CALL TO ORDER: The regular semi-monthly meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Hightower at 7 p.m.

PRESENT: Commission Chair Hightower, Commission Members Baker, Curtis, Prout, McGoon, Richardson, Andersen

ALSO PRESENT:

Lisa Prasse, City Planner
Belle Newman, Senior Planner
Greg Gubman, Associate Planner

ABSENT:

PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no one in the audience who wished to address an item not on the agenda.

CONSENT CALENDAR

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

PUBLIC HEARINGS

VARIANCE #00-V01, REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN FRONT SETBACK FOR SIX-FOOT TALL GARDEN WALL AT 624 HUNTINGTON DRIVE. APPLICANT – ELISEO RIVAS

Associate Planner Greg Gubman presented the staff report, described the variance request, and indicated staff recommends approval.

The public hearing was opened.

Mr. Doug Matz, contractor, reported that the variance for the wall will help the owner of the property because the bus stop is next to the property in this area and the owners have experience problems with people throwing trash and trespassing on his property.

There was no one else in the audience who wished to address this item, so the public hearing was closed.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MCGOON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSEN TO APPROVE VARIANCE #00-V01 FOR REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL GARDEN WALL AT 624 HUNTINGTON DRIVE AS OUTLINED IN RESOLUTION NO. 00-06.

By a unanimous vote, the motion was carried.

Chair Hightower advised that this item could be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25573, REVIEW OF TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY, AND SPECIAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #99-SUPD12, TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN SETBACK AT 3232 PADUA AVENUE. APPLICANT – ELIAS BARRIOS

Mr. Gubman presented the staff report and indicated that the proposed lots are conforming and staff recommends approval.

The public hearing was opened.

Mr. Julio Loza indicated that the initial subdivision request was for four lots, but because Metropolitan Water District would not allow driveway access onto Miramar Avenue, which is currently their private street, the applicant was moving forward with the two-lot subdivision. He indicated this would allow for the sale of the smaller parcel where the historic home currently sits.

In response to a question, Mr. Gubman indicated that the driveway on Padua Avenue would not be altered, there would be shared access for both lots, thereby preserving the vista along Padua Avenue to the north.

Mr. Bill Langton, 1015 Moab Drive, gave a brief history of the property and indicated concern over lack of property maintenance since the structure has been vacant. He was also concerned about trees which may be removed for a future access road.

Ms. Bonnie Lynne Cordova, 1027 Moab Drive, indicated that the realtors are advertising the sale of four lots, when only two are being considered for approval. She also expressed concern about the loss of trees because of the future driveway access.

Mr. Steve Cordova, 1027 Moab Drive, complained about the lack of property maintenance over the last several years and his confusion over what the project entailed.

Mr. Charles Gardenhire, 1688 Mural Drive, indicated he was purchasing the historic structure and that the existing driveway would be used, therefore, no trees would be removed.

There was no one else in the audience who wished to address this item, so the public hearing was closed.

The commission generally supported the request because the lots were conforming, it would be in the best interest to allow the subdivision so the historic site could be sold, occupied, and the property maintenance resumed. The commission also believed that the shared access off Padua Avenue would not be detrimental to the north vista along Padua Avenue.

Commissioner Andersen did not support the request because he believed the subdivision should not be allowed until the applicant was ready and able to move forward on the four-lot subdivision. He believed there were too many unknown factors and incrementalism was a problem.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER PROUT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25573, FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY, AND SPECIAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #99-SUPD12, TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK OF LOT 1 AT 3232 PADUA AVENUE AS OUTLINED IN RESOLUTION NO. 00-07.

By the following vote, the motion was carried:

AYES: RICHARDSON, BAKER, PROUT, HIGHTOWER, MCGOON, CURTIS

NOES: ANDERSEN

Chair Hightower advised that this item could be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days.

Chair Hightower called for a five-minute break.

REVIEW OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CODE AMENDMENT #98-CA04 PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, AND CONCURRENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #99-GPA02 AND ZONE CHANGE #99-Z01 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 250 AND 450-456 W. SAN JOSE AVENUE. APPLICANT – CITY OF CLAREMONT

Senior Planner Belle Newman presented the staff report, recommended that the commission concur with the negative declaration, and recommend council approve the code amendment.

The public hearing was opened.

Mr. Thomas Lamb, 620 Miramar Avenue, stated that the proposed code amendment was poorly drafted, ambiguous, and should be totally rewritten. He provided a copy of his comments on the amendment to the commission reflecting changes in grammar and types of uses and asked the commission to review.

Mr. Mike Noonan, 643-B S. Indian Hill Boulevard, stated that the findings of similar use should not be determined by the city manager, which he believed the "director" implied. He did not believe the City should be exempted from noise standards from 7 to 10 p.m. and did not believe smoke shops should require a CUP. He opposed the code amendment because he believed it funneled the nicest development to the Village Expansion area rather than to the Commercial Freeway district and that the code amendment was vague, ambiguous, not rationale, and an example of bad zoning.

Mr. Ken Hira, GMS Realty, owners of Claremont Center, expressed concern with the minimum 5,000 s.f. requirement for the Freeway Commercial district. He believed the minimum size was inconsistent with retail formats of family neighborhood centers, particularly the in-line stores. He distributed a map to the commission that highlighted the current in-line stores, which use on an average of about 1200 s.f. of space. He believed that requiring 5,000 s.f. tenant spaces would decrease occupancy and cause blight for the center.

Ms. Sue Keith, 337 Marygrove Road, asked where check cashing, ammunition and gun sales, and pawnshops would be allowed in terms of location rather than zoning. She believed the City needed to be very careful not to profile in terms of economic perceptions of south Claremont.

Ms. Mary Noonan, 643-B S. Indian Hill Blvd., believed that south Claremont brings in much of the sales tax and the code amendment was an attempt to marginalize south Claremont. She did not believe the San Jose property should be re-zoned, and believed that more of the smaller retail spaces were important to south Claremont; therefore, opposed the 5,000 s.f. tenant space requirement.

Mr. Rufus Turner, architect, opposed increasing the minimum lot size in the industrial zone from 1 to 2.5 acres. He believed the size required should be of a smaller scale and he also believed that the 5,000 s.f. tenant space requirement in the Commercial Freeway district was too large a restriction on commercial sites.

Mr. Nick Quackenbos, 723 Gettysburg, believed the code amendment in general would benefit all concerned by removing ambiguities, and helping brokers, consultants, and developers determine where they can put certain uses. He expressed concern, however, regarding the 5,000 s.f. requirement of tenant spaces in the Commercial Freeway district and stated that common retail space size in all of Claremont is 1200 s.f. He also disagreed with changing the Industrial District from 1 to 2.5 acres because much more can be done with industrial type businesses on the smaller parcels and asked the commission to reconsider both of these requirements.

There was no one else in the audience who wished to address this item, so the public hearing was closed.

In response to public comment and commission questions, Ms. Newman indicated that the 5,000 s.f. requirement was an attempt to prevent strip mall development in the Commercial Freeway zone. Additionally, the "director" is the Director of Community Development as defined in the LUDC. The current code reads the director makes decision and determinations on similar land uses, which can always be appealed to the Planning Commission. The community events in the public parks are already exempt from the noise ordinance, so the wording change clarifies all public areas are included in the exemption. She showed the audience where on a map pawnshops and check cashing would be allowed with a conditional use permit; primarily Foothill Boulevard. Guns and ammunition sales would only be allowed in the Industrial district with a conditional use permit so that they would be out of the retail centers that children frequent. The smoke shop requirement of a CUP was also to allow determination based on proximity to children. She indicated that the one-acre minimum size of industrial uses was thought to be too small when considering parking and landscape requirements, but that perhaps something between 1 and 2.5 acres could be considered. She indicated that the code would allow the smaller in-line retail spaces to remain, but would prohibit further dividing of the existing spaces. She indicated that the zone change on San Jose Avenue was intended to preserve the existing office uses on the properties. With the change of zone, these properties would serve as a transitional zone between the residential uses and the more intensive commercial uses permitted in the Freeway Commercial zone.

The commission did not believe that the use chart marginalized any area of Claremont and supported the use chart. The commission agreed that the 5,000 s.f. size requirement in the Commercial Freeway district was too large for the entire center. They understood the desire to attract larger anchor tenants to the center and to eliminate the possibility of allowing a strip mall on the vacant land. The commission asked staff to work with GMS Realty representatives to develop a method to address both issues.

The commission generally was concerned about the density of industrial development at one acre and the impact on adjacent or nearby residential areas. They admitted that a 2.5-acre requirement for industrial parcels may be too large, but were also concerned that one acre may be too small for meeting code requirements. They asked staff to continue to research this requirement to provide information on the size and location of vacant industrial parcels in the City.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BAKER TO CONTINUE REVIEW OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, AND CONCURRENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #99-GPA02 AND ZONE CHANGE #99-Z01 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 250 AND 450-456 W. SAN JOSE AVENUE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 2, 2000.

By a unanimous vote, the motion was carried.

Chair Hightower called for a break.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

REPORTS - Commission

Mayor/Chair Lunch Reminder – April 10

Chair Hightower will be attending.

Conducting Meetings

The commission delayed discussion of this because of the lateness of the hour.

Other Items

The commission believed that a fact sheet brochure, flyers, and more public relations were needed regarding Village Expansion because of all the misinformation the public is currently receiving.

REPORTS – Staff

Briefing on Council Meetings

Mrs. Prasse reported that the Sagehen Cafe CUP review was tabled by Pomona College indefinitely; therefore, it wasn’t heard by council. Additionally, the applicants have appealed the TTC conditions of approval regarding cruise night to the City Council.

Briefing on Current Staff Projects/Other Items

Mrs. Prasse reported that the administrative assistant to the commission had resigned because of a move to northern California and that staff was recruiting to fill the position.

Upcoming Agendas

Mrs. Prasse reported that the upcoming agenda may include review of the Village Expansion development standards.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion made, seconded and carried, the meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Prepared by:
 
 
 
 

_________________________
LINDA M. GRIFFIN
Administrative Assistant
 
 

Approved by:

Planning Commission on ___________.
 
 

_____________________
SHARON HIGHTOWER
Planning Commission Chair