Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/03/28 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 28, 2001 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. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Craig Fox, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Brent Le Count,Associate Planner, Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman McNiel announced that the City suffered a great loss with the passing of Jim Curatalo. He stated that he was an excellent City Council person who served for the right reasons and was an exceptionally fine man. He called for a moment of silence in Mr. Curatalo's honor. Chairman McNiel presented a resolution of commendation to Rudy Zeledon, thanking him for his service. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-0-1 (Tolstoy abstain), to approve the minutes of March 14, 2001. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-0-1 (Tolstoy abstain), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 14, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF EXCESS PORTIONS OF VARIOUS STREETS (V-178) - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION—A request to vacate excess portions of Center Avenue between Humbolt Avenue and 24th Street, 25th Street between Hermosa Avenue and Deer Creek Channel, 25th Street between Center Avenue and Marine Avenue, and 25th Street between Deer Creek Channel and Center Avenue-APN: 209-101-18,23, and 24; 209-103-06, 209-104-06, 34, and 35; 209-112-17; and 209-121-22. Related file: Development Review 00-53. B. VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS (V-179) - CATELLUS - A request to vacate vehicular access rights for two driveways on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Milliken Avenue along Parcel 13 of Parcel Map 15295—APN: 229-011-32. Related file: Development Review 00-28. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM15651 —MARC DALE AND ASSOCIATES-A request to subdivide a 7.34 acre parcel into 2 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the terminus of Rochester Court, south of 6th Street - APN: 229-263-08. Related files: Development Review 00-73 and Tree Removal Permit 00-49. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and proposed the addition of standard conditions and a modification to conditions to allow the applicant to provide drainage facilities to discharge flows to Charles Smith Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer if the applicant is unable to obtain an easement for drainage to the parcel to the south. Chairman McNiel announced that the public hearing remained open, as the item had been continued from March 14, 2001. David Roberts, Marc Dole Associates, 343 Third Street, #103, Laguna Beach, agreed with the conditions including the proposed addition. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15651 with modification to add standard conditions and to expand on the drainage options. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that Items D and E be moved to the end of the agenda as the applicants brought new plans to the meeting and the Commission could take a break after hearing all the other items to allow the applicants to post the new plans. The Commission concurred. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT15783—G& D CONSTRUCTION—A request for an extension of a previously approved residential subdivision of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Camelian Street at Vivero Street—APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Related file: Variance 96-02. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 28, 2001 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments and he closed the hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract SUBTT15783. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried G. VARIANCE DRC2001-00024- RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES-Arequesttoincreasethewall height to 12 feet along the east boundary of lots 21-24 of Tract 16051 where the Development Code allows a maximum wall height of 6 feet in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre)of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue—APN: 1089-031-24. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Stewart asked if there will be landscaping along the wall. Mr. Zeledon replied it would only go to Lot 24. Chairman McNiel asked if there had been a condition to require off-site grading to lessen the grade differential between the project site and the adjacent Southern California Edison corridor. Mr. Zeledon replied that Southern California Edison indicated they are presently marketing the property and will not allow grading on their site. Chairman McNiel asked if the lots could be lowered. Mr. Zeledon responded that lowering the lots would require cross-lot drainage. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Terri Kelly, Richmond American Homes, Inc. 2191 5th Street, Suite 105, Norco, stated they initially looked at pulling the slope into the back yards, because the City indicated they did not want to put the area in the Landscape Maintenance District. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there will be vine pockets and eventually there will be a landscaped parkway. He suggested the Commission may want to have street trees planted along the frontage. He supported vine pockets but agreed that it would not be desirable to take the Landscape Maintenance District along the Southern California Edison corridor. Chairman McNiel asked if plantings would be allowed along the Foothill Boulevard frontage of the Edison corridor. Mr. Buller replied that he would look into that possibility. He reported that Southern California Edison has approached the City for alternate uses along their corridor. He thought the City may be able to secure landscaping along the corridor frontage at the time an alternate use is considered. Chairman McNiel hated to miss out on an opportunity for landscaping. Mr. Buller felt the only opportunity would be for street trees for that stretch. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 28, 2001 Chairman McNiel felt the City should try to get the street trees. Mr. Buller suggested adding a condition requiring planting and irrigation of street trees along the Southern California Edison corridor frontage if right of way exists. Ms. Kelly questioned if the trees would have to be removed when the Edison corridor is developed. She suggested they pay an in-lieu fee for future planting. Chairman McNiel stated the high wall needs softening. Mr. Buller observed that Lots 19, 20, and 21 will have landscaping along Base Line Road which will be part of the Landscape Maintenance District. He suggested that a condition be added requiring landscaping and irrigation or payment of an in-lieu fee if sufficient right of way exists along the Edison corridor frontage, subject to City Engineer approval. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the corridor has Edison lines or if it is abandoned. Ms. Kelly replied there are 500 Kv lines there. Commissioner Tolstoy felt they may not want trees there if they have further use for the site. Mr. Buller indicated that Edison is considering allowing buildings to locate there. Ms. Kelly thought they are currently proposing RV parking. Brady Bluhm, 8205 Matterhorn Court, Rancho Cucamonga, asked what would be done to discourage defacing of the wall. Chairman McNiel stated that various items were discussed and the wall will be multi-colored and will have vines planted in vine pockets. Carlo Alcazar, 10256 Coralwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, asked why such a high wall is proposed. Chairman McNiel replied that it is needed because of the grade separation and the need to provide for proper drainage. Hearing no further testimony, he dosed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino was surprised that Southern California Edison was not exhibiting a more cooperative spirit in light of their current fiscal problems. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias to adopt the resolution approving Variance DRC2001-00024 with modification requiring landscaping and irrigation or payment of an in-lieu fee if sufficient right of way exists along the Edison corridor frontage, subject to City Engineer approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried H. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM15536 - FAIRFIELD APARTMENTS - A request to subdivide 23 acres of land into two lots in Planning Area 6 of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 28, 2001 located on the north side of 4th Street,west of Milliken Avenue-APN:210-082-46. Related file: Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment 00-04 and Development Review 00-67. I. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04-FAIRFIELD APARTMENTS-A request to amend Planning Area 6 of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan to allow multiple family residential development at a density range of 24 to 30 dwelling units per acre, located on the north side of 4th Street,west of Milliken Avenue - APN: 210-082-46. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map 15536 and Development Review 00-67. NEW BUSINESS J. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-67-FAIRFIELD APARTMENTS-A request to construct a 496-unit apartment project on 23 acres of land in Planning Area 6 of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, located on the north side of 4th Street, west of Milliken Avenue -APN: 210-082-46. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15536 and Addendum to Environmental Impact Report and Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment 00-04. Brent Le Count,Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested adding a condition that approval of the Parcel Map and Development Review would be contingent upon approval of the related Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment. He indicated a Developers Workbook with site plan, elevations, floor plans, landscape plan, etc. had been placed in front of the Commissioners. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if all the grading and technical issues had been resolved. Mr. Le Count replied that some were resolved and the other issues were placed as conditions of approval. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the project will be developed in two phases since it is being split into two parcels. Mr. Le Count was not sure if they would be developed at different times. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dan Milich, Development Manager, Fairfield, 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, gave a brief background of the history of the company. He said they used the JP! Development project as a basis for their plans. He indicated they want two parcels because they plan to have two investors but stated they plan to construct both parcels at the same time. He thanked staff and the Commission for providing design direction and said that staff had been very helpful. Commissioner Mannerino asked if Fairfield will manage both phases of the project. Mr. Milich replied affirmatively. • Chuck Buquet Charles Joseph & Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was working for Fairfield. He said they met with staff to discuss building materials enhancements. He indicated they concur with the conditions of approval. With respect to the condition requiring installation for fiber optic cable conduit, Mr. Buquet stated they felt the conduit is normally installed by the cable providers under a franchise agreement with the City. He thought installation of the conduit will not be a direct benefit to the project and he suggested it should be a City project. He requested they not be required to underground the utilities along 4th Street because Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 28, 2001 they have only a small frontage there and they would only be able to underground two of the lines while the other two lines would have to remain on the poles and they would not be eligible for reimbursement from future development across the street since it is in Ontario. He suggested the project pay a fair share with the balance to be paid for by City. He asked that they be allowed to further discuss the matter with the City because he thought the City was considering changing the undergrounding policy. He reported that General Dynamics had reviewed the package before submittal and supported the project. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the applicant had contacted any of the cable providers to see if they would like to work with them during construction of the project. Mr. Buquet replied that there are five different sizes of conduit. He noted that 4th Street had recently been refinished as a City project and suggested the street should not be tom up in order to lay cable or underground the utilities. Commissioner Mannerino could not imagine true luxury apartments that do not offer fiber optic system cabling. Mr. Buquet said they will have DSL, but not fiber optic. D'metre Farris,6281 Kinlock Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, asked for whom the project is being built. He thought that most everything in the City is being built for higher income and asked about providing lower income housing. Chairman McNiel replied that the State requires a certain percentage of low income housing units within each City. He said the City has a range of units. He stated that many of the lower priced units look like they would be higher priced. Jeff Kudlac, General Dynamics Corporation, 3270 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite 440, Ontario, stated they did thorough research before selecting Fairfield. He reported that JPI is now under construction and said they feel Fairfield has financing and quality. He thought the apartments would help them to market the retail and office uses on the site. Ryan Adams, 730 Hanover Court, Rancho Cucamonga, felt it will be too crowded to have a ratio of 24-30 dwelling units per acre and noted that is much higher than a typical residential project of single family homes. He asked how they will fit so many units on the site. Chairman McNiel replied that they are apartments and will be three to four stories tall. He said that when such a density is proposed, the project provides common amenities such as swimming pool, open space, etc. He noted the project is very close to the train station and residents will be able to walk to the trains to reach jobs in Los Angeles. He felt the project will attract residents because of the proximity to the train station and the golf course. Mr. Adams thought that will change the face of Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman McNiel responded that each new development has changed the face of Rancho Cucamonga and it will change even more in the future because it is an area that is growing. Anita Patel!, 8008 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, asked that the Commission keep the electrical crisis in mind. She asked why the City would allow 496 more apartments to be built. Commissioner Mannerino stated the Commission is aware of the crisis, but he did not think that was a reason to deny a project. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 28, 2001 Chairman McNiel thought new power plants will be built within the near future which will provide sufficient electricity. He did not think it is advisable to stop the world and get off because of the crisis. Ms. Patel felt that allowing more buildings would not help citizens who are on a fixed income and have trouble paying their bills. Chairman McNiel likened the electrical crisis to the gas crunch of the 1970s and said that no one called for a halt in car sales even though people were having to line up for blocks in order to get gas. Hearing no further testimony, he closed the public hearing. He asked for clarification on the fiber optic conduit installation. Mr. Buller stated the condition calls for installation of conduit and pertinent structures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer but does not indicate from where the conduit must start. He said the City is not asking that the cable be installed, merely the conduit for cabling. He reported the City has been getting it on other residential projects. Chairman McNiel noted that some developers have wired for fiber optic cabling without the item being placed as a condition. Mr. Buller stated that other developers have provided fiber optic cabling. He noted that existing streets are constantly being torn up to provide cabling. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the condition is to install conduit within the public right of way, which means it may be installed in the parkway or the street. He said it would be considered a public improvement similar to street trees, sidewalks, and street lights. ' Chairman McNiel felt the condition requiring undergrounding is consistent with what has been required of other projects. Commissioner Stewart noted that Mr. Buquet indicated there are talks with administration regarding changing the policy. Mr. Buller confirmed that staff has been asked to look at the policy. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the policy was being looked at in connection with established businesses which desire to expand or upgrade their site. Mr. Buller confirmed the question was raised with respect to existing businesses that wish to expand and also a larger issue of parcel-by-parcel development. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the City does not get undergrounding on a parcel-by-parcel basis, it would never be done. He thought that anything that can be done to enhance the ability to communicate should be done and the requirement for installing fiber optic conduit should remain. He said he participated in the planning when Chaffey College installed conduit so they could have enhanced communication availability. He said they have since upgraded the system twice. He felt the project will have a lot of offices and would need fiber optics. Mr. Buller felt the condition requiring installation of conduit was flexible and would allow the applicant to work with the City Engineer. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 28, 2001 Mr. Buquet stated that he would like to be able to address the fiber optic conduit condition with the City Engineer. He thought it is an issue of fairness and equity and said they will be the first project conditioned to install the conduit. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment and approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15536 and DRCDR00-67 with the added condition that the Parcel Map and Development Review approvals are contingent upon approval of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried COMMISSION BUSINESS K. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Mannerino stated the plan needs to be amended. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Victoria Community Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:19 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE-A request to construct a 148,663 square foot retail store, which also includes a tire sales and installation center(5,200 square feet),food service(1,042 square feet), and gas pumps on 15.4 acres of land in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 12), located on the north side of 4th Street between Buffalo Avenue and the Interstate 15 on/off ramps - APN: 229-263-69. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15579. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM15579-COSTCO WHOLESALE — A request to subdivide 15.14 acres into three parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located on the north side of 4th Street between Buffalo Avenue and the Interstate 15 freeway on/off ramps - APN 229-263-69. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 00-34. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 28, 2001 Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and stated that staff had not previously seen the plans presented by the applicant this evening. She reported that the Design Review Committee had requested three items be presented for discussion at tonight's meeting: 1)a detailed cross-section to show the visibility of the roof-mounted equipment, 2) details of the gas station canopy and columns, and 3) a revised building material sample board. She thought many of the items listed as conditions are shown on the new plans. Ms. Meier reported that several modifications to the Standard Conditions had been requested by the applicant and those proposed modifications were detailed on pages in front of the Commissioners. She noted that the Standard Conditions for the Tentative Parcel Map had been inadvertently left out of the staff report and those were also in front of the Commissioners. She said that a letter had been submitted by the City of Ontario regarding the landscaping to be provided along the freeway right of way and suggesting that lighting be reviewed as it would not need to be as bright as it was for Auto Nation. Todd Bartok, Costco, 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, Washington, stated the new location will have better access and parking and they will be able to use their prototype building and provide gas for customers. Ken McKently, McClellan Hunter Architects, 120 West Bellevue Drive, Suite 200, Pasadena, discussed the orientation of the project. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the loading is not in the back of the store. Mr. McKently replied that the prototype building has the loading where this is proposed because that is what works best. Mr. Bartok indicated they tried moving the dock to the back of the building but it did not work. Commissioner Tolstoy observed the existing store does not have the loading dock in the front. Mr. Bartok commented the current location was originally a Price Club and one of the reasons they are moving is because the prototype building works better. Mr. McKently stated they propose two types of block. He indicated the gas station canopy will have colors and block consistent with the building. He said there will be a screen wall along the entire length of the building. Commissioner Stewart asked what the gas station canopy fascia will be. Mr. Bartok replied it is a metal surface which appears like stucco. Mr. McKently said it will be a colored texcoat which will mimic the color of the base wall. He stated landscaping will be used to screen the loading dock. He felt the loading dock will tie into the building using porch elements. He said the top units on the roof tend to stick up. He indicated they took a sight line about 4 feet above the freeway bed. He said they raised the parapet about 2 feet to help screen the roof top units from view from the freeway. He said there should be no problem from 4th Street or Buffalo Avenue. He indicated the parapet wall will be about 9 feet high in some areas. Commissioner Macias asked for a description of the units on the roof. Mr. McKently responded they are self contained heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units which will sit on the roof. He stated that they have tried screening around each unit on other projects but they felt a parapet around the building would be more effective here. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 28, 2001 Chairman McNiel asked if the parapet will be raised around the entire circumference of the building. Mr. McKently replied it is generally all around. Mr. Bartok requested elimination of the Standard Condition requiring real river rock be used where rock cobble is used because they do not plan to use rock. Chairman McNiel stated it was there in case someone decides to change the materials. Mr. Bartok asked that the condition regarding motorcycle parking be modified because he felt 56 square feet of such parking would be excessive. Commissioner Mannerino asked if that is a Development Code requirement. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded affirmatively. Commissioner Mannerino stated the Commission could not reduce the requirement without a Variance. Mr. Bartok noted they are required to have three bicycle racks and he stated that Lowes only has one. Mr. Buller indicated the three racks are a Code requirement for this size of project. He said staff would take a look at Lowes. Mr. Bartok said they would like to provide only one bicycle rack. He asked if they could work with staff to reduce the requirement. Chairman McNiel replied they have to satisfy Code. He stated that if the requirement was overlooked at Lowes, it would not be a reason to drop it here. He said staff should look at Lowes. Commissioner Mannerino said the City could not make exceptions to the Code without a Variance. Mr. Bartok asked that they be able to reduce the number of required van and carpool parking spaces from eight to two because of their hours. He said he drove around the City and could not find van or carpool spaces at other projects. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the plans are for the two out parcels. Greg Vena, Northwest Atlantic, 17300 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 230, Irvine stated the out parcels are being retained by Auto Nation and they will market them at some time in the future. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he patronizes the current Costco and there is a great shortage of parking. He thought perhaps the out parcels were being held open to allow for increased parking in the future. Mr. Vena agreed that parking is a problem in the current location and said that is part of the reason they are moving. He said parking will increase from 550 up to 785 parking stalls. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino believed Costco has a corporate image of a warehouse that it wishes to project. He felt the project had improved since the last workshop and he credited the Design Review Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 28, 2001 Committee and staff along with the cooperation of Costco. He indicated he is glad that Costco is in town. Commissioner Macias asked if staff was completely satisfied with the visual impact of the improvements on the wall in an attempt to hide the HVAC units. Mr. Buller replied that staff was seeing the sight lines for the first time this evening. He observed that 1-15 ascends down from the north and said staff believes the entire roof will be seen from the freeway until another building is built to the north. He said the matter had been discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Macias asked if the Design Review Committee members were comfortable with what had been done to conceal the ventilation equipment. Chairman McNiel stated that some of the roof will be seen from the freeway, but it will be less visible as people get closer to the building. He commented it is a massive roof on a massive building. He felt that it will not be offensive. He thought it will merge behind the parapet as drivers get closer. He was comfortable with the roof. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he understood that Costco was anxious to progress, but said he would have preferred to have tonight's session in a workshop setting. He felt the Commission was at a disadvantage of trying to handle Design Review at the Commission level and the City may miss things because of it. He noted that the Committee members and staff were seeing some things for the first time at this meeting. Mr. Buller observed that some items are conditioned to be subject to Design Review Committee approval. Commissioner Stewart stated that she felt fairly comfortable with the project following the last Design Review Committee meeting. She thought some of the issues raised at that meeting have been addressed. Ms. Meier noted that at one point in time, there was a condition requiring landscaping along the north side of the building. She said that the plans introduced this evening depicted a redesign of the north elevation but deleted the landscaping adjacent to the building face and has landscaping only along the property line. She asked if that was acceptable. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Bartok noted that the Committee asked for articulation of the building facade. He asked that there not be planters adjacent to the building in order to avoid water damage to the building Chairman McNiel again dosed the public hearing. He recalled there had been a discussion about enhancing the building elevation but said there were planters depicted along the building. Ms. Meier noted at the northwest corner, there was striping on the pavement. She felt it should be landscaping around the comer instead of the striped pavement. Chairman McNiel stated that building-adjacent landscaping does not need to be a problem. He suggested that landscape planter boxes can be independent of the building rather than being part of the building. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 28, 2001 Commissioner Mannerino felt this was not the time or place to resolve design review issues. He said they knew landscaping could be included adjacent to the building. He thought the issues need more discussion and the Design Review Committee should consider it further. Mr. Buller observed that the landscaping plan is subject to City Planner approval rather than Design Review Committee approval. He believed that was the only issue the Design Review Committee raised. He said that the applicant added building articulation in the hopes of having landscaping only at the property line. He suggested that additional evergreen plant materials could be utilized along the north property line. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be nice to have landscaping with the pilasters along the wall. Mr. Buller agreed that is common in commercial centers but noted this is an industrial area. He suggested the matter could go back to the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel felt the applicant was milking little nickel and dime things and said his discomfort level was rising. He suggested continuing the matter. Commissioner Stewart felt that most of what they had asked for had been done. She did not see a need to continue the matter. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the Commission could act and suggested the City Planner could review items with the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel stated he would like the matters that were discussed this evening to be returned to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Macias noted that a number of things were presented this evening as a result of direction at the last Design Review Committee meeting. He observed there were also a number of things missing. He concurred that the items should go back to the Design Review Committee. Ms. Meier suggested that the plans be brought back at the time of plan check rather than bringing back conceptual plans. Chairman McNiel agreed that would be best. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the City Planner had heard that the Commission felt there should be some landscaping at the back of the building. Mr. Buller indicated that when the building goes through plan check, it will be returned to the Design Review Committee. He believed the Commission had indicated there should be landscaping along the north elevation. He said staff would look at the roof fixtures and he thought the Commission agreed that the raised parapet was acceptable. He indicated staff would also look at the canopy details. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the project would come back before the Commission if the applicant wishes to add more gas pumps in the future. Mr. Buller felt that staff could approve an extension of the gas canopy. Ms. Meier thought it could be handled through a Minor Development Review. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 28, 2001 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not want more pumps to be added if it meant deletion of landscaping. Mr. Buller noted that the project is over parked. He acknowledged that expanding the gas canopy would mean losing landscaping that buffers the pumps from the parking area but he felt the landscaping could be shifted to replace some of the parking spaces. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he wanted no less landscaping than what will be initially installed. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-34 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15579 with modifications to the Standard Conditions as proposed by staff and to require that the final landscaping plan be brought before the Design Review Committee with the recommendation of staff as to the viability of the plan and that any expansion of the gas pump canopy and pumps would result in no net loss of landscaping than what is initially constructed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had received compliments to the City regarding the Albertsons center being built at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i i�/ BIler V Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 28, 2001