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