Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/03/23 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 23, 1994 Vice Chairman McNiel 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. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker (arrived 7:02 p.m.), Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Joe Henry, Police Lieutenant; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-0-1 with McNiel abstaining, to adopt the minutes of March 9, 1994, as amended. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A plan for the development of 380 acres of land that would include recreational, commercial, and retail facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf course, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. & S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher observed that staff recommended that a more definitive design theme be established for the project through either a design manual or master plan for the project. He asked if staff recommended that the Specific Plan be approved as is with the design theme to follow later. Mr. Coleman affirmed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher noted the staff report indicated a potential need for buffering the golf course by sound walls. He questioned what would trigger the need for a sound wall around the golf course. Mr. Coleman stated that the General Plan sets noise standards for golf courses and the Draft EIR identified some specific areas where those standards may be exceeded. He noted that there would be more answers at the April 27, 1994, meeting when the final EIR will be considered. He said that staff would like to focus on the areas around the club house. Commissioner Melcher commented that golf courses can generally be viewed from surrounding areas. He felt it would be a shame to close off views of the course with walls. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that specific language regarding noise levels of golf courses was included when the General Plan was drafted. He thought the authors had probably envisioned golf courses only being constructed up in the foothills rather than along major streets. He stated staff did not see a reason for placing a sound barrier between the course and the street. Commissioner Melcher asked for verification regarding maximum building height. Mr. Coleman stated that a hotel could be a maximum of eight stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater, and office buildings could be up to six stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. Commissioner Lumpp asked for clarification regarding the proposed Floor Area Ration (FAR) requirement. Mr. Coleman standards. center. said staff was still working with the applicant on FAR He noted a higher FAR is recommended for a hotel/conference Chairman Barker invited public comment. Jeff Kudlac, Steve Eimer & Associates, 10900 East 4th Street, Building 601, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they agreed with most of the comments made by staff in the staff report. He stated he would like to discuss the Planning Commission's policy regarding undergrounding of overhead utilities. He said there are currently three locations with overhead utilities: the railroad right-of-way at the northern end of the property, the southern end of 6th Street, and the 4th Street alignment. He said they had submitted an Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 23, 1994 infrastructure phasing program to the City shown as Exhibit A of the staff report. He noted they had initially requested that they delay the undergrounding of the utilities along 6th Street and 4th Street until development occurs in one of the adjacent planning areas. He noted that currently there is an overhead above 66 kv on the railroad right-of-way and that would remain in place. He acknowledged that the City's current policy would require them to underground communications lines on the same poles. He said they will be creating a berm effect from the railroad down to the golf course and using landscaping to mitigate noise and improve the view from the course. He felt the cost was not justified to underground the utilities since the lines would not be seen from the golf course. He requested that the Commission consider leaving the communications line above ground. He offered to underground the line on 6th Street from Cleveland to the eastern edge of the golf course at the time the course is developed but defer undergrounding on 4th Street until development in adjacent planning areas. He showed a board of the proposed updated alignment of the golf course with the club house moved to 6th Street, a golf maintenance facility located at the end of Cleveland Street, and the course extending down to 4th Street. Mr. Kudlac requested that the minimum landscape requirement within the planning areas be reduced because the golf course would be over 170 acres of greenscape. He said the Specific Plan should reflect that the proposed hotel is possible in a number of planning areas so each of those planning areas should have the ability to have a higher FAR only if the hotel occurs there. He said they had worked with staff on the language regarding the master plan and were in agreement with what was presented this evening. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a hotel would be a great asset to the project and he thought it may be a good selling point to have the hotel within walking distance of the club house. Mr. Kudlac stated they were looking at a number of possible planning areas for a hotel. He commented they hope to create a shuttle and/or pedestrian system throughout the project. He said their most important concern at the present time is the function of the golf course. He commented they were trying to relate the golf course to the demographics of Rancho Cucamonga rather than a resort. He said they want to relate to office users and the community. Commissioner McNiel questioned if there is any language with respect to the relationship between the golf course and any surrounding buildings. He wanted to avoid having 70-foot poles with netting to protect the buildings. Mr. Buller indicated the specific plan does not specify a distance from the golf driving range to buildings but does set perimeter setbacks for the layout of holes (page 5-25). He indicated that once the layout of the golf course is known it may be possible to set some standards for building locations. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that would be considered as each parcel is developed. Mr. Buller felt it could be considered at the master plan stage because the golf course would be designed and in place at that time. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 23, 1994 Commissioner McNiel felt that may not be enough. Mr. Smith said they were industry standards. He said there would also generally be a grade transition so the golf course would be below the development pads which would serve as an additional containment for errant balls. He observed that there is also a 10-foot landscape buffer along the edge of the golf course which will help to block balls while providing view corridors. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission allow staff to work with the applicant regarding language on orientation and location of buildings in relationship to the golf course. Commissioner McNiel felt that would be satisfactory. that the problem is addressed. He wanted to be sure Mr. Bullet said that staff may conclude that it might be descriptively stated in the text of the specific plan but actually addressed with the master plan once the golf course final layout is known. Chairman Barker asked about the proposed netting on the driving range. Mr. Kudlac said they were still working with the consultant to determine where netting would be required. He observed that staff's recommendation had been that netting be brought back to the parking setback if needed along the streets and they were in agreement with that requirement. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Melcher asked if each of the planning areas would be able to develop its own set of design guidelines. Mr. Buller said there are several exhibits within the specific plan text showing major street entries and streetscape. He said concepts of streetscape design, entry statements, etc. would be considered with the master plans. Commissioner Melcher questioned if that meant that other than the streetscape design, there may be totally different development concepts unrelated to one another from site to site. Mr. Buller confirmed that was a possibility. Chairman Barker felt there should be some sort of tying together of theme including lighting standards, signage, etc. He thought it is a marvelous opportunity to tie things to the golf course and did not want to see small parcels appear disjointed and unrelated to surrounding parcels. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he was talking about infrastructure likeness such as monument signs, street lights, etc. Chairman Barker felt that should be at the very minimum. He said he would like an overall design basically spelled out in a design manual so that as projects are processed by staff, there would be few problems. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 23, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy noted staff's recommendation was for a minimum of design concepts for entry statements, monumentation, directional signs, and lighting standards. He asked if Chairman Barker was also looking for an architectural theme. Chairman Barker said he would be happier with that but he acknowledged it probably would not happen. He wanted to be sure there is a smooth transition from one parcel to the next. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with staff's recommendation and he felt those design concepts could be achieved through a design manual or master plan prior to the development of any planning area. Commissioner Melcher thought the design manual or master plan could be for any of the planning areas, not necessarily all of them. Mr. Buller stated the specific plan calls for site signage and lighting to be designed and located as part of an overall coordinated program for the entire 380 acres but the specific plan does not go into detail of what they shall look like and how they will be designed, etc. He said the applicant has agreed to a coordinated plan but staff feels it does not have to be part of the specific plan. Commissioner Melcher questioned if that meant that the developer of the first planning area would have the burden of developing the program for the entire 380 acres. Mr. Buller agreed the first master plan for the first development may establish the theme for the rest of the 380 acres unless the master developer sets an overall design guide prior to the first master plan. Commissioner Melcher thought the various planning areas would probably be parceled off and sold to other parties for development. He said he understood the first development could not take place prior to the establishment of the design concepts for entry statements, monumentation signs, and lighting standards and would also have to provide a master plan for development of that particular planning area. He asked if different planning areas can have unrelated architectural concepts for the structures. Mr. Buller replied they could. He noted that each master plan would be subject to the review of the Commission and the Commission could determine the level of detail required in the master plans. Chairman Barker repeated that he wanted compatibility or transitioning between the planning areas. Commissioner Melcher supported the need for an overall design theme dealing with landscaping, street furniture, entry statements, monumentation signs, and lighting standards. However, he felt it should not be left until the first planning area is submitted. He thought it would be to the master developer's benefit to control the theme because it would be easier to market the property. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 23, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy noted the undeveloped parcels range from 17 to 28 acres. He felt the parcels are large enough to allow different architectural themes on the various parcels so long as there is some control for compatibility between the planning areas. Chairman Barker asked if there is a means of guaranteeing compatibility between planning areas. Mr. Buller suggested staff work with the applicant to see how and when the coordinated programs will occur. He stated there had been discussions with the applicant and he felt the applicant is not far from being able to identify the coordinated landscaping, street furniture, entry statements, and sign programs so it would not have to wait until the first planning area is ready to be submitted. Chairman Barker invited the applicant to comment. Mr. Kudlac stated much of the standards on the perimeter of their property is being dictated by the City under street beautification programs along the major streets. He felt the Commission would have an opportunity to ensure continuity between the individual planning areas when reviewing the various master plans. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that there should be flexibility to be creative with different architectural styles or design themes for the various uses and planning areas. He wanted to be able to create some unique environments around the golf course. He thought the final topography of the golf course would help lend to the uniqueness of the entries, monumentation, and access points in the planning areas. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Palmer group would be designing the landscape palette or if a landscape architect would be hired after the course is designed. Mr. Kudlac responded that it is a team approach and the landscape architect will work with the Arnold Palmer group and the other members of the group. Commissioner McNiel asked if Mr. Kudlac was willing to discuss with staff the development of a specific theme for the entire project. Mr. Kudlac said they would be willing to discuss it with staff but he was not sure they would be able to come up with a vehicle to do that because he thought the mechanism is already in place with the beautification plans required on the perimeter streets. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the plans which are already in place were designed with completely different uses intended in the area. He thought there may need to be some adjustments because of the changes in uses. Mr. Buller felt some answers could be provided at the April 27 hearing. He thought perhaps language could be added to the specific plan to clarify when coordinated programs of street furniture, etc. would be required in the process; i.e., master plan level, design guidebook created by the master developer prior to any development, etc. He thought a supplemental guidebook Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 23, 1994 would have a greater flexibility for the applicant and Commission to revise in the future. Commissioner Melcher noted the specific plan proposes many varied uses in areas appropriate at the time of construction and he thought some sort of overall unifying theme needs to be established as part of the specific plan. Commissioner Lumpp agreed there should be an established unified theme that could flow throughout for the interior of the project. He thought the perimeter is somewhat set with monumentation on the corners, etc. He felt the street lights, uniform bollards, interior monumentation signage, should be set as a general guideline theme with flexibility of the design left for the developer to bring back to the Commission after the golf course has progressed to a logical point. He thought the architectural level of design guidelines could be established at the master plan level with different types for the various planning areas. He observed the City had established a master plan overlay for Haven Avenue with some criteria for development of buildings along Haven. He thought the same concept might be used as a guide program. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher that a sense of guidance for the streetscape should be established at the time the specific plan is adopted. Commissioner Tolstoy felt language needs to ensure there will be compatibility between parcels. He did not wish to establish an architectural theme for the entire 380 acres because he thought the parcels are large enough to allow flexibility and variety. Commissioner Melcher felt Commissioner Lumpp made an excellent suggestion that the specifics of an overall theme package could be deferred so that the preparation would not overwhelm the specific plan process but that it be required of the master developer prior to the Commission's being willing to accept the first master plan. He supported that concept and felt it needs to be in place before land development begins. Mr. Buller said staff and the applicant could work on language for the Commission's consideration and the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that language be added to provide for adequate setback and landscaping to soften the effect of any 70-foot tall net fencing. Commissioner McNiel thought there should not be any need for fencing along 6th Street the way the golf course is being laid out. Mr. Buller said the applicant has indicated it is their goal to avoid netting along any street frontages. Commissioner McNiel felt the possibility exists for such fencing along the railroad right-of-way and it would probably be necessary along the edge of the driving range. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 23, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp recommended that sound walls be avoided along all street frontages. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Commissioner Lumpp felt staff should work out a reasonable increase to the FAR that would work for a hotel and incorporate that language into the document. Commissioner McNiel supported allowing higher buildings with more open space between the buildings. Commissioner Melcher was delighted to see the introduction of the notion of FAR which he believed to be a valid concept. He suggested that the higher FAR be available in any planning areas which may have a hotel but be available only for a hotel. It was the Commission's recommendation to retain the current ISP landscape minimum standards as opposed to granting the applicant's request for a reduction. Chairman Barker asked for comments on the infrastructure phasing of undergrounding. applicant's request for Commissioner Lumpp stated he understood that the utility poles along the railroad right-of-way would remain because they are 66 kv and the applicant was requesting that the communications lines be allowed to remain above ground since the poles would remain. Commissioner Lumpp felt the purpose of undergrounding is to eliminate visual blight and he suggested the applicant be permitted to leave the communication lines above ground. He thought the cost of undergrounding the lines along 4th Street should be borne when one or two of the adjacent planning areas develop. Commissioner McNiel asked if the applicant was proposing to defer the cost of undergrounding on 4th Street to a prospective buyer. Mr. Buller said it was his understanding the applicant was willing to accept responsibility for undergrounding along the golf course frontage but they were asking to defer construction until an adjoining planning area develops and they were willing to underground along the 6th Street frontage of the golf course and golf practice facility at the time of golf course construction. He said the matter would be forwarded to the City Council and the applicant was seeking support from the Commission to delay the undergrounding. Commissioner McNiel wanted to be sure the lines are undergrounded. He said the whole project is like an unwritten book with pages being filled in as the project progresses. He commented that the City and the developers do not know what will happen other than a golf course is to be built in the center. He said it is uncommon for the Commission to have such a loose process and he thought the Commission should proceed cautiously. He stated it has been a matter of policy which the Commission has uniformly applied to underground wherever possible. He did not object to moving time lines but he wanted assurances that the undergrounding will take place and to know who will be responsible, who will pay, and when it will happen. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 23, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant plans to underground the utilities on 4th Street adjacent to Planning Area V where an existing building is located. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it is Engineering's intent to condition any development on the parcel to underground the lines which are under 66 kv. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the City would get the lines undergrounded if the building is not torn down. Mr. James responded that even a Design Review could trigger the request for undergrounding. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his goal is to get the undergrounding done. He felt undergrounding should be required on 6th Street from Cleveland to the western end of Parcel IX as a condition of development of the golf course. He did not object to delaying the undergrounding on 4th Street but he thought the telecommunications lines should be undergrounded along the railroad right-of- way. Mr. James said there are two sets of poles in the railroad right-of-way: one set owned by the railroad for their communication lines and the poles owned by Edison Company. He said the City typically would require that everything ,except the 66 kv be placed underground. Commissioner Tolstoy observed such a requirement would be consistent with past practices. He did not object to phasing so long as it is spelled out by whom and when it would be done. Commissioner Melcher stated that he had previously represented a developer and argued that communication lines should be allowed to remain on the poles which have 66 kv lines and had been unsuccessful whenever he had made that argument. He still felt it made some sense to allow the communication lines to remain. However, he noted the City had gone to great lengths to clean up the railroad frontage because of the Metrolink service and the window presented by the community. He did not feel that area should be deferred. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the logic of requiring the removal of the communication lines if the 66 kv lines would stay. Chairman Barker stated that in the past the Commission had been consistent in requiring the removal of the communication lines and he felt that inconsistency in allowing them to remain in this case would create problems with future projects and other developers. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City was trying to remove as much visual clutter as possible. Chairman Barker stated he also wanted to be sure the undergrounding would occur and wanted to know who would do it and when it would be done. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 23, 1994 Commissioner McNiel felt the undergrounding should be done on 6th Street all the way from Cleveland Avenue to Milliken Avenue because the clubhouse will be in that area. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that would be better than stopping at the western edge of Planning Area IX. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the applicant had expressed agreement with the revised wording regarding master plans. Commissioner Tolstoy observed the City has had a number of master plans presented in the City and he felt the plans submitted for this project should be at least equal to those in the past. He suggested language be added regarding the appeal process. Mr. Buller indicated that staff would be advising the Commission of approvals made under the master plans so that Commissioners, if necessary, would have an opportunity to appeal City Planner decisions within the 10-day period. Commissioner Melcher asked to whom the applicant would appeal a City Planner decision. Mr. Buller replied the applicant could appeal to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Melcher stated that would mean the Planning Commission would be acting as a Design Review Committee in that event. Mr. Buller questioned if the Commissioners felt an appeal of a design issue should go to the Design Review Committee or the full Commission. Commissioner Melcher was concerned that the proponents of the individual master plans would have to come up with precise architectural concepts of form, height, bulk, orientation, etc for their master plans because the design review process is being set aside for this specific plan area and that would equip the City Planner with a tight book of guidelines which would produce a uniform level of mediocrity. He thought there should be more freedom to allow the design community to come up with appropriate designs. He noted the project needs to be viewed in relation to what is going on around it. He said the author of the various master plans should be addressing what is happening across the street. He said those kinds of relationships make up pleasant spaces. He feared the process will not have good results. Mr. Coleman noted there are statements in the specific plan which discuss compatibility of architectural design and the physical setting and surroundings. He said staff was comfortable with the language of the specific plan and the added availability of the master plans. Commissioner Melcher said he did not oppose proceeding but he thought the Commission may want to see sketches of the architectural concepts of form, bulk, height, and orientation and the sketches would become part of the master plans and then perhaps allowable materials would be discussed. He feared that would squelch any creative design. Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 23, 1994 Commissioner McNiel hoped that the golf carts would traverse through a tunnel under 6th Street rather than on a bridge over 6th Street. Mr. Buller said the current direction is to go underground. Commissioner McNiel questioned the amount of street improvements required on 6th Street. Mr. James stated there is currently an asphalt curb and gutter and staff's direction has been that the golf course frontage along 6th Street would have to be complete including curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street lights; however, the street frontage of Planning Areas VIII, IX, or XI would only need to be widened to two lanes without the curb and gutter being installed. Commissioner McNiel asked for verification that no landscaping would be required along 6th Street other than in front of the golf course until development occurs on the other planning areas. Mr. James confirmed that was correct. Commissioner McNiel felt that 6th Street should be finished from Cleveland to Milliken. He noted that a clubhouse would be installed. He acknowledged that the curb would have to be cut when the driveway alignment is determined. Mr. James said that there would also be approximate 300-foot deceleration lanes and those locations had not been identified. Commissioner Melcher commented that the Terra Vista Specific Plan calls for major off-site construction whenever a proposed development touches certain streets. He thought perhaps Commissioner McNiel was looking for a similar requirement on this project. Commissioner McNiel felt 6th Street should be completed to create an attractive approach to the golf course or he thought a sales opportunity would be lost to the developer. He thought values would be increased by the installation of the curb and gutter and landscaping. Mr. Buller said the development agreement would be brought to the Commission and he suggested the matter could be determined then. He noted that the Bixby Ranch property was required to landscape the perimeter of its project and it improved appearances but did not seem to aid in speeding up development. He said staff is finding that a lot of the streetscape is having to be adjusted as users come in. Commissioner McNiel stated it did make the area look less abandoned. Mr. Buller agreed. The Planning Commission adjourned from 9:01 to 9:09 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 23, 1994 PUBLIC HEARINGS B® CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke an Entertainment Permit for a bar and restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. Chairman Barker read a letter from the applicant's attorney requesting that the items be tabled until resolution of a pending criminal case. He opened the public hearing for comments from the applicant's attorney. John Mannerino, Mannerino & Briguglio, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated there is currently a pending court case related to misdemeanor charges for an action in relation to incidents which occurred against Richard Alcorn, the City's Code Enforcement Supervisor. He said Clyde Boyd, the District Attorney handling the case, had also indicated that other charges had been or may be filed regarding misdemeanor and/or infraction violations alleged various violations of sign and parking ordinances and resolutions of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Mannerino stated they did not have a copy of those charges and therefore, they could not participate in defense of the establishment. He thought it would be a violation of due process for the City to move forward with the hearing. He said a decision to go forward this evening would be appealed to the City Council and ultimately it would be reviewed by the Superior Court. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, commented that the allegations involving Mr. Alcorn are not issues the Planning Commission would be reviewing. He said the matter before the Planning Commission has to do with compliance with conditions of specific permits. He stated that representatives of the City had spoken with Mr. Boyd and explained the matters before the Planning Commission and Mr. Boyd felt the hearing would neither help nor hinder the District Attorney's case with the matters that had been or could be filed. Mr. Hanson commented the Planning Commission has no authority to make anyone testify. He said if the Commission determined there were no violations of the permits, it may favorably impact Mr. Pellegrino's defense in the criminal courts. He said the matter had also been reviewed by City Attorney James Markman and they found no legal impediment to proceeding but it was the discretion of the Commission to honor or not honor the applicant's request. Commissioner McNiel commented that Mr. Mannerino had raised the issue of due process and he felt the process had been ongoing for a lengthy period of time with no evidence of any solution or cooperation. He felt the Commission should proceed with hearing the matter and that would be due process. Chairman Barker stated the Commission would go ahead with the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 23, 1994 Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and reported that staff had received two letters from adjacent residents in favor of revoking the permits. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if there had been trees and a barrier in the parking lot when the business was operated by a previous owner. Ms. Fong responded that trees, a sign, and a barrier had been there but had been removed by a previous owner who closed at 11:00 p.m. and did not have entertainment. Chairman Barker remarked that the issues before the Commission had to do with compliance with City Council and Planning Commission resolutions regarding the conditional use permit and the entertainment permit. He stated that any testimony should be only with regard to those issues. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the owner of the center had been notified and if the owner appeared to feel any responsibility. Ms. Fong replied that a letter had been sent to the property owner but they had not responded. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Fire Department was in concurrence with limiting the access to the rear parking area. Ms. Fong replied affirmatively and noted that it had been a 1982 condition of approval and, in fact, was in place for a period of time. Commissioner Lumpp questioned what additional sound attenuation measures were required in 1983. Ms. Fong replied they were for interior noise so it would not filter out. Commissioner McNiel recalled that it called for some baffling on the inside of the building as well as for the maintenance and closure of a back door. Chairman Barker stated that the wall had been placed on the west side of the property as an attenuation device in the past. He stated the public hearing was open and he requested that any speakers limit discussion to the specific topic of the compliance with City Council and Planning Commission resolutions and the proposed revocation of the permits. Douglas Gorgan, P. O. Box 552, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is one of the owners of the shopping center. He said that conditions were added to require trees and a chain to restrict entry into the back parking area when the property was being operated by a previous tenant. He noted there was subsequently a fire and the premises were closed for a year. He said that when they reopened, they agreed to close at 11:00 p.m. and to drop entertainment. He observed that at the time Mr. Pellegrino took over the premises, it was being operated as a restaurant and bar with no entertainment and it was closing at 11:00 p.m. He commented that about that time, the Fire Department requested some upgrades including some signs, marking the fire Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 23, 1994 lanes with red curbs, and removal of the trees because they impeded possible access to portions of the shopping center. He said he called the Planning Department and asked if the trees and barriers could be removed since there was no longer any entertainment and the business was closing at ll:O0 p.m. He said he had received approval and the two potted trees were removed. He did not recall that the chain had ever been used. He thought that after several years of operation, Mr. Pellegrino had petitioned to increase his hours of operation and apply for an entertainment permit. He said the management company neither supported nor opposed the application. He recalled that the Planning Commission had turned down the application but the City Council had granted an appeal and reversed the Commission's decision. He said the site was inspected while the trees and chain were missing and the City had only requested that the back area be posted to restrict parking in the back corner. He acknowledged that Mr. Pellegrino had never put up any signs and said he had contacted Mr. Mannerino in an attempt to get the signs put up. He said the management company has been aware there were some problems, but they were limited in what they can do until the City determines the premises are being operated in an inappropriate manner. He said the City had contacted their management company about two weeks ago regarding the trees and the chain. He stated that the lease on the premises expires in the beginning of September and the applicant did not have an ability to extend the lease. Commissioner McNiel remarked there would be an ability to create a new lease. Mr. Gorgan said the management company did not favor creating a new lease. Commissioner McNiel said that was no guarantee to the City. Mr. Gorgan concurred there was no guarantee. He said they are aware of the problems with the neighbors and they do not want irritation of the neighbors or other center tenants. He said Mr. Mannerino had also indicated that Mr. Pellegrino intends to move. Commissioner Lumpp thanked Mr. Gorgan for providing information. Mr. Gorgan said they are not insensitive to the problems but they also have legal responsibilities to their tenants under the leases. He said if the City requires the replacement of the two potted trees in the drive aisle, they would be willing to do so if the Fire Department approves. He said the back driveway area could also be chained off, but he noted that people do not expect to find a chain in the area. Jim Frost, 12996 Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the shopping center and the residential area to the west were some of the last projects approved by the County prior to City incorporation. He felt that the residential area is incompatible with the adjacent center. He thought that the center and previous tenants had done a great deal to try to alleviate the problems. He suggested that the Commission approve the resolutions. Joe Fabis, 6611 Topaz, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his home borders the northwest corner of the shopping center. He said that when the matter was before the City Council, Mr. Mannerino had commented that this is a wrong business activity in a wrong location. He felt something needs to be done. He Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 23, 1994 commented that the Commission had just spent several hours trying to ensure that a new area will fit the City image. He said that he had supported the liquor license for Sam's Place in order to give them an opportunity to show it could work. He felt that a few trees and a chain link fence to reduce the traffic to the back corner may cut down part of the noise but he thought there was nothing that could be done to manage the noise coming from the parking lot, including squealing tires, racing engines, blaring radios, shouting, arguing, fighting, etc. He commented the noise is continuous because people are coming and going from 9:00 p.m. and they hang around after the bar closes. He felt there is no way the doors will be kept closed on warm summer evenings when the business gets crowded. He noted that people cannot play tennis in the parks after 10:00 p.m. because the lights have to be shut off then to avoid disturbing residents. He felt there is inconsistency in areas because if playing tennis is too noisy for a residential area then certainly the activities from a business such as a bar should be considered too noisy. He said that the largest investment of his life was made in his home and the value of his home is depreciated because of neighborhood activities. He observed that he had heard that the business would be moving every time there is an appeal. He supported adoption of the resolution to revoke the permits. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt the City had gone to the limit to try to solve the problems. He made a motion to adopt the resolutions revoking both permits. Chairman Barker thought that many people have tried to make something work that does not work. He said he had always felt the business is not appropriate at that location. Commissioner Lumpp understood the City Attorney had said the Commission would not be in violation of due process by acting upon the revocation. He felt the applicant had not demonstrated that he can operate the business in a manner which is not detrimental to the neighborhood or the public safety and welfare of the neighborhood. He seconded the motion. Commissioner McNiel stated the City had been dealing with this use at that location for a long time. He did not feel the City had ever gone so far in an effort to try to mitigate a use and to cooperate with an owner to make a facility work as the owner wished it to work. He thought the efforts had been without cooperation from the applicant and the effort had been unsuccessful. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City had bent over backwards to try everything possible to make the project work. He thanked Mr. Fabis for speaking and thought he had pointed out the sentiments of the neighborhood. Chairman Barker noted that it had been moved by Melcher and seconded by Lumpp to adopt the resolution revoking Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 23, 1994 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution revoking Entertainment Permit 91-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Lumpp stated he had received a letter from the Alta Loma Riding Club asking if he would like to participate at a benefit on April 24, 1994. He asked if any of the other Commissioners had received an invitation. Chairman Barker said the Riding Club collects money for handicapped riders and it is an excellent program. He said he would be there. Commissioner Melcher commented that the Commission had reviewed the master project schedule for the 1994 Housing Element Update at a previous meeting. He thought the Commission had requested update reports at the times indicated for Principal Planner review. He observed that the schedule indicates the first Principal Planner review is to be at the end of March. He requested that the Commission be given an update. Chairman Barker noted that the traffic lights in the community are a concern to some people. He said that he had ridden around for over an hour with the Mayor and some Engineering staff to see where they could drive without having to constantly stop for traffic signals. He said he would keep the Commissioners informed as developments occur. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adjourn. 9:59 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 23, 1994