Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/01/25 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 25, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROT.T. C~T.T, COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Larry McNiel ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: , , , , , Brad Buller, City Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCeMeNTS PPRS~NTATION OF P~SOT,UTION OF COMMENDATION TO CHaRT.MS J. BUOU~T. II Chairman Barker presented the Resolution of Commendation to Chuck Buquet. Chuck Buquet thanked the Planning Commission. , , , , , APPROV~T. OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent), to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned meeting of December 28, 1994, as amended. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent), to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned meeting of January 11, 1995, as amended. ****, PUBT,IC H~RINGS A. ~NVIRONM~.NTAT. ~S~SSM~-NT~ND CONDITION~T, USR P~RMIT 94-39 - CUCAMONGA COUNTY WAT~-R DISTRICT - A request for master plan approval of the Cucamonga County Water District headquarters, consisting of four buildings to be used as administrative offices, maintenance warehouse, vehicle maintenance, and office for fueling station located at 7900 Center Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 17) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 1077- 401-09 through 21, 23, 24, and 34. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated that Standard Condition No. B18 should be deleted. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Tom Sholenberger, Cucamonga County Water District, 9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they agreed with the conditions proposed by staff. Sandy Hamilton, 10221 Ashford Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had not received notice of the neighborhood meeting held by CCWD. Chairman Barker asked if anyone had any concerns regarding the Conditional Use Permit. Hearing no comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was ready to move adoption. Commissioner Lumpp stated the Commission was being asked to approve the concept plan for the project. He said he did not object to the concept plan but stated that he would like to reiterate a concern he had raised at a previous meeting that he did not want to see, hear, or smell this project as it relates to the existing residential area to the west. He asked if the conditions of approval would provide those assurances. He said that at the Design Review Committee there had been discussions indicating that the Design Review Committee will review buildings as they are processed. He wanted it on the record that additional conditions may be added as a result of the traffic study or a viewshed analysis. He said he was specifically concerned about the height of the block walls adjacent to the front part next to Center Street and the viewshed from Haven Avenue into the project. He said he was also concerned about the traffic analysis. He acknowledged that the resolution stated that a traffic study would be completed and appropriate mitigation measures would be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He asked if that condition needed to be strengthened. Commissioner McNiel agreed a concern had been raised earlier. He felt minute action might be sufficient. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that Commissioner Lumpp's concerns were documented in the record. He pointed out that the Commission has the right to make recommendations on conditions of approval on any development review of any specific site plan, architecture, landscaping, and traffic-related site plan issues. He believed the resolution gives the Planning Commission the full range of review when the actual buildings are processed. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out that Planning Condition No. 2 states that the approval is for a conceptual master plan and each building shall be subject for Design/Development Review approval. He sa~d that review is a discretionary action which means conditions of approval can be imposed. Commissioner Lumpp stated that satisfied his concerns. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-39. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried , , , , , Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 25, 1995 Be CONDITION~T. US~ PERMIT 94-26 - MASI P~RTNERS - The development of an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18 and 19; a multi-screen theater in Building 27~ revisions to previously approved Building 1~ new elevations for Buildings 25 and 26~ and a parking study addressing required parking for the ice/roller rink, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (the site of previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN= 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. (Continued from January 11, 1995) Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and gave a brief overview of the history of the project. She stated that Conditional Use Permit No. 91-24 was approved by the City Council on September 2, 1992, on this site and included a master site plan and a mix of 32 industrial, multi-tenant, and restaurant users. She said there is also a previous application, Development Review 93-19, which was approved by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1994, which specifically approved Buildings 5, 14, 15, and 16. She remarked that the applicant had asked that she remind the Con~nission and note for the public record that those approvals will remain in place if the ice/roller rink or theater building are not built at any time in the future. Commissioner Lumpp noted that Planning Condition No. 3 asks that plans be submitted on a scale of 1/16 inch. He thought that is too small and suggested that 1/8 inch or 1/4 inch scale would be better. Ms. Luttre11 said the 1/16-inch had been discussed at the January 11 meeting. Chairman Barker noted the 1/16-inch scale had been suggested because the plans presented at that time were impossible to read. Ms..Luttrell said she thought that ratio had been 1/40. Commissioner Melcher felt 1/16 would be adequate. He said that given the length of the building, the drawing would be 30 - 40 inches long on a 1/16 scale and 60 to 80 inches long on a 1/8 scale. He said he was not unsympathetic to what Con~nissioner Lumpp was saying. He felt the applicant should be advised that if the 1/16 scale is not adequate, the Commission would reserve the right to request further, larger scale drawings of portions of detailed areas of the project. Commissioner McNiel felt it would behoove the applicant to do the footprint in 1/16 scale and the elevations in no less than 1/8 scale. Commissioner Lumpp stated it is not unco~non for buildings to be separated on the plans. He was concerned because of the nature of the project. He felt the project should be of the best and highest quality possible and noted that if something is missed, there will not be a chance to do it again. Commissioner Melcher said he would not stand in the way of changing the requirement to 1/8. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with the request for a listing of existing metal insulated buildings if, in the final analysis, that is the material proposed for Building 18/19. He requested clarification regarding the Commission's position on the proposed metal panel material. Chairman Barker said he thought Commissioner Melcher had said he never automatically eliminates a construction material just because of the material. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 25, 1995 He said his impression was that it was not being approved or disapproved at this time. Commissioner Melcher agreed that was his recollection. Commissioner McNiel recalled that he had said past policy has been that metal could only be used when there is an existing metal building and the proposed construction is an extension of that existing building and it would take a very sound argument to convince the Commission to allow a metal building. He saw this as an opportunity for the applicant to convince the Commission that the material would be acceptable. He said he would like to see such construction and he would oppose a metal building unless he sees an example of one that he feels is appropriate. Chairman Barker said the Commission would like to take a look before a final decision is made. Commissioner Melcher asked if he correctly understood Ms. Luttrell's con~nent that the applicant wished to point out that if this conditional use permit is approved but is not built, the earlier conditional use permit and development review prevail. Ms. Luttrell said that was correct. Commissioner Melcher said he was concerned because some of these buildings might be built, but not all, and then the Ccm~nission would be committing to a marriage of the two site plans that might not fit together well. He said secondly this project has changed so many times, that he questioned if this is appropriate. He felt that if this new conditional use permit on this portion of the property is approved, the older conditional use permit should not necessarily go away but it should have to come back to the Commission for another look before it could automatically be built. He also stated that the Commission had recently received a communication regarding the project, and he said he would like to know for the record if all of the appropriate steps have been made by this applicant including payment of the appropriate fees. Brad Bullet, City Planner, noted that the conditional use permit currently in place (CUP 91-24) approved a master plan for a center and the applicant asked staff if either one of the uses proposed this evening (the ice/roller rink or theater) were to go away, if they could rely on the old site plan. He said the conditional use permit was for the master plan site plan, not the uses. He stated that staff felt comfortable with allowing the old conditional use permit to be applied because staff looked at the analysis of losing the ice/roller rink, the theater, or both and staff believed the original site plan could still stay intact because the other buildings have not been modified. He said if the Commission does not feel comfortable with that, the Commission could so state. He said there is no precedent which indicates the original conditional use permit would still be valid, it had only been staff's interpretation that they could support that. Commissioner Melcher asked for confirmation that staff was saying that if either the theater or the ice/roller rink is not built, then the site plan originally approved for the appropriate portion of the site could be substituted back in. He questioned if staff felt the parking, street crossings, etc. would work. Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher said he then would support staff's interpretation. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 25, 1995 Mr. Buller reminded the Commission that the south side of the project that was previously approved had a multiple of small buildings. He said the applicant proposed an interim plan but that plan was not approved. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that even if something is built under the originally approved conditional use permit, it would have to be in substantial conformance with what had been approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Melcher stated his concern had been that the Commission had not looked at the change in terms of implementing part of it instead of the whole. Me said he did not therefore have a picture in his mind of what it would be like if parts of the two applications are built and melded together. Mr. Bullet said that regarding Commissioner Melcher's second question, the applicant had done what they were asked to do prior to this meeting. He said fees have still not been paid for portions of the applications being reviewed tonight, but will be due prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner McNiel felt it seemed logical that one conditional use permit would be superseded by the second one. He questioned if the Commission was setting a dangerous precedent by adopting such a policy whereby parts of two different conditional use permits could be applied to different portions of the site. He did not recall that having been done in the past. Mr. Bullet said staff has some comfort level on this site because the two key elements are on different sides of the street and each side of the street is fully responsible for its own parking. He noted that multiple conditional use permits have been approved within the master conditional use permit. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Michael Scandiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, stated the developer of the proposed ice/roller skating rink was available to answer questions and the architect, John De Frenza, was also present. Mr. Scandiffio said that Jack and Jenny Masi wanted to thank the Commissioners for their patience with the project and how it has been developing. He commented that it is a very complex project and he thanked Ms. Luttrell and stated only an exceptional person could have kept up with the project. He felt the Planning staff had developed a lot of interesting concepts for this project, such as the activity center and special types of historical mitigation. He thought this project turned out to be a test case for those concepts. He felt the Vintner's Walk and the project is a good example of public/private partnership. He requested that Planning Condition 6 be changed to permit them to discuss their parking requirement re-computations with staff and require a revision by a licensed traffic engineer only if staff does not feel comfortable with the re-computations. He thought the standards were clear in the original report and he felt staff might be willing to accept their figures. John De Frenza, 20301 S.W. Birch St., Suite 101, Newport Beach, supported the request for 1/8 inch scale drawings because of the issues that need to be addressed. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. De Frenza had been able to locate any buildings made out of the metal material proposed for Building 18/19. Mr. De Frenza replied that the supplier still had not supplied that information. He said he intended to meet the Commiseion's request. Me stated an ice rink in Irvine had been approved with the material, but the ice rink has not been built. Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 25, 1995 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher observed that Planning Condition No. 3 requires that fully detailed and complete plans for the ace/roller rink be submitted to the Planning Division three weeks prior to a Planning Commission workshop prior to issuance of building permits. He felt the workshop should be after the concepts and architectural design are adequately developed to illustrate what is to be done but long before there are working drawings ready to submit for a building permit. He recalled a previous experience with the applicant when the City was told that because engineering plans were finished, nothing could be changed. He did not want someone to say they had such an investment in the fully detailed and complete plans, that nothing could be changed. He said he knew the architect understands the difference between concept drawings adequate to explain architectural site planning concepts and working drawings, but he wanted his comment placed on the record. Commissioner Melcher felt that a full integrated site plan should also be provided at that time. He thought the Commission should not change Planning Condition No. 6, and should require a revision to the parking study by a licensed, qualified traffic engineer. Commissioner McNiel concurred. He said the revision to the study was requested because of the increase in rink size and the change in configuration. He also noted the need to address any proposals for special events the applicant contemplates. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. He also felt Planning Condition No. 3 should be changed to reflect 1/8 inch scale. Chairman Barker concurred. He observed that the application had originated prior to the seating of two of the Commissioners and a number of changes have taken place. He expressed the need for an integrated site plan. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-26 with modification to require an integrated overall site plan and the footprint and elevations for Building 18/19 at a 1/8 inch scale. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried · , , , · Ce MODIFICATION TO CONDITION~T. USm PERMIT 91-24 - MASI PARTNERS - A request to amend specific conditions of approval relating to the project's development and infrastructure phasing, design review processing, waiver of $10,000 historic preservation mitigation contribution, and design of the trash enclosure for a 27 acre center located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. Chairman Barker noted that the previous Planning Commission's approval of the project had been appealed to the City Council. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, confirmed that certain conditions had been appealed. Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 25, 1995 Chairman Barker asked if this application sought to modify any of those conditions. MS. Luttreii responded that some of them had previously been discussed at City Council. Chairman Barker questioned if the Planning Commission has a right to modify conditions applied by the City Council. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when the original conditional use permit was appealed to the City Council, the Council only reviewed certain conditions. He said that although the City Council took the final action, modifications to the conditional use permit would still be within the purview of the Commission. He said the applicant still has the due process right to appeal the decision to the Council. Chairman Barker felt the Commission might be overstepping its bounds by making changes to conditions which had been imposed by the City Council. He questioned if a project can just be bounced back and forth between the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, said an applicant is entitled to request changes. He said it is assumed that most applicants want to build, so they would not continually bounce projects back and forth between the Commission and the Council. Chairman Barker asked that Ms. Luttrell indicate in the staff report which conditions had been reviewed at City Council. Ms. Luttrell presented the staff report. She reported that Conditions No. 7, 8, and 20 had been reviewed at City Council. Mr. Buller noted that a non-construction conditional use permit for Building 25 for an indoor batting cage had been approved at the City Planner's Hearing on January 24, but noted the applicant was not in attendance. Commissioner Melcher stated he had recently noticed that Lewis had changed the color of awnings on a housing project on the east side of Milliken Avenue north of Rochester. He questioned if such a change is processed through the City. Mr. Bullet responded that technically such changes should be approved by the City, but he had not been aware of the change mentioned by Commissioner Melcher. Commissioner Melcher noted that McDonalds had also recently repainted their building on Foothill Boulevard and he asked if that change had been approved by the City. Mr. Buller replied negatively. Commissioner Melcher remarked that because the City seems to have little control after the fact, he thought it would be adequate to have the City Planner approve color locations for the canopies. Mr. Buller stated that some of the Commissioners may recall instances in the recent past where the City required repainting back to originally approved colors. He said colors and materials approved for a shopping center stay with the center unless a request to modify is processed. He observed that Kragen Auto, Unocal Gas, and Stop and Go are three projects that were repainted without Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 25, 1995 approval and were required to either request a modification or repaint the building consistent with the colors approved for their respective shopping centers. Commissioner McNiel stated he was offended by some of the requests made by the applicant. He said the Commission and staff have gone to great lengths to process the application and satisfy the applicant through many changes, none of which have been coordinated with one another. With respect to colors, he felt that the Planning Commission has been criticized in the past regarding colors and he did not feel that staff should have to take that heat. He thought the colors should be approved by the Commission on a consent calendar basis. He said he did not doubt staff's capabilities or tastes, he merely wanted to shield staff from criticism. Chairman Barker asked if the wording that staff recommended regarding Condition 7 is consistent with the intent of what City Council approved. Mr. Buller felt that was a judgement call. He thought it was the intent of the Council that the improvements be done in a reasonable time in a reasonable fashion and he agreed that the applicant had a valid concern regarding potential vandalism of art items placed there prior to active buildings. Commissioner Lumpp thought the Commission had recently discussed deleting the requirement for a self-closing pedestrian door on trash enclosures. He said it was his understanding that staff would review trash enclosure design criteria when time permits. He commented that Condition 9 was written long before that discussion, but he suggested that it be changed. Chairman Barker felt the Commission had agreed that trash enclosure designs should be reviewed, but he did not think agreement had been reached. Commissioner Melcher recalled that in the past, building pads being held in abeyance for future development were landscaped for aesthetic reasons as well as erosion and dust control. Mr. Bullet responded that was correct and noted that landscaping has been required on some pads which are not within the mandatory dust control area. Chairman Barker also recalled that there had been centers where interim pad landscaping was required because it was anticipated that pads would not be used for a number of years and it was felt that allowing those pads to remain unlandscaped would detract from the area. He opened the public hearing. John De Frenza, project architect, 20301 S.W. Birch St., Suite 101, Newport Beach, agreed with staff's recommended changes to Condition 2. He said they had no objection to staff's obtaining input from the Commissioners regarding the colors. He said they were only interested in expediting the process. He supported staff's recommended changes to Condition 7 requiring submission of final detail plans for the public art be prior to occupancy for either Building 5 or 6 and installation of the Vintner's Walk prior to release of occupancy for either Building 5 or 6. With regards to Condition 8, Mr. De Frenza said he is philosophically opposed to spending money to assist a separate parcel and he thought the money should be spent toward historic preservation on site. Me said the money is requested to mitigate demolishing a building that was located in the right of way and would have had to have been torn down anyway. Michael Scadiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, stated that any mitigation fees that go off site are bad for project financing, whereas money spent on site can Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 25, 1995 be capitalized into the project. He said they would like to spend the $10,000 on additional sculpture on site. Mr. De Frenza showed a layout of the area in which they would like to delay landscaping along the south side of Sebastian Way. He said the ice rink and Buildings 25 and 26 are to be constructed in that area and they were requesting that they not be required to put in the landscaping until the buildings are constructed because they felt the landscaping would become damaged during building construction. He thought the end results of the Commission's desire to soften and create a more attractive appearance for trash enclosures within centers has gone beyond the intended solution. He requested that they not be required to apply the overhead trellis where the trash enclosure is in the rear portions of the site. Chairman Barker noted that the Quakes Stadium is located south of the project, and he asked if ballpark patrons would be looking at those enclosures. Mr. De Frenza said patrons would not be able to see the enclosures. Commissioner McNiel said the trash enclosures would be in parking space between the buildings, visible from Masi Drive. Mr. Scandiffio stated the trash enclosures with the roll-up doors are not practical. Mr. De Frenza said that the chain link screen on top of the structure to prevent trash from blowing out is not necessary because all of the commercial trash bins in the City have counter-weighted lids; therefore, trash would not blow out. He said that in order to place the chain link screen on top of the walls, the walls and chain link must be 8 feet high to permit opening the lids on the trash bins. He thought the intent of the Commission to minimize and soften the trash enclosures within the complex has been countered by the request to place the overhead screen. He said there has been some discussion by the Commission regarding the separate pedestrian access. He felt the separate pedestrian access had been requested because roll-up doors are required. He thought the roll-up doors were requested as a result of the structure's being so tall and the desire to be sure that gates are not left open. He suggested that a proper gate would be hinged so that it would self-close. He thought that roll-up doors receive more damage than a gate and a metal gate with horizontal, beveled louvers would hold up well. He expressed concern that the roll-up doors will be left open, someone will live within the pedestrian areas, or someone will enter the pedestrian access area and light a fire which would ignite the wood trellis on top. He questioned if the design would not be a habitable structure because it would be completely enclosed and have a separate "mandoor." Mr. De Frenza stated they had requested modification to Condition 16 because they were concerned that light bollards or potted plants may be indiscriminately required. He said they felt they could work with staff but they wanted to make sure the condition is not intended to ask for every-increasing quantities of such items. Chairman Barker asked if they would prefer to go to the Commission' for approval or work with the City Planner. Mr. De Frenza said they felt comfortable working with staff but they were just concerned with the number of fixtures. Chairman Barker suggested they look at other projects within the City. Mr. De Frenza said they intend to follow suit with those design directions. Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 25, 1995 Mr. Scandiffio said they were concerned with the requirement to obtain approval for the uniform sign program prior to the issuance of building permits. He said they had budgeted to prepare the uniform sign program with the financing they are now obtaining and several of the tenants will soon be ready Co pull building permits. He stated the sign program is complicated because of the mixed use nature of the project and requiring that the program be approved prior to pulling building permits may delay the project. Commissioner Melcher thought that most sign companies will write a uniform sign program at virtually no cost to the applicant. Mr. Scandiffio stated they feel the sign program will be referred up to the Planning Commission as the theater and ice/roller rink propose innovative, creative signs. He said they are concerned with moving forward with Jack in the Box. Chairman Barker noted that the sign program issue had previously been appealed to the City Council. Mr. Scandiffio responded they had previously appealed the requirement to have the Planning Commission approve the sign program and the City Council had determined that the City Planner could approve the program. He said they are now asking that they be permitted to pull building permits prior to approval of the program. He felt that because of the graphic, innovative signs they will be proposing, there may be elements of the proposed sign program that the City Planner needs additional time to analyze or discuss with the Commission. He said they only recently acquired the unique tenants and that was why they had not finished their sign program. Chairman McNiel asked if they are requesting monument signs. Mr. Scandiffio said monument signs will be part of the overall package. Mr. De Frenza said they were asking that the sign program be tied to certificate of occupancy and that is necessary so they can pull permits for Jack in the Box. Mr. Scandiffio said they were requesting that the condition be changed to require approval prior to certificate of occupancy for the first building. Commissioner Melcher noted that on another commercial site, the developer told the Commission it must consent to modifications to an approved sign program so that the developer could live up to his lease commitments to his tenants. He asked if signs are addressed in their leases with their tenants. Mr. Scandiffio said the theater and the rink people want to be involved in the process of the sign program approval. Me said they intend to submit a draft of the proposed program within a couple of weeks. Commissioner Melcher asked if Jack in the Box knows it will be subject to a uniform sign program. Mr. Scandiffio responded affirmatively. Mr. De Frenza said the signs on Jack in the Box are within conformance with the guidelines of the City. He said they realize that a uniform sign program must be approved prior to their permit being pulled and they would like to allow Jack in the Box to pull their permit and start their 10 weeks of construction. Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 25, 1995 Chairman Barker asked if Jack in the Box is willing to start construction without knowing what type of sign will be permitted. Mr. De Frenza said they need to discuss that with Jack in the Sox. Mr. Scandiffio said the matter is covered in their lease agreement and Jack in the Box has the right to cancel their lease if the developer does not perform. He said there are three or four other first phase buildings which are also affected. Mr. De Frenza said they supported staff's suggested revisions to Condition 18. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:56 p.m. to 9:04 p.m. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission 3-1-1 (McNiel no, Tolstoy absent) to modify Condition 2 to allow approval of color locations for the canopies by the City Planner. Chairman Barker suggested that staff may wish to run the colors by Commissioner McNiel. Mr. Buller said that if he had a concern, he would forward the matter up or the applicant could appeal. It was the understanding of the Commission that the proposed modifications to Condition 7 were in keeping with the intent of the City Council; and with that understanding, the Commission concurred 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) that the proposed modifications were satisfactory. Commissioner Melcher asked for an update on the status of the task force that was working on the historical mitigation fee plan. Mr. Buller responded that the matter had been placed in abeyance because of the change in City Council membership and a lack of staff resources. He stated that Principal Planner Larry Henderson had been working on the matter the past few weeks and he would be reporting back to the Commission in the near future. Commissioner Melcher said that for the past 2-1/2 years he has wanted to formulate a policy on historical mitigation. He stated that he and Commissioner Tolstoy had been worked with Mayor Pro Tem Gutierrez on the question, and he felt there had been little interest on the part of the Council. He felt it hard to go along with an arbitrary sum of money. He noted that when the condition was adopted in September of 1992, the Council included three people who are no longer on the City Council. He suggested that the Commission refer the matter up to the Council. Commissioner McNiel commented that the procedure is legal in California, there are precedents on the issue, and the amount had already been reduced for this applicant from $25,000 down to $10,000. He saw no reason to change the condition. Commissioner Lumpp also felt the condition should not be changed and stated he did not feel comfortable changing a condition which had been set by the City Council, even if it was a previous City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 25, 1995 Chairman Barker agreed. Me noted that the condition had already been appealed once and said he was not comfortable with the applicant's appealing an appeal. Mr. Buller noted that the current condition provides that the Historic Preservation Commission may recommend allocation of the $10,000 for another historic project. He said the applicant did not want to merely pass by the Commission in taking the matter back to the City Council. He asked if the Commission supported the allocation of those funds for a project other than the Chaffey-Garcia Barn. Chairman Barker felt the Commission did not have any input specifically relating to another type of preservation project. Regarding Condition 9, Commissioner Melcher noted that another developer had been permitted to create approximately 1/3 mile of on-site street without landscaping on either side, trusting that the area will be landscaped as the project develops. He stated this is a public street and the requirement could not be enforced if the property were not under one ownership. He said the Commission has been looking for an integrated design along the 600-foot frontage of the building and he was sympathetic to the applicant's request to defer the landscaping. Commissioner McNiel stated that landscaping is complimentary to the buildings, but an integral part of the streetscape. He said the street will be constructed and generally when streets are constructed, some landscaping is installed, even if it is an interim modified plan. He commented turf will be required on the unfinished lots and he felt that some form of landscaping should go in as barren ground would be unacceptable. Chairman Barker asked what the applicant was requesting. Mr. Buller stated that the sidewalk is to be installed but the applicant is requesting that the landscaping between the sidewalk and the street be deferred until the buildings are constructed. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. De Frenza stated they were proposing that the landscaping be deferred because it will include small trees which would be destroyed during construction, as would the irrigation supporting the trees. He therefore requested that they be permitted to landscape in front of each building as it is constructed. Chairman Barker questioned if that meant that there will be small bits of landscaping with dirt in between. Mr. De Frenza felt the area could be hydroseeded. Mr. Scandiffio stated that most likely all three buildings would go in at the same time. Chairman Barker said he hoped that would be the case, but there are no guarantees. Commissioner Lumpp felt the condition should stand as is and if the streets are going to be open to the public, they should have landscaping even if there are no buildings. Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 25, 1995 Commissioner Melcher felt the City does not hold itself or other developers to the standard of requiring landscaping just because a street is open to the public. He remarked that Milliken between Foothill and Arrow Route and the Lewis frontage on Foothill Boulevard are examples. He felt it is reasonable to withhold the landscaping until construction of the buildings. Chairman Barker stated he was concerned because there may be scattered buildings with nothing but dirt between the sidewalk and the street for perhaps several years. He said the area is a planned community of sort. He did not feel trees should necessarily be required until the buildings are in place. Commissioner Lumpp stated that if the sidewalk is installed, it will also possibly be damaged by construction and will have to be replaced. He felt sidewalk is more costly than the landscaping and irrigation. Chairman Barker stated that because he did not feel the buildings will all be constructed at once, he wanted some sort of landscaping. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Mr. De Frenza that the trash enclosures do not meet the intent. He preferred the older trash enclosures built prior to the recent standards. He said the developers are now constructing shabby little structures with cheap woodwork and overhead doors. He noted that the roll-up doors are frequently left open. He said he has personally gone into a number of the trash enclosures and has seen them used as bathrooms and rubbish dumps. He suggested that the applicant be permitted to submit a design for Planning Commission approval. Commissioner McNiel commented that the trash enclosures of today, although big and sometimes awkward looking, are the result of an evolutionary process based on conditions such as wind and a desire to make them aesthetically pleasing. He agreed they may have grown beyond what is an attractive enclosure. He commented that at the office where he last worked, the trash enclosure had self-closing doors that were rarely closed and weighted lids which were left propped open. He said the doors hung open and large debris was thrown on the floor between the dumpsters. He said the landlord even locked the gates and gave the tenants keys, but within a week the locks were gone. He was not sure the current policy is the right solution, but he noted it is a solution that is applicable to conditions that exist in the City. He agreed the enclosures are not attractive, but stated he did not feel the policy is a failure. He said he would be interested in seeing something better. Commissioner Lumpp stated that the City's objective is to create a decorative treatment around the trash enclosure while providing an easy avenue for the people who deposit the trash so that the enclosure stays relatively complete during the time it is not being used by the trash company. He felt the pedestrian access should not have a self-closing gate because it creates more problems. He questioned the wisdom of requiring a roll-up door and thought the Commission should reevaluate the intent of the enclosures. He felt something could be designed which would be workable but less cumbersome. He suggested allowing the applicant to present a reasonable alternative. Mr. De Frenza stated he would accept the challenge of developing a new trash enclosure design. Chairman Barker felt the option was that the applicant could design trash enclosures which meet Condition 15 or propose an alternate design. Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 25, 1995 Mr. De Frenza stated they would be willing to meet the standards of what is at the front counter of the Planning Division of what a standard trash enclosure is required to be. Mr. Buller stated Mr. De Frenza was referring to a standard trash enclosure which is permitted in industrial areas, not in con~nercial areas. He said it is simply three walls and a solid steel gate. Mr. De Frenza stated that the handout does not specify that it is for industrial use only. Mr. Buller stated that all cam~ercial developments within the last three to four years have been conditioned to build trash enclosures per what is stated in Condition 15. The Commission provided direction that the following design features are necessary for any alternative design which may be proposed. a) Architecturally integrated into the design of the center. b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors, with walls to screen the trash enclosure. c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d) Steel, industrial strength, self-closing, view-obscuring doors. e) Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f) A design that ensures debris is controlled. It was the consensus of the Commission 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) that Condition 15 be changed to provide that the applicant may design an enclosure incorporating the design features listed in Condition 15 to the satisfaction of the City Planner or, as an alternative, submit a design for Planning Commission review and approval. It was the consensus of the Commission 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) that Condition 16 not be changed. Regarding Condition 20, Commissioner Lumpp felt the sign program should be required prior to issuance of building permits and noted that the applicant has the right to request modifications to a sign program. Chairman Barker agreed. He noted that all other applicants have the same timing imposed. Con~nissioners Melcher and McNiel agreed the condition should remain as written. Commissioner McNiel suggested that monument signs be included in the application so they would not have to reprocess. Regarding Condition 18, Commissioner Lumpp felt the language should be changed to indicate that the temporary seeding and irrigation is for aesthetic reasons as well as for erosion control. Ca~nissioner Melcher also thought the condition should be changed to require that the temporar~ landscaping be maintained in good condition. He said the City has had uneven experiences with other centers. Mr. Scandiffio asked if it is appropriate for the Commission to add to a previous condition. Planning Commission Minutes 14 January 25, 1995 Chairman Barker stated the proposal was to change the verbiage to clarify that the interim landscaping is for aesthetic as well as erosion control purposes and to be sure that the landscaping is maintained, so that it is not planted and then merely allowed to die. He commented that maintainlng the landscaping would also assist in leasing or selling the property. Mr. Bullet said that when an item has been opened, any condition can be modified. He noted that an earlier project approval on this site contains a condition that if the buildings facing Sebastian Way are built prior to the buildings facing Foothill Boulevard, then the pads along Foothill Boulevard shall be landscaped not only with groundcover, but also with shrubs and trees in order to screen the backs of the buildings along Sebastian Way. Mr. Scandiffio stated the purpose of the irrigation and hydroseeding was for duet control. He felt that if they have to provide landscaping for aesthetic reasons on the big superpads in the back, the cost would be prohibitive. Commissioner McNiel stated the Commission was talking about hydroseeding grass, irrigation, and mowing. Mr. Scandiffio stated there are some groundcovers which are very low and do not need mowing that would keep down the dust. He felt using that type of product would cost about $40,000 to $50,000 while turf would cost about $250,000. Commissioner McNiel stated the intent is for aesthetic purposes. He gave Terra Vista Town Center as an example of what the Commission wants. He felt the open pads may sit there for several years and they should not look like vacant, abandoned lots. Mr. Scandiffio said they would maintain lots along Foothill Boulevard a little bit better. He thought they should not have to make lots in the back of the site aesthetic, as the irrigation costs would be enormous. He said the erosion control they are now dealing with in connection with their grading is expensive. Chairman Barker asked what the developer proposes to do where the lots have already been stripped. Mr. Scandiffio said they want to temporarily seed with a thin ground cover with shallow roots which does not need mowing. He said it may not be considered highly aesthetic, but it is green and keeps the dust down. He fell aesthetic should not be a criteria. Commissioner Melcher agreed that on major streets frontages, upgraded interim landscaping has been required but he noted that other treatments have been permitted on other large undeveloped pads, such as the back side of Terra Vista Town Center, which is still being used as a construction yard. He noted the perimeter of the Tetra Vista office park site is landscaped, but most of the parcel is unlandscaped. He suggested the Commission look at the phasing plans and perhaps require that undeveloped pads along the major street frontages of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester have a well cared for appearance once development is begun within a phase. He did not feel the pads on the south side of Sebastian Way are that important. He felt it reasonable to require, and the applicant would want, keeping the major street frontages looking nice. He felt dust control measures could be utilized in other areas and they could be screened from view. Mr. Bullet suggested that the pads north of Sebastian Way be landscaped and irrigated with a drought tolerant lawn which is maintained in good condition and Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 25, 1995 the pads south of Sebastian Way be landscaped and irrigated with alternative plant materials for simple erosion control. He agreed that would be consistent with what has been permitted in other industrial and commercial sites. Commissioner Lumpp thought the City and the developer have different definitions of aesthetic as opposed to erosion control. He felt the interim landscaping is being requested for aesthetic purposes as well as erosion control. Commissioner McNiel cited the pad adjacent to Edwards Theater north of Spires Restaurant as an example of what the City does not want and why conditions are applied. He noted that pad has erosion control because the weeds are so deep. He said conditions had not been applied to that project and the City wants to be sure that does not happen again. Chairman Barker noted that the City is not requesting a putting green. supported Mr. Buller's suggestion. Mr. Scandiffio stated that the requirement for a lawn will kill the project. He said the hydroseeding they want to use is a ground cover that is like a tentacle on the surface, keeps the dust down, and is green from a distance. Mr. Bullet said that under the original wording of the condition he would have required a drought tolerant lawn, especially for those pads facing Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Scandiffio supported the wording being left as originally stated in the resolution. He said the only pads along Foothill Boulevard are the restaurant site but they do have 20 acres north of Sebastian Way. Commissioner Lumpp suggested the condition be left to require City Planner approval and noted the developer could appeal to the Commission if things can not be worked out. Mr. Buller noted that the phasing plan seems to constantly change and timing of phases would affect the requirement. He felt he understood the Commission's desires. It was the consensus of the Commission 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) to make no changes to Condition 18. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel to adopt the resolution approving modifications to Conditional Use Permit 91-24 with modifications to permit the applicant to provide an alternate trash enclosure design to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and to retain Condition 18 as originally approved. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried , , , , , PUBr. IC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , , Planning Commission Minutes 16 January 25, 1995 COMMISSION BUSINESS D. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ITRMS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that to date, none of the Commissioners had submitted a listing of suggested discussion topics for a joint workshop with the City Council. Commissioner Melcher felt that scheduling of the workshop will stimulate ideas. , , , , , E. SIGNS Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the matter be continued to a future meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that the matter be continued to one of the February meetings. , , , , Commissioner McNiel suggested the Commission schedule a meeting to discuss Planning Commission goals. , , , · , Commissioner Lumpp commended the City Council on their passage of the resolution opposing the Regional Comprehensive Plan in its current form. He noted that the President of the United States had given an address in which he supported a return to local control and he hoped that SCAG and the California legislature would take that to heart. , , , , , ~nJOURNM~NT Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) to adjourn. 10:18 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 17 January 25, 1995