Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/06/24 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 24, 1992 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Wendy Vallette STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Betty Miller; Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , · , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that Item E be taken before Item D on the agenda. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, carried 3-0-1-1 with Vallette absent and Melcher abstaining, to adopt the minutes of May 13, 1992. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of May 27, 1992. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of June 10, 1992. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13674 - MIGHTY DEVELOPMENT - A residential subdivision consisting of 18 single family lots on 11.29 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Amethyst Street north of Valley View Drive - APN: 1061-401-03. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Vallette absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14190 - FORNEY - A subdivision of 4.33 acres of land into four parcels, plus a 1.56 acre remainder parcel, in the Very Low Residential District, (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Wilson and Mayberry Avenues - APN: 1074-261-05. Staff reco~nends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Tree Removal Permit No. 92-03. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned the configuration of Beechwood Drive along the northern boundary of the tract. Ms. Miller responded that Beechwood Street was designed with the parcel map to the north. She said the street will be a normal width with excess landscaping where the right-of-way jogs and the excess landscaping will be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jim Knutson stated he represented the owner, Mr. Forney. He indicated Mr. Forney concurred with the conditions. He suggested rewording Planning Condition No. I to require installation of private trails and drainage facilities prior to issuance of building permits rather than prior to recordation of the final parcel map. Ms. Miller stated the requirement had been prior to recordation of the map because the drainage facilities would need to be in place to protect the lots. She noted that once lots have been created they could be sold off and would not be protected if the language were changed to require installation prior to issuance of building permits. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the requirement could be changed to prior to the issuance of any building permits, but that could mean a single lot owner may be faced with installing the drainage facilities. Ms. Miller noted that drainage facilities could not be installed on a single lot. She said it would have to be flagged that the first building permit request would trigger the installation of the entire drainage system. Chairman McNiel asked the applicant's plans in terms of development or sale of the lots. Mr. Knutson replied that two brothers own the property and they wish to separate the remainder parcel from the four lots on the east side. He thought the owner plans to put in the infrastructure of streets, trails, etc. all at one time. Ne remarked that grading would have to be done prior to map recordation. Ne said there could be some lag time before the lots are sold. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 24, 1992 Mr. Bullet said he would feel comfortable with language requiring installation prior to the issuance of any building permit for any lot. Phyllis Shea, 5645 Revere Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter requesting that trees be saved. She remarked that the United States is trying to save trees in the rain forests in other countries while trees in our country are being sacrificed. She regretted the loss of the rural aspect in the community. She also asked how many additional children the school system could handle. Chairman McNiel noted that before development can take place, the developer must obtain clearance from the school district. He remarked that there are occasions when trees must be removed, and they are replaced at a ratio of two or three new trees for every tree cut down. Ms. Shea requested that the replacement trees not be sycamores. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the development will be a custom subdivision and there was no way to tell hew long it will be before development. He said for that reason, he was uncomfortable with tying the installation of drainage facilities to building permits. He feared something may be built without provisions for flood controls because the requirement was missed. He felt the flood structures should be done immediately. Commissioner Chitlea concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy. She feared that somewhere down the line one person would be responsible for putting in all of the drainage and trail facilities. Commissioner Melcher concurred. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a negative declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 14190 as written. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE -carried , , , , · Ce MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-42 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES - A request to develop a 3,535 square foot fast food, drive-thru restaurant on a pad previously approved for a sit-down restaurant, within a previously approved shopping center in the Regional Related Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 229-021-10, 15, 19, and 28. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 24, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Design Review Committee had requested a specimen size tree in the play area. Mr. Ross responded that it had been requested that a specimen size tree be included in the play area or additional trees be planted around the area. He indicated the adjacent planter area had been widened to accommodate additional trees. He stated the applicant had expressed concern about the health of a tree planted in the play area. Commissioner Melcher questioned if alternate parking plans had been considered because the single-loaded parking seemed rather inefficient. Mr. Ross replied that he had worked with the site plan and tried other parking layouts but the alternatives did not seem to allow any increase in landscaping. Commissioner Melcher noted that he was concerned the layout as proposed uses more pavement than necessary. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Baker, Carl Karcher Enterprises, 222 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, expressed appreciation for the assistance given by the Design Review Committee and the planning staff. He agreed with the conditions as written. He suggested that trees be planted along the perimeter of the play area rather than in the play area because he indicated there are specifications that trees be kept a certain distance from the play equipment. He also reported there is padding around the play equipment and said it was felt a tree would interfere with the padding. Chairman McNiel asked if other parking layouts had been considered. Mr. Baker responded affirmatively but said the proposed layout appeared to be the best option. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He commented that he had not observed any trees in play areas of fast food restaurants. Commissioner Melcher wished to state in the resolution that awnings were not being proposed or approved and that any subsequent request for awnings would require a modification to the conditional use permit prior to being installed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the patio area should be designed to accommodate a tree. He thought a tree would provide shade for people using the patio. Chairman McNlel felt a shade structure could be considered. Commissioner Chitlea agreed with Chairman McNiel. equipment often becomes too hot to use. She noted that play Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposed trees around the perimeter provide good screening but not shade. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 24, 1992 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to comment. Mr. Baker reported that the proposed play equipment has self-shading canopies to keep the equipment cool. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that would not help the parents watching their children playing. Mr. Baker responded that he knew of no other way to address the problem other than a patio cover. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He suggested the item could be approved with a condition that the patio element could be returned to Design Review. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that the Design Review Committee had already expressed their concerns. Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested it may be possible to add a trellis because there are already some proposed columns. He indicated an alternative may be umbrellas. He suggested the item could be referred to staff or back to Design Review to provide some element of shading. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 90-42 with changes to require a large specimen size tree or a shade structure to be provided in the patio area to the-satisfaction of the City Planner and to indicate that any request for awnings would require a modification to the conditional use permit. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE -carried , , , , NEW BUSINESS Ee CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE - Review of the proposed integral public art for inclusion in the previously approved commercial retail center located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Phil Ramming, The Wattson Arno Company, 3620 Birch Street, #100, Newport Beach, commented they had initially been resistant to the public art program, Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 24, 1992 but they now thought it is a good idea. He felt the proposal to be a good representation of the historical aspects of the site and he thought there is good integration into the site. He commented that he had been assured by the artist that the welded grape leaves and grapes would be quite sturdy. Commissioner Melcher questioned how the artists were selected. Mr. Ramming replied that they had been directed to present at least three different artists in three different medians for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission. He said they had submitted proposals from eight muralists and several different sculptors. He indicated they had worked with the Historic Preservation Commission and staff to decide what would be best. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He commented that he thought the art would be a fine contribution to the center. Commissioner Melcher questioned if either the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission are qualified to make artistic determinations. He wondered how the decision could have been made on the basis of the exhibits presented. He felt it would be appropriate to have at least one of the murals in the western part of the shopping center, rather than all in the eastern section. He thought it may make more sense to have only one artist doing the murals in the interest of continuity. He felt the actual design of the welded grape arbor and how it is to be put together should be viewed before approval. He liked the idea of the medallions, but questioned whether a specialist should not be used to determine the wording, rather than a collaboratio~ between the applicant and staff. He wanted to see the design of the bae-relief and the reflecting pool before approving the art program. Chairman McNiel requested input from the Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, Mr. Steve Preston. Steve Preston, Historic Preservation Commission Chairman, indicated that the Historic Preservation Commission was interested from an historic perspective and how the historic importance is to be interpreted. He reported that the idea for several smaller murals instead of one larger one was to reflect that three separate wineries occupied the property. He said the Commission wanted to relate applicable portions of the site to the historic significance of that area. He said they initially met with the developer in an attempt to focus the range of choices to what the Commission felt would relate to people. He reported a second meeting where the applicant brought samples of artwork from different artists. He indicated the Commission then chose the artists in part because of the appropriateness of the depictions of the history. He said the Commission wanted the historic preservation staff to work with the applicant on the wording of the medallions to be sure that the historic facts are correct. Chairman McNiel questioned if the murals should not be done on tile. Commissioner Chitlea felt that the grape vines did not appear to be reflective of the proper scale. She asked if they would be proportionate. She commented Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 24, 1992 that grape leaves are very delicate and she thought if they are not proportionate, it may be misleading as to what grape leaves look like. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Historic Preservation Commission had bought off on the concept but said he was uncomfortable with approving the concept without seeing examples of execution. He wanted to know the plan for the grape leaf patterns being embedded into the concrete and wanted to see a pattern. He questioned the scale. He thought a welded sculpture of grape vines could be nice, but he wanted to be sure the grape leaf pattern in the concrete would be properly integrated and would appear as if one were walking down a path. He felt the concept was too obscure. Chairman Preston stated he did not believe anyone on the Historic Preservation Commission would argue with the Planning Commissioners' concerns. Chairman McNiel pointed out that the plan was concept only with various aspects subject to further approval. Commissioner Tolstoy felt concrete examples needed to be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission to see if they really met the concept. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the details of the murals - i.e., framing, lighting, etc. Commissioner Melcher asked what the Historic Preservation Commission's feelings would be about having all four murals done by one artist in one medium. Hew felt it would be more appropriate to have a uniform art program for the center. Chairman Preston stated the Historic Preservation Commission selected artists based upon whether the work was appropriate and historically correct for the area and if it could be correctly interpreted by the public. He thought the Historic Preservation Commission would probably agree if the Planning Commission were to decide it would be best to limit the murals to a single artist. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that the Historic Preservation Commission felt there was enough separation between the two sets of murals so that the normal patron would not notice the difference. Commissioner Melcher felt the center is disjointed by the two freestanding pads in the center. He thought having one artist would strengthen the unity of the center. Mr. Buller observed that in the Terra Vista Town Center, the Planning Commission selected only the locations and left the artwork selection up to the developer. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that it was proposed to have two murals on tile and two others painted. He was concerned about the longevity and maintenance of the painted murals. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 24, 1992 Chairman Preston noted that the Historic Preservation Commission had specifically dealt with the mural composition and maintenance. He said they had been assured that it would be possible to execute a maintenance contract to have the artist maintain the painted mural. He suggested money could be placed in a trust account to be assured it would be available. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about maintenance when the artist is no longer available. He did not think a maintenance contract would be a good solution. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Ramming stated they had proposed artwork for the only the eastern area of the shopping center, but the Historic Preservation Commission recommended that it be spread out. He said the murals were split up in groups of two and the medallions were proposed to be spread throughout the site. He noted that the idea for the grape arbors had been presented by the sculptress, with the idea of creating an area rather than merely a piece of art in the plaza area. He said her concept was to enter into the area through an archway of grape vines along a path where the grape leaves were spaced randomly, as if blown by the wind. She proposed the reflecting pool and bas-relief in the center of the area. He said the developer was not familiar enough with the history of the area, thus it was proposed they work with staff regarding the designs and wording. He noted that each building with a mural would be subject to Design Review approval. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what action was necessary from the Commission. He wanted to see an execution of the concept. He wondered who would coordinate the proper places for the concrete grape leaves. Mr. Ramming stated the artist would select those locations. Mr. Bullet said the idea was to approve the concept only. He noted that the proposed resolution provided for further approvals. Mr. Murphy noted that the proposed resolution did state the names of the two artists selected. Chairman Preston remarked that it was difficult for the Historic Preservation Commission to select one artist that everyone liked. He said the two selected were given a limited amount of time to submit sketches of four murals each. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He said he was not uncomfortable with the concept and noted that the majority of items would be subject to Planning Commission or City Planner review and approval. Commissioner Chitlea felt Commissioner Melcher's proposal of a single mural artist was appropriate for unity of the center. She thought the murals should be on glazed tile, because painted murals do not generally survive well on exterior surfaces and it may be difficult and expensive to restore to original condition. She recommended tile for long term preservation. She felt Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 24, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy's comments were well founded and she thought it would be appropriate for the Commission to be involved in the decision making process. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that, based on the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, he was willing to approve the concept but he was unwilling to approve anything further than concept. Commissioner Melcher noted that the last time there was a workshop on the architecture of the project, it had been determined that the architecture was not approvable. He felt the Commission had been pushed to the wall continually to allow the project to go forward, and he thought the Commission should see what would occur before approving. He concurred about the use of tile. He supported using one artist, and said he would be satisfied with using Susana Sheid. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with the artist selection and the use of tile. He feared that the buildings will be presented separately and he thought the buildings need to be considered in total with how the art will relate. Mr. Bullet commented that the size of the project calls for phasing. He said the applicant was trying to work through the architectural concepts, but each new tenant may call for changes. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the Commission had seen the final architectural concept. He wanted to see the final architectural concept and how the art would be integrated before approving. Mr. Bullet suggested that when the applicant presents the architectural concepts, the proposed art should be included. Chairman McNiel suggested approving the concept and noted that the City still has full control. Commissioner Chitlea suggested the resolution be revised to return the various aspects to the full Commission, perhaps at a workshop. Motion= Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving the integral art for Conditional Use Permit 90-37 with modifications to use artist Susana Sheid for all four murals~ to specify tile for the murals~ and to require approval of the Planning Commission for the medallions, welded grape arbors, concrete grape leaf patterns, and has-relief. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 24, 1992 Con~nissioner Melcher noted that he abstained because he did not understand what was being approved. , , , , , De CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-05 - IN-N-OUT BURGER - A request to construct a 2,912 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Roth, Director of Real Estate, In-N-Out Burger, 13502 East Virginia Avenue, Baldwin Park, remarked that the project had been seen by the Design Review Committee several times and he felt the building had turned out nice. He noted they had enhanced the landscaping and he felt they conformed in every way with the Design Review Committee's suggestions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that Commissioner Tolstoy had asked about the screening o~ the drive-thru aisle where the stacking area occurs. Mr. Murphy discussed the landscaping and difference in grade. Commissioner Chitlea remarked that the north and west elevations contain arched elements above the windows and doorways, but none appear on the east elevation. Mr. Murphy remarked that on the east elevation all but the far right window would be under the trellis or recessed. Commissioner Chitlea stated she was most concerned about the far right window. She asked if it had been discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting. Mr. Murphy said the far right window had originally been flush with the building and had been recessed at the suggestion of the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Roth said they had done a rendering in which the far right window was not recessed, and it looked unbalanced with the other windows on that side. He said changing the window would also affect the interior seating and lighting plane. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 24, 1992 Commissioner Melcher felt the Design Review Committee had raised the concern that the design should be consistent around the corner. He felt that to make the corner transition correctly from the north to the east the arch would be appropriate on the northern window on the east elevation. He felt the differences in the windows on the east elevation would be acceptable because the remaining windows would be under the trellis. Mr. Bullet did not feel there should be difficulty architecturally or structurally because the windows on the north elevation room have arched elements above the windows and are in the same room. Mr. Roth said the main concern had been the balanced look, but they could include the arched element if the Commission so desired. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be more screening between the drive- thru aisle and the main driveway into the project. He noted that it will take time for the landscaping to become dense. He suggested staff and the applicant consider berming the area and/or increasing the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Bullet stated that a trellis had been incorporated into the design of other drive-thrus, but he noted the Design Review Committee had expressed a concern that the area not appear walled in. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a combination of berming and trellis could be designed that would still appear airy. Commissioner Chitlea felt that was a good suggestion. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-05 with modifications to add an arched element above the north window on the east elevation and to provide additional screening along the east side of the drive-thru lane. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE -carried , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Fe DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23 - R. K. DEVELOPMENT - The development of a single family house totaling 5,007 square feet on 0.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5041 Beryl Street - APN= 1061-821-15. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 24, 1992 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, stated that he had just been handed a note from the applicant, Ralph Roach, R. K. Development, requesting that the item be removed from the calendar. He noted that Mr. Roach had left the meeting. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff would contact the applicant to see if he wanted to withdraw the application or merely remove it from this evening's agenda. , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that Mayor Dennis Stout and Principal Planner Dan Coleman were accepting awards from the American Planning Association. He stated the Mayor had received an award for Distinguished Leadership for an elected official and Mr. Coleman had received the award for work on the Trails Implementation Plan. , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS Herman Rempel, 9505 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the Commission had previously discussed the need to preserve trees and have reasonably sized trees. He reported that the City had recently removed approximately 30 full size trees in several tracts south of Base Line Road. He said it appeared the trees had been removed because they have damaged curbs. He felt that curbs are fairly easy to replace and bridge over whereas it takes a long time for trees to grow. He thought is was disastrous that the trees were destroyed by the City. He said that when he was a Planning Commissioner, they had tried to preserve as many trees as possible. He noted that the trees cut down were beautiful shade trees that produced a lot of oxygen. Commissioner Chitiea asked where the trees were located and what species they were. Mr. Rempel said the trees were removed along the parkways on several streets, including Layton and Ruby, south of Base Line Road between Hellman and Archibald. He said if private citizens removed the trees, they would be fined by the City. He did not understand why the trees were removed. He said he had planned to approach the Council, but he knew the Planning Commission had always supported the preservation of trees. Mr. Rempel commented there had been talk about preserving the design of the old wineries and he thought there had been more acreage in citrus than in vineyards. He felt that the shopping centers in the City have basically the same design. Chairman McNiel stated that new projects are in the process which are a departure from the Spanish motif. Mr. Rempel asked for the Commission's feedback on the trees. Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 24, 1992 Commissioner Melcher supported Mr. Rempel's forwarding his comments on the trees to the City Council. Commissioner Chitlea stated that generally the Historic Preservation Commission looks at any projects in an historical area. She stated there had been talk about recognizing some of the citrus growers in the community. She hoped that all aspects of the historic nature of the community will be represented. Commissioner Tolstoy requested a report from Engineering on the decision and rationale for removing the trees. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that Engineering could provide such a response back to the Commission. He also thought that the Historic Preservation Commission had made some recent strides in recognizing aspects of the community other than wineries~ i.e. Schowalter Rock Pile and Chaffey Garcia Barn. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that citrus was more dominant and economically superior to the wineries. Chairman McNiel thanked Mr. Rempel for his input and stated the Commission would pursue the matter. Commissioner Tolstoy hoped Mr. Rempel would forward his concerns to the City Council. Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Chitiea concurred. , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher to adjourn. 9:00 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a 1:30 p.m. meeting on June 30, 1992, in the Planning Division Conference Room regarding Planning Commission goals and priorities. That meeting will adjourn to a workshop at 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 1992, regarding a Pre-application Review of a residential project and the Design Competition Program. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 24, 1992