costs for those locations which were developed under the County standards prior to City incorporation. He thought the Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the more costly items be phased in. He said the ordinance could perhaps cover those items which are no or low cost and the City could conduct workshops and assist in training in crime prevention. He noted that Southland Corporation has offered their assistance and the Police Department has offered to meet with the businesses independently to go over crime prevention ideas. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Police Department supports the proposed ordinance. Mr. Buller replied that the Police Department was at the workshop to assist and provided some of the data. He said they are supportive of any City Council direction to reduce crime but they have not taken a position of recommending for or against any of the specific elements of this ordinance. Chairman Barker felt lighting should be improved to current standards, even if there are costs involved, as he thought that is a cost of doing business. He Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 14, 1994 thought lighting by itself is a deterrent and lighting should be improved immediately where necessary. He felt security cameras are becoming increasingly reasonable and perhaps they should be strongly recommended rather than a requirement. He thought some of the items could be strongly recommended while others could be phased in. He felt it makes good business sense for small independent stores to not have more than $50 in cash available but he questioned if the City could legally mandate that no more than $50 be available. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested it could be a business license regulation, but enforcement would be unfeasible. Mr. Buller observed that comments were made at the workshop that it would take an enormous amount of staff time and resources to enforce every aspect of the ordinance. He said some community representatives asked who would pay associated costs and the City Council should address that issue. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to see requirements for two people and the security camera changed to recommendations. Chairman Barker felt the City could make a suggestion that no more than $50 in cash be available and that a sign to that effect be posted, but he felt it would be too difficult to enforce. He questioned if the City can require a drop safe or time-release safe. Commissioner Melcher felt that lighting should be upgraded where needed immediately. He noted that the proposed ordinance requires employee training in a course given by the Police Department or certified by the City and he asked if any courses have been certified. Mr. Buller replied none are presently certified but staff felt that courses such as Southland's training would probably be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher felt uncomfortable with requiring people to take a City program and then charging for the program. He wanted to be sure there is an alternative available. He did not want to give the appearance of the City setting up a monopoly. Mr. Buller said staff's intent was that employees working during evening hours receive some training. He was aware that Southland Corporation offers courses and said staff could work on how to certify such courses. Chairman Barker agreed the City should not be the only provider. Commissioner Lumpp recommended that the requirements for two people, a security camera, drop safe or time-release safe, limitation to $50 in cash, and training be eliminated. Chairman Barker asked if the requirement to post a sign in the window stating that no more than $50 in cash is available to employees should be removed because it may be requiring store owners to lie. Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 14, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp felt that some of the ideas are good but would be too tough to enforce. Chairman Barker suggested that those items be recommendations but not requirements. , , , , G. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PARKING REOUIREMENTS FOR BARBER SHOPS AND BEAUTY SALONS Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked how all of the parking stalls are being used with a 40 percent vacancy rate. Mr. Buller replied that even vacant space requires parking so that when the empty space is leased, there will be parking spaces available. Commissioner Lumpp asked if he couldn't put the barber shop in the vacant space. Mr. Buller replied that he could, but he would then not have sufficient parking for retail use when the rest of the center is leased. Chairman Barker asked if there is a shortage of space for the center. Mr. Buller replied there is no shortage of space if the space is leased only as typical retail which requires 1 space for every 250 square feet. He observed that most centers provide more than the required parking of 1 to 250 square foot for retail so that they can accommodate uses with higher parking intensity, such as barber shops, beauty salons, and restaurants. He said that all of the extra spaces for this center are used for the restaurant and there are no additional parking spaces available beyond the 1 to 250 square foot retail ratio. Chairman Barker felt it would not make sense for the City to modify the total Development Code because there is a shortage of two parking spaces in one shopping area. He did not believe the City should encumber time and expense to address the problem at one center. He thought there should be a less costly approach to solving the problem. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Mr. Bullet stated staff had suggested four alternatives which the applicant had chosen not to pursue. Commissioner Melcher felt that it was unreasonable to suggest that the barber should lease more square footage to obtain the additional parking required. He noted that the staff report included portions of City ordinances from Ontario, Fontana, and Los Angeles which indicate barbers can use the same parking requirements as other retail uses. He asked why Rancho Cucamonga requires more parking. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 14, 1994 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that there are other cities which require more parking for barber shops than Rancho Cucamonga does. Mr. Buller commented this was not the first time that the parking ratio for barber shops and beauty salons had been studied. He noted that a parking study was conducted in 1993 and at that time it was determined that there should be no changes in the parking requirements for centers of less than 25,000 square feet. Chairman Barker felt it would be more logical to see if it would be possible to modify the parking layout to increase the number of spots. Commissioner Melcher noted that is not always possible. Chairman Barker requested an explanation of shared parking. Mr. Buller replied that shared parking has been used in the Virginia Dare Center because heavy demand for theater parking occurs at a different time from the office use and it was felt the variation in hours of use would allow shared parking and that it would be a burden for the center to maximize parking for the entire center. He said the applicant would have to indicate there is a user at his center whose parking demand would be at off hours and the applicant would have to provide a study to justify the shared parking. Chairman Barker asked if any such uses are contemplated. Mr. Buller replied staff does not know of any businesses in the center that would qualify under the provisions. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there are any provisions in the code to allow a minor variance. Mr. Bullet responded that staff does not feel the findings could be made to justify a variance or minor exception. He said that when the project was developed, the applicant chose to build the project out with the square footage and parking ratios which he now has and he now has a problem. He observed that at the last meeting, the Commission had suggested that Mr. Spurlock, the applicant's representative, contact other shopping center owners of similar size and see if they had similar concerns and would be willing to participate in processing an amendment. He said Mr. Spurlock had contacted him today and advised he could not get other center owners to participate because they had provided additional parking so they could accommodate such alternative uses. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Greg Sakissian, owner of Arrow Plaza, 9755 A Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the parking requirement is not fair because the cities of Ontario, Rialto, Fontana, and Los Angeles have parking requirements of i space per 250 square feet of retail space. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 14, 1994 Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Sakissian was the developer and if he had not been aware of parking requirements when he built the center. Mr. Sakissian replied affirmatively. Chairman Barker commented that Mr. Sakissian was then culpable for the problem. He did not feel Mr. Sakissian could say it was unfair because he had created part of the problem. He said he would like to help and get the barber shop in but he felt there should be a simpler way than to have a development code amendment as the problem does not appear to be City wide. He asked if Mr. Sakissian had looked at modifying the parking layout. Mr. Sakissian said there is very little movement and he could probably only pick up one more parking space. He thought there is currently sufficient parking space and he suggested that the side street could be used for parking. Chairman Barker asked the hours of operation for the restaurant. Mr. Sakissian replied the restaurant works all day and the other spaces are retail spaces. He did not feel shared parking is viable. Chairman Barker asked what type of findings would be necessary to grant a minor exception. Mr. Buller replied it would be the same findings as for a variance; that the property has unique circumstances or conditions which are not common to the neighborhood. He said that he could not make that finding in an initial review of the property. He observed the applicant could lease unused parking space from the Water District on the parcel immediately to the south as it is permissible to lease space for parking within 300 feet of a center. He said at one time the center had leased office space to the Water District. Chairman Barker noted that there is a 40 percent vacancy factor in the center with resulting unused parking spaces and he thought it looks silly to not allow a use unless parking space is leased on another parcel. He admitted that if the center was packed he would not have sympathy for the owner. He thought there should be some way to allow the use. Commissioner Melcher suggested a finding that the required landscape setbacks consume an abnormally large percentage of the center because the parcel is so small. Mr. Buller stated that in the past, the Commission has been extremely careful regarding parking variances and has asked that even minor exceptions with shared parking studies be reviewed at the Commission level. He suggested that if the applicant applied for and received a variance for the front landscaping, more parking could be accommodated. He thought if the Commission found that the frontage landscaping could be improved, within less space, a variance might be granted. Chairman Barker asked if the landscaping would have to be redone. Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 14, 1994 Mr. Buller noted that there a couple of large finger islands on the frontage which reach down into the parking lot. He said normal requirements call for a minimum of 6 feet of planted area and the applicant has one island which is 15 to 20 feet wide because he was trying to meet an average minimum 45-foot landscaping setback. He said the same findings would have to be made for a landscape variance as for a parking variance, but he noted that the Commission has not been as concerned with landscaping variances as they have for parking variances. Chairman Barker suggested that removing enough landscaping from the finger island may allow the two extra spots. He thought that would be the cheapest and fastest way to proceed. Mr. Bullet said that Commissioner Melcher had commented at the last meeting that he had never observed a parking problem at the center. Mr. Bullet stated he frequents the restaurant and he had experienced parking problems when the center was at full occupancy. Chairman Barker suggested that the applicant apply for a landscaping variance. Mr. Sakissian said he would contact staff to proceed. , , , , Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Lumpp, carried 2-1-2 with Melcher no and McNiel and Tolstoy absent, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. , , , , , H. SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USE MARKET ANALYSIS AND FISCAL STUDY - 1994 Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated staff was looking for comments on an initial scope of services which had been prepared. Chairman Barker felt the scope of services should not be reduced to fit the amount of money. He felt it is important to select what needs to be done and do it completely, rather than trying to do a lot halfway. He referenced a September 14 memorandum from Commissioners Melcher and Lumpp which suggested a task force be appointed to assist with development/review of the request for proposal; preparation of a rating spread sheet, interview questions, and interview rating scale; and interviewing and selection of the consultant. He felt the Commission should not try to manage the administrative tasks of interviewing and selecting the consultant. He did not think the Commission should be part of the management team. Commissioner Lumpp felt the Commission should get involved and assist staff because the staff has been reduced and he did not feel staff has enough time for the project. He also noted the request had been initiated by the Commission and he wanted to be sure the study meets the intent of the Commission's objectives. He saw the Commiesion's involvement as policy direction. Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 14, 1994 Chairman Barker felt the proposal for a task force with such a comprehensive agenda would be more of a day-to-day operational force, rather than policy. He thought the Commission should be setting policy, not administering it. He said such involvement would mean the process would have to slow down to accommodate schedules of people who are not hired by the taxpayers or City Council to do the work. He stated the Planning Commissioners do not have the authority to hire anyone. Commissioner Lumpp stated that he felt the Commissioners should sit on the interview panel and assist in hiring. Chairman Barker felt that was pushing past the point of policy making into administration. Commissioner Lumpp felt they should be part of the interview panel along with staff. Commissioner Melcher observed he had written the memorandum, but stated he felt Chairman Barker's point was well taken. He said he would like to be sure the Commission is involved as the project is progressing, so they can feel it is going in the right direction. Mr. Buller stated that the involvement of the Commission as outlined in the memorandum would not necessarily save time for staff. Chairman Barker requested that staff review the scope of services proposed by Commissioners Lumpp and Melcher to see if anything had been left out. Mr. Buller suggested that he review the scope of services with the Chairman and then forward it on through the process. Chairman Barker volunteered to explain the rationale if necessary. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Lumpp suggested that the Commission discuss the issue of "band aid" treatment on historical structures. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there is a lot of literature and differences of opinion on what to do when additions must be made to historic structures. He said one school of thought is to make additions contrasting and another is to make the additions harmonious so that they appear as if they could have been part of the original structure. He suggested that staff gather some articles regarding the matter and forward them to the Commission so that the Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 14, 1994 Commission can decide what is most appropriate for Rancho Cucamonga. He said that with all of the new building laws, ramps and other add-ons are necessary. Commissioner Melcher thought the Commissioners should have more information. Mr. Buller suggested that the matter not be placed on the agenda until after the Commissioners have an opportunity to review the materials. Commissioner Melcher observed that the Banks, who he felt are knowledgeable about preservation, made an addition to their historic rock house that mirrors the original portion and he thought the wrought iron stairs to be added to the Klusman House will appear as a cheap remodeling job to convert the use. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher that the Hillside Grading Ordinance should be amended so that the Commission would not have to review individual houses. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. 11:25 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following regarding Conditional Use Permit 94-26. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -21- September 14, 1994