HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/03/25 - Minutes - PC-HPC (2)CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
March 25, 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, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson,
Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Anthea Hartig,
Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner;
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant
Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff had received a letter from the
applicant for Item B, requesting a continuance for two weeks.
Mr. Buller announced that draft minutes were provided to the Commissioners
from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the Albert House for
Item F.
Mr. Buller commented that this evening's meeting would need to adjourn to a
workshop on April 2 at 5:00 p.m. regarding a pre-application review for Smiths
Superstore.
, , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt
the minutes of February 26, 1992.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 14121 - J. P. RHOADES
DEVELOPMENT - A request for a time extension for the design review of
building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded tract map
consisting of 46 single family lots on 9.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned
Community, located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Milliken
Avenue - APN: 202-211-48.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Be
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - A request to
modify the hours of operation and to expand the permitted uses within an
existing 103,522 square foot indoor wholesale/retail commercial use
located within the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-262-28.
(Continued from February 26, 1992.)
Chairman McNiel commented that a request had been received from the applicant
asking that the matter be continued to April 8, 1992. He opened the public
hearing, but there were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to continue Modification to
Conditional Use Permit 91-03 to April 8, 1992. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02
- JACK MASI
B. A request to add an auto court use, consisting of automotive services
and related activities, as a conditionally permitted use to Subarea 7
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
C. A request to expand the list of permitted and conditionally permitted
uses in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to include
certain retail and service-related activities.
(Continued from
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
March 11, 1992.)
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated two
letters had been received from Michael Scandiffio and one from Dick Dahl
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 25, 1992
regarding the project.
the letters.
She commented that staff had not had time to analyze
Commissioner Melcher asked how staff had arrived at a recommended maximum of
25,000 square feet for Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements.
Ms. Nissen responded that the Light Wholesale Storage and Distribution
category has a 50,000 square foot limitation but allows ancillary retail uses
in conjunction. She indicated staff felt 50 percent may be appropriate, but
the figure would be open for discussion.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked why beauty supplies were added to the definition
under Pharmacies and Specialty Medical/Health Stores.
Ms. Nissen replied that beauty type supplies are often sold in conjunction
with pharmaceutical supplies.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would include jewelry.
Ms. Nissen replied that it was not anticipated that it would include jewelry.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that beauty supplies could be construed to be an
expansion of what he had envisioned.
Chairman McNiel noted that the public hearing was still open.
Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Company, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank,
submitted an outline of currently permitted and conditionally permitted uses,
the current definition of Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution, a page
from a lease with Home Club, and proposed additions to the draft resolution
regarding land use type definitions. He commended staff's proposed
resolutions. He noted that Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution was
already a permitted use with retail sales allowed from the premises with a
conditional use permit. He remarked that the applicant had only asked for
clarification on definitions of Business Supply and Retail Services and
Business Support Services which are permitted uses and that wholesale and
retail is permitted under the current definition. He remarked that their big
concern was on Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements. He felt
stores such as Dunn Edwards Paints, Carpeteria, and Wallpapers To Go, are
generally seen in Industrial areas on the fringe of Commercial development.
He noted that at the previous meeting it had been suggested that such uses
belong in the Regional Related Commercial and he thought they would not be
able to afford the rents. He said spaces are also generally not provided in
those areas for the small 5,000 to 15,000 square foot user. He referred to a
lease restriction from a Home Club lease. He remarked that general
merchandise home improvement stores are typically found in centers and they
generally have lease restrictions that no other store within the center shall
sell any of the home improvement items they carry in their business unless the
sales are incidental. He noted that Standard Brands is a 25,000 square foot
general merchandiser and would not be included in the proposed definition. He
felt the proposed uses are highly specialized. He said they do not locate in
regional centers but instead are in industrial areas generally off highways.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 25, 1992
He noted that Ontario and Fontana have such uses and they currently cannot
come into Rancho Cucamonga. He felt the Masi site is a good location for
those uses. He asked for a broader definition. Mr. Scandiffio then requested
modifications to the draft resolution. He suggested that the definition of
Business Support Services be expanded to indicate it means services supporting
professionals as well as businesses. He suggested that Pharmacies and
Specialty Medical/Health Stores, Medical and Hospital Supply, and Specialty
Building Supplies and Home Improvements be limited to areas located near
Foothill Activity Centers within Subarea 7.
Doug Nye, Bishop Hawk, 2143 East "D" Street, Suite 210, Ontario, stated he was
the broker for the Masi project. He indicated the beauty supplies to be sold
from Pharmacies and Specialty Medical/Health Stores would not include
jewelry. He felt the expanded uses were ones that he currently drives to
other cities to obtain. He said the only auto service he intended to put
adjacent to the Auto Court was Chief Auto Parts. He felt such a use could not
be buried in an Auto Court because it is a convenience store and needs
visibility. He felt the 25,000 square foot limitation would eliminate the
larger users and would limit the users to specialty merchandise.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
noted concerns had been previously raised regarding the effect on all of
Subarea 7.
Commissioner Tolstoy did not like the addition of the verbiage limiting the
uses to areas in proximity to designated Foothill Activity Centers. He felt
that beauty supplies can mushroom into other sales and he thought the use may
be appropriate if the definition were tightened. He felt the sale of home
appliances should be limited to major appliances to preclude the sale of
toasters or irons.
Commissioner Melcher was concerned with the impression that this amendment was
to create a place for all the little uses that do not fit elsewhere in the
City. He did not feel that was a valid basis for making all the changes. He
noted that in looking at the current Table III-1, Automotive/Light Truck
Repair-Minor was originally excluded from Subarea 7 and he thought that when
the plan was originally approved, it was decided the use was not appropriate
in the subarea. He questioned if it was appropriate to abandon the plan just
because an applicant now wished to add the use. He was not sure the use
fits. He also questioned if transmission repair would not cross into the
Automotive/Truck Repair-Major definition and did not feel such a use would be
appropriate in an Auto Court. He thought the plan already permits a wide
variety of uses and he felt allowing the requested uses may result in leap-
frogging along Foothill Boulevard. He said there is a nucleus of good retail
at Foothill and Haven and approved projects in the vicinity of the interchange
between Foothill and the 1-15. He thought that if time were allowed to pass
and normal maturation of the need for the land would occur that the logical
uses would eventually emerge. He thought the uses in the plan or other uses
may be correct, but he questioned if it was appropriate to amend the plan at
this time.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 25, 1992
Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Melcher. She noted that in
Mr. Scandiffio's March 24 letter he indicated they had not propose that the
entirety of Subarea 7 be changed to accommodate all of their proposed
conditionally permitted uses, and in fact they believe it is undesirable to do
so. She felt that if a use is to be permitted in one part of a subarea of the
Industrial Specific Plan, it would be appropriate to make those uses available
to other properties in the subarea. She remarked that the subareas are
already rather limited in size. She did not feel it would be fair to allow a
use for one property, but not for others. She thought it may result in
shoehorning in a use just because someone thought it may work. She agreed
that transmission repair should not be included. She was uncomfortable with
moving the area into a retail type of area because she felt there are other
areas in the City to accommodate most of the proposed uses. She did not
support changing the plan for one user.
Commissioner Vallette stated she is anxious to see the project move forward
and she felt it will be an asset to the City. However, she felt that Subarea
7 is a well thought-out plan. She thought there is currently enough
Commercial along Foothill Boulevard. She felt that perhaps in the future
after further development along Foothill Boulevard, there may be a need for
more Commercial, but it was not apparent at this time. She had reservations
about amending the plan other than adding the Auto Court use.
Chairman McNiel felt leap-frogging is relatively common because the land is
not owned by one developer. He noted that in certain areas of Southern
California development has occurred with a given use, and in a short time that
use has been converted to a higher use as driven by the market. He felt that
the proposed uses are a good set of uses. He was not sure the uses needed to
be expanded to the extent the applicant was requesting, but he felt the Auto
Court is something the community could use and the mitigations through design
review could be met. He thought perhaps the design could be improved,
however. He thought the liklihood of encountering problems with the balance
of Subarea 7 is minor.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he did not mean to suggest that he does not
believe in the property owner's right to develop at this time, but he was not
convinced it is appropriate to change the plan which was considered in the
context of the entire community in order to enable a single project to proceed
at this time.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Chairman McNiel felt that all of the proposed
activities fit in with what is already allowed in Subarea 7.
Chairman McNiel did not feel all of the proposed uses should necessarily be
added. He asked if the Commissioners would like to consider the list. He
felt that in Automotive Service Courts the developer should know that service
bays would need to be adequately screened.
Commissioner Chitiea noted that the removal of the requirement to have service
bays face the rear of the buildings was to allow greater flexibility in order
Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 25, 1992
for the most screening and best design to be achieved. She did not feel they
should be visible from Foothill Boulevard under any circumstance and she
preferred that they not be visible from the main entry. She saw no need to
change the plan because she felt there are enough other appropriate locations
within the City, including automotive parts stores along Foothill Boulevard
and on Archibald Avenue. She felt a service station may be appropriate, but
she was not in favor of an Auto Court.
Commissioner Vallette indicated she was under the impression that auto
supplies was part of the proposed retail uses.
Chairman McNiel responded that the applicant had indicated that auto supplies
is part of the proposed retail uses, not to be located within an auto court.
He remarked that the applicant wants to put the automotive supplies on the
street as he feels it needs to attract casual shoppers.
Commissioner Vallette felt an Automotive Service Court would be useful to the
City and would not be a problem with all of Subarea 7.
Commissioner Tolstoy supported the Auto Court but he was opposed to auto parts
stores located outside of an Auto Court. He did not feel such a use would be
appropriate in Subarea 7 unless within an Auto Court.
Commissioner Melcher hoped that the Commission would direct staff to rework
the definition so that it is clear that the uses under the Automotive/Truck
Repair-Major should not take place in an Auto Court. He did not feel heavy
duty automotive work such as transmission repair, engine rebuilding, or body
shops would be appropriate.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that industrial type truck repairs or major
overhauls should not be included.
Chairman McNiel noted that under Specialty Building Supplies and Home
Improvements there was a suggested maximum size of 25,000 square feet.
Commissioner Chitiea opposed the use as a form of retail. She noted that
25,000 square feet is a large building. She stated she could understand
specialty uses, but she felt the definition of specialty would need to be
enhanced because she was concerned the use would grow to include Standard
Brands Paint or Builder's Emporium types of uses.
Chairman McNiel felt that none of the general home improvement companies would
be under 40,000 square feet.
Commissioner Vallette felt the concern was with a variety type home
improvement store as opposed to a specialty type store.
Commissioner Chitiea felt specialty stores may be appropriate.
Commissioner Vallette did not oppose Specialty Building Supplies as a
conditional use.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 25, 1992
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the other Commissioners agreed with the
requested changes made by Mr. Scandiffio.
Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant was suggesting that the uses be
limited to Foothill. He did not feel that the term "professionals" needed to
be added under Business Support Services, as he felt the definition was
sufficient.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that if the plan were amended, that additional
restrictions be added to indicate that all storage, display, and sales
activities would take place inside enclosed buildings with no merchandising
outside.
Chairman McNiel thought there is a provision for sidewalk or parking lot sales
several times per year under current code.
Commissioner Tolstoy noted the Commission was trying not to have retail
activities and sidewalk or parking lot sales would be retail activities. He
said he understood it to be home building supplies and he did not feel
sidewalk sales should be permitted.
Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if the Commissioners wanted to only take
action on some of the uses proposed under Part C or if they felt Item C was
appropriate at all.
Commissioner Vallette felt that the already designated permitted and
conditionally permitted uses in Subarea 7 would be appropriate for the
applicant's project and the project-should be reflective of the approved uses
without expanding them beyond the Auto Court use.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that the project should be able to stand on the
merits of what the Industrial Area Specific Plan already permits. He felt the
Auto Court use would probably prevail and he thought it would be appropriate
to deny Part C.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred.
Chairman McNiel called for a motion on Part B.
had been requested.
He asked what modifications
Mr. Buller stated that Commissioner Melcher had requested that the definition
make it clear that major truck repair would not be an acceptable use. He
asked if the Commissioners objected to the heavy automotive repair uses, such
as transmission repair, or the size of the vehicles.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the definition be modified to delete
transmissions and general auto repair.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested adding a statement that services
typically provided in the category "Automotive and Truck Repair-Major" would
be specifically prohibited.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 25, 1992
Commissioner Melcher noted that he planned to vote against the amendment even
with the suggested changes.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was in support of the Auto Court and he
supported the modifications suggested.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed.
Chairman McNiel wanted to be sure that such things as tail light replacement
could be performed.
Mr. Buller noted that the remainder of the definition should cover such
things.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration, and adopt the resolution recommending approval of
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 92-02, Part B. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the resolution for Part C could be modified to a
resolution recommending denial.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, felt it would be better to direct staff to
prepare a resolution of denial in order to best convey the opposition
expressed by the Commission.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to prepare a
resolution of denial for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 92-02,
Part C, for adoption at the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Tolstoy requested that the resolution indicate that Subarea 7 has
been designed as a transition area between the heavy industrial portions of
the City and the retail and residential areas and the Commission feels it
should remain as a buffer area.
Commissioners Melcher and Vallette concurred.
Commissioner Chitiea noted that one of the reasons the area was so designated
was to protect the Commercial retail areas in the City so there is not so much
saturation that no centers will be successful.
Chairman McNiel felt the proposal was a reasonable transitional use and that
some of the requests made by the applicant would work in that area.
, , , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 25, 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA - A
residential subdivision and design review for 13 condominium units on 1.4
acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street
and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. Staff recommends issuance of a
mitigated Negative Declaration. Related Tree Removal Permit 91-29.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the replacement trees should be with the
· largest nursery-grown stock available (as required in the resolution) or with
smaller specimens.
Commissioner Vallette noted that Design Review had occurred prior to the tour
with Engineering staff. She felt the Commission may wish to discuss the
matter.
Chairman McNiel opened the public testimony.
Alan Smith, Southwest Design Group, 8632 Archibald Avenue, #201, Rancho
Cucamonga, commented that they agreed with the majority of the conditions. He
thanked staff for their work on the project and remarked that he thought the
City will be proud of the project. He felt smaller trees should be used
because he feared larger trees would be lost.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it will be a nice project.
Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission may wish to discuss the tree issue.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented that the language had been copied
out of the Tree Ordinance.
Chairman McNiel suggested that the matter be referred back to staff to decide
on the appropriate size tree.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 15247 and
design review thereof, with modification to require replacement of the trees
to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 25, 1992
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14407 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify
a previously approved tract map consisting of 13 zero lot line homes and
114 condominium units in order to change the concept of land ownership to
create a total of 139 lots, located on 11.4 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista
Planned Community, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and
Mountain View Drive - APN: 227-151-15.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 Mountain Avenue, Upland, commented that they
would build the recreational area with Phase I. He stated he was available to
answer questions.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the introduction of property lines between the
units would create any changes in construction which can be seen from the
outside of the building, such as walls projecting above the roof.
Mr. Cockroft responded there would be no changes to the exterior of the
building. He stated there will be two 1-hour fire walls installed between
each unit instead of one 2-hour fire wall. He noted that the building length
will increase by 6 inches to accommodate the additional 2-inch air space
between units.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving
Modification to Tentative Tract 14407. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-08 - LA PARRY - A request to establish a silk
flower and gift shop totaling 612 square feet within the historic Albert
House, on 1.23 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre), located at 10323 19th Street - APN: 1076-151-02.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel expressed concern that the tubular metal fencing should be
attractive and not detract from the project. He suggested the design of the
Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 25, 1992
fencing should perhaps return to the Historic Preservation Commission to
determine the compatibility. He feared the fencing may be too industrial or
institutional to be effective. Chairman McNiel then opened the public
hearing.
Roy La Parry, 8151 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga and 10323 - 19th Street,
Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was leasing the Albert House. He remarked that he
was planning to use wrought iron fencing with spikes on top and bottom. He
reported that he had wanted to use white fencing but the Historic Preservation
preferred black. He did not object to providing the parking spaces but
questioned clarification on the enhanced paving material. He asked that the
sidewalk construction on Hamilton Street and the street trees on 19th and
Hamilton be delayed to the five-year plan until after they purchase the
property. He noted that the Hamilton Street sidewalk would not enhance the
business portion of the property. He observed that on the north side of
Hamilton there is only a short stretch of sidewalk along the property to the
west and there is no sidewalk on the property immediately adjacent to the
east. He commented that in order to provide irrigation to street trees along
19th Street, he would have to go under the sidewalk, so he asked that the
requirement be delayed. He said there are currently no street trees along
19th Street from Haven Avenue to Amethyst. He said they cleaned up all the
weeds and plan to landscape in the future, but they hoped to minimize the
costs until they own the property. He said his lease expires in September
1992 and they are trying to sell their other home in order to purchase the
property. He indicated he did not object to the fence modifications because
he realized there is currently a blind spot when exiting the driveway.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel noted that the Commissioners had draft minutes from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the house is beautiful. He was glad that
the block wall will be coming out. He feared that an 8-hour per day, 7-day
per week use may be too intense and would be detrimental to the house. He
noted that the new home under construction to the west will have its rear yard
adjacent to the Albert House front yard and he felt a 56-hour per week use may
take away enjoyment from the outdoor space of that house. He remarked that
homes of the Albert House era frequently had decomposed granite or gravel
driveways, and he questioned if that would not be more appropriate than
enriched paving. He did not object to delaying the construction of the
garage. He also did not object to postponing the sidewalk along Hamilton, but
stated he understood the policy of obtaining sidewalks whenever possible, so
he thought the condition may have to remain. He commented that the property
is not fully landscaped, but noted that there is no requirement to landscape
it. He thought his major concern was the closeness of the two driveways
devoted to commercial purposes. He was concerned that traffic speeds on 19th
Street are quite high and he questioned if it would be safe.
Commissioner Vallette asked the thoughts of the Historic Preservation
Commission with regard to the enriched paving.
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- March 25, 1992
Anthea Hartig, AssociateI Planner, remarked that the driveway is currently
separated with real fieldstone expansion joints along the curve of the
driveway. She said the Historic Preservation Commissioners did not want
striped parking spaces, but instead they wanted the spaces to be more of an
aesthetic part of the site.
Commissioner Vallette commented that in reviewing the application she could
understand why the applicant would have reservations about making the
improvements immediately, but she felt the improvements need to be made. She
questioned if the conditional use permit would be automatically reviewed after
a period of time.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the permit would permanently
run with the land.
Commissioner Vallette indicated she had been going to suggest a one-year time
extension for the improvements to be made, but thought that perhaps it would
be best to require them immediately in order to be sure that the conditions
are met.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Commissioner Vallette was also including the
Hamilton Street improvements.
Commissioner Vallette felt the application should be considered the same as
other businesses in the City.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if she would be willing to forego the Hamilton
Street improvements until the owner gains access from Hamilton Street.
Commissioner Vallette replied that would be a possibility.
Commissioner Tolstoy said he did not feel there is current access to Hamilton
Street. He felt that will occur in the future and he thought that would be a
better time to require the improvements.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that would be a good option.
Commissioner Chitiea recalled that a certain amount of time was allowed for
the Christmas House to build a garage structure. She thought it would be
appropriate to delay the construction of the garage and the Hamilton Street
improvements over a five-year period. She felt the concept of putting in
gravel for the parking spaces would be appropriate because if the use were not
to continue, there would not be added hardscape that would then have to come
out. Even though she wanted the trees planted as soon as possible, she was
willing to delay the 19th Street landscaping improvements for a year because
the applicants do not own the property and do not have a long-term lease. She
approved removal of the block wall fence but felt the condition regarding
fencing should be revised to require decorative wrought iron fencing in
keeping with the period and style of the home. She thought the Commission
could leave the color of the fence up to the Historic Preservation Commission,
but she agreed with the applicant that white may be more appropriate and blend
in better with the white on the house.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 25, 1992
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use would be appropriate for the Albert House.
Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to agree with deferring some of the
improvements. He noted that when most people enter a lease for a business, it
includes some amount of tenant improvements or a period of free rent. He did
not feel that the applicant had an opportunity to take advantage of such
circumstances. He noted that the applicant is currently making two house
payments. He remarked he would not object to deferring the landscaping and
sidewalk for a minimum of a year, but he suggested it be a year from the time
the applicant assumes the property. He thought the applicant may find within
a year that the business will not be successful, and he felt the current
natural state would be satisfactory if the property were to be used solely as
a residence.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the fence alteration needs to be done immediately
because it is unsafe in its present configuration. He felt that each business
has start-up costs. He agreed that the trees should be planted as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested that there could be some requirements for
upgrading the landscaping in the future.
Mr. Hanson suggested that a disclosure statement be required if some of the
improvements are delayed for a five-year period. He remarked that the
property may change hands with an innocent party being conditioned to make the
improvements. He suggested that the applicant record a disclosure statement
as to the deferred garage and improvements in a form suitable to the City
Planner and City Attorney. He noted that Engineering Condition 5 requires an
agreement be executed for improvements to 19th and Hamilton Streets and he
suggested that such an agreement be recorded within 90 days. He noted that
security is required for the street improvements and he remarked that it would
be difficult to secure a bond agreement, so it may mean a lien agreement would
be used. He observed that the suggestion to require some improvements within
a certain period of time after the applicant obtains ownership would put staff
in the difficult position of keeping track of the applicant's financial
dealings.
Chairman McNiel agreed that any deferral should be for a specified time from
date of approval.
Commissioner Vallette asked if staff could foresee any difficulties with
deferring the improvements.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that staff time will be required for
administration and tracking of the project to be sure the improvements are
completed. He noted that once the use is established, it may be difficult to
get compliance if the applicant is unwilling or unable to make the
improvements. He remarked that there is no need for a building permit, so he
suggested that if a disclosure is required that it be required within a
certain period of time. He indicated he would entertain the idea of
delineating parking spaces with rock or concrete ribbons used with turf block
for the enriched parking area. He said he would not encourage gravel.
Planning Commission Minutes
-13- March 25, 1992
Mr. Hanson concurred that the disclosure statements should be required within
90 days of approval.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that several conditions
indicate they are to be met prior to commencement of the use.
Commissioner Chitiea stated the use was already in place.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, remarked that the use has been operating, but
so far as the City is concerned, it is not a legal use. He liked the idea of
the disclosure, but wondered if it would be possible for the applicant to get
the disclosure recorded since the applicant does not own the property.
Ralph Hanson stated that the conditions apply to the land, and so in essence
apply to the property owner.
Commissioner Melcher noted that if the application were for a standard home
occupation permit, there would be a requirement that there be no employees
outside of the immediate family. However, he questioned if the applicant
would be permitted to have employees since the business will be established
under the conditional use permit process.
Mr. Buller commented that under a conditional use permit, outside employees
would be permitted.
Ralph Hanson commented that the conditional use permit process is unique
because of the historic landmark status.
Mr. Buller remarked that if the Commission was concerned about the possibility
of a non-family member living on the property or operating the business, it
would be appropriate for the applicant to identify such a potential within the
conditional use permit application. He said the purpose of the conditional
use permit process for historic structures is to encourage adaptive reuse.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the application assumes an ongoing use and
provides for the eventual construction of a garage to be accessed from
Hamilton. He questioned if the property is large enough to allow for
subdivision, and if so, if the Commission should restrict it so the land could
not be split.
Mr. Hayes replied that the lot is large enough to permit subdivision into at
least two lots.
Commissioner Melcher noted that if the property were being used as a
residence, the applicant would not be required to take access from Hamilton.
He questioned if a future lot split should be required to protect the garage
access from Hamilton.
Ralph Hanson observed that any future subdivision would have to be approved by
the Planning Commission and he noted that staff would disclose previous
Commission action with regard to the garage access. He thought it may be
possible to split the property but still provide access to Hamilton Street for
the garage.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 25, 1992
Commissioner Melcher suggested adding a condition that access to Hamilton
Street must be preserved so long as the use continues.
Ralph Hanson agreed that condition would be acceptable.
Commissioner Melcher remarked that the fencing design should be reviewed with
safety considerations in mind because of the height of the fence and its
proximity to the sidewalk.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the current owner had agreed to the use.
Mr. Hayes responded that the current property owner had signed the
application.
Chairman McNiel asked if there was a consensus on the period of time for
deferral of improvements.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested one year for the 19th Street improvements and
five years for the Hamilton Street improvements and the construction of the
garage. She felt the fence should be done immediately.
Commissioner Vallette concurred.
Barrye Hanson noted that there had been discussion regarding several of the
engineering conditions. He asked if there was consensus for changing the
wording from tubular metal fencing.
Chairman McNiel commented that tubular is generic and industrial sounding.
Mr. Coleman commented that tubular was used because that is what exists on the
property to the east.
Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be a mistake to allow it in front of the
Albert House. She suggested decorative wrought iron fencing would allow some
latitude in the design.
Mr. Coleman noted there had been discussion about whether staff should approve
the design or if it should be returned to the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Chairman McNiel felt staff could handle it.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the City Planner should determine the appropriate
height of the fence with consideration being given to safety and appearance.
Commissioner Melcher felt the height should not exceed the height of the
pilasters.
Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners agreed that sidewalk and street
trees be deferred for one year.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 25, 1992
Commissioner Chitiea felt a five-year deferral would be satisfactory for
Hamilton Street.
Chairman McNiel suggested the street trees along 19th Street could be delayed
for one year.
Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette wanted the street trees installed
immediately.
Chairman McNiel asked how many trees would be involved.
Commissioner Chitiea noted it would mean irrigation in addition to the trees.
Barrye Hanson guessed it would be three to four trees.
Condition 7 required ground cover and a permanent
addition to the street trees.
He noted that Planning
irrigation system in
Commissioner Melcher suggested continuing the matter for two weeks to allow
staff and the applicant to work out the details.
Barrye Hanson noted that Engineering staff felt a lien would be necessary.
Chairman McNiel asked about the landscaping.
Mr. Coleman indicated that staff was trying to be consistent with what was
done at the Christmas House.
Chairman McNiel asked if the other Commissioners were willing to allow one
year on the landscaping.
Commissioner Chitiea noted she would be willing to allow a year because she
felt it would take time to install the irrigation and landscaping.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt a year would be acceptable.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to direct staff to prepare a
revised resolution of approval for Conditional Use Permit 92-08 for adoption
at the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-10 - WEST END TRAFFIC SCHOOL - A request to
establish a traffic school in an existing building of 1,348 square feet,
located on 3.8 acres of land in the Office District (Subarea 1) of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan at 8746 Foothill Boulevard - APN:
207-102-32.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 25, 1992
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette remarked that the parking lot lighting must be
sufficient and should be aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Hayes replied that the actual design and type of lighting will be subject
to staff's review and approval prior to installation.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Charles Williamson, 12676 Trillium Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he planned
to comply with all the conditions that are under his control. He noted that
the property owner planned to address one of the conditions.
Commissioner Melcher asked how many classes would be conducted per week.
Mr. Williamson stated that following certification by the Department of Motor
Vehicles, he planned to start with two weeknights for four hours each, from
6:00 to 10:00 p.m. He said he hoped to expand to four nights per week and one
class on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He said they also plan to
attempt to get a contract from the County to run the Driving Under the
Influence program. He said there would be up to 57 cars in the parking lot.
Commissioner Melcher asked where registration would be conducted.
Mr. Williamson responded that the office would be open during court hours and
his wife would handle the registrations. He said they would primarily handle
registration over the telephone and the office is located in the loft of the
building, but the registration would be on the ground floor.
Lowell Gomes, 8772 Vivero Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the
property. He said there are currently temporary uses because it is a large
property which he hopes to develop in the not-too-distant future. He objected
to dedicating an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the Foothill
Boulevard frontage until the property is fully developed. He disclosed that
he currently holds two trust deeds on the property which he would have to pay
off prior to any dedication.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the enhanced parking lot lighting is essential to
the operation. He hoped it could be accomplished by lights mounted on the
building, but he suggested that additional plans be required if the lights
have to be installed in the parking lot.
Commissioner Chitiea was very concerned that the lighting be adequate.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if lights are needed throughout the parking
lot, their placement should be carefully considered.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 25, 1992
Commissioner Melcher noted that the application was for a commercial
venture. He thought the project should meet all of the normal requirements
and he did not feel the Commission should delete the requirement for the
additional 10-foot right-of-way. He noted that the building had been reviewed
by the Fire District, but he advised a preliminary review by the Building and
Safety staff because he did not feel the building would be adequate for the
projected number of students. He was not sure the building would be able to
meet building access requirements.
Commissioner Vallette commented that when she first reviewed the project, she
had the same concerns as those raised by Commissioner Melcher. Upon further
review, she felt circumstances were different. She hoped that newer
development could occur in the near future and questioned if it would be
appropriate to condition normal requirements of other properties along
Foothill Boulevard. She thought that such conditions may delay better
utilization of the property. She was willing to not force the issue on the
lO-foot right-of-way dedication.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be acceptable to defer dedication of the
10-foot right of way along Foothill Boulevard until the property is further
developed.
Commissioner Chitiea noted that such deferral would not preclude landscaping
of the frontage. She supported getting the property spruced up.
Chairman McNiel felt the use will be interim only and he thought it would be
developed fairly soon.
Commissioner Vallette noted that the resolution did not require landscaping.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated she had been looking at the site plan in the
staff report.
Chairman McNiel felt that only depicted the currently existing landscaping.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the applicant should improve the
landscaping.
Chairman McNiel noted he was more concerned with the driveway and the lighting
becoming a problem for traffic on Foothill Boulevard.
Commissioner Vallette remarked that it is unknown how long the use would
remain. She requested that a couple of mature trees be planted on site to
enhance the property and felt the trees could then be replanted when the
property is redeveloped to a higher use.
Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that staff would seek to locate trees in
areas where they can remain and to choose the type of tree chosen to allow
relocation should that be required.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested directing the City Planner to see that the area
is enhanced with appropriate interim landscaping.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 25, 1992
Mr. Buller noted that staff understood the concern for providing adequate
lighting without causing a glare on Foothill Boulevard. He felt if lights
mounted on the building cannot adequately address concerns, then the solution
may be very costly and could perhaps deter development of the property.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 92-10, with modification to delete the
condition requiring dedication of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along
the Foothill Boulevard frontage and to require that the street front
landscaping and the lighting be reviewed and approved by the City Planner
prior to the commencement of the use. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
He
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA
INVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the subsequent Environmental
Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential
subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres
of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire
and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff
recommends certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA
INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single
family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less
than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of
Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07,
55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and Environmental Assessment
and Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 to April 8, 1992. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
NEW BUSINESS
Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 25, 1992
PHASING PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE
PARTNERS - Review of the proposed phasing plan for a previously approved
commercial retail center within the Regional Related Commercial District
(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 and he suggested
modification to the resolution to indicate that all pertinent conditions of
City Council Resolution No. 91-248 would apply. He also presented a map
outlining the proposed phasing.
Chairman McNiel thought the phasing plan seemed like an impractical way to
develop the property. He opened the public hearing.
Greg Wattson, The Wattson Company, 3620 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport
Beach, indicated that Major 3 had been signed up and they were ready to submit
drawings. He felt that in today's economy the bank would not allow them to
build too much spec. He felt they would secure a grocery store for Major 1
within the next 60 days and Major 2 (a drug store) would sign as soon as the
grocery store was signed. He felt confident that Major 4 will be an
electronics use and he anticipated that would take place within 30 days. He
hoped they would be able to build the whole area at once, but he feared they
would not be able to get financing for Majors 1, 2, and 4 until leases were
signed.
Chairman McNiel asked if Shop C was a different phase.
Mr. Murphy noted that was the projected fourth phase out of five.
Mr. Wattson indicated they would like to build the plaza right away but they
had no tenants interested. He felt that once Majors 1 and 2 had signed, they
would be able to secure tenants for the plaza.
Chairman McNiel asked how they would build the grocery store and the drug
store without building something where the plaza area is located.
Mr. Wattson said they were hoping that once Majors 1 and 2 are signed up, they
would have more success in marketing the plaza and the bank would allow them
to build the plaza.
Mr. Murphy noted the resolution of approval contains a condition to require
temporary sidewalks if necessary to provide safe access.
Commissioner Chitiea asked what would happen to the plaza area in the
meantime.
Mr. Wattson stated they would apply a chemical binder to hold the soil down
and they would fence the area with a screen barrier.
Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that during the discussion on the Terra
Vista Town Center phasing, the Commission requested a painted architectural
Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 25, 1992
screen wall with a sidewalk and landscaping placed in front of it while
Service Merchandise was being built. He suggested the Commission could ask
the applicant to submit an appropriate program for screening, security, and
walkways so that the applicant could then work with staff.
Chairman McNiel asked what would happen if the last little section to which
the plaza is attached does not get built.
Mr. Buller commented the matter was before the Commission so they could
determine the appropriate phasing pattern for the center. He indicated they
could require the plaza at a time they determined was appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the plaza could not be built with an earlier
phase.
Mr. Wattson said they would be happy to but the bank will not let them unless
they have some tenants in place to support the debt ratio.
Commissioner Melcher responded he was not talking about building the
buildings, only the plaza.
Mr. Wattson said they would not be opposed to building some of the plaza but
he feared that if they put in the entire plaza before the surrounding
buildings, they would damage the plaza when staging and constructing the
buildings.
Chairman McNiel asked if there had been any progress on the condition for
historical art work.
Mr. Wattson said they had submitted preliminary information to staff and hoped
to submit an application by April 1.
Chairman McNiel noted that the Historic Preservation Commission had requested
a phasing plan be submitted for the implementation plan for the integral
public art.
Mr. Wattson responded they had not presented such a plan.
Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, stated the Historic Preservation Commission
was interested in tying down a time line that would assure the Commissioners
that the mitigations would be in place. She indicated they wanted the
mitigations to be integrated into the site rather than added on at the last
minute.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he had some problems with Phase I, Phase II,
and the western phase because the western phase is the smaller phase, but he
had great reservations about the eastern phase. He felt a piecemeal approach
was being proposed and the City would have to live with it for many years. He
thought the eastern phase should be done in a more timely manner. He realized
there may be funding problems, but he couldn't support constructing Major 3,
Planning Commission Minutes -21- March 25, 1992
then Major l, followed by Major 2. He thought the eastern phase needed to be
built in a more comprehensive manner even if it meant waiting for the section
to be developed. He thought Majors 3 and 4 should be built together, and
Majors 1 and 2 and the plaza should be part of one phase. He noted that it is
not known what architectural treatments or parking individual tenants will
require because the tenants are unknown. He observed that majors at other
centers have dictated parking. He noted that the current parking and
circulation plan may change as new majors are signed. He supported Phases I
and II, but did not support the phasing in the eastern portion.
Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy in supporting Phase I
and the western phase. She felt the plaza should have priority in the eastern
phase. She agreed that screen walls may be supportable. She also requested
landscaping for the empty pads along Foothill Boulevard.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was any analogy between what is happening
at this center and what happened at Central Park Plaza, where the departure of
one prospective tenant has held up completion of a whole big chunk of the
shopping center. He thought economic considerations should be considered.
Mr. Murphy remarked that in speaking with Lewis Homes, the delay was caused by
the inability to secure the tenant and not an economic consideration. He said
they feared there may be changes in the building design based upon a new
tenant with a ripple effect to the other areas.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she understood the applicant's problems but she
did not like the piecemeal approach. She felt there was a more comprehensive
approach at Terra Vista Town Center, which was later broken down into smaller
chunks as needed, so she recognized that development does not always go in in
the manner planned. However, she was uncomfortable with a building-by-
building approach.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the request was before the Planning Commission
because of the requirement to have an approved phasing plan before
construction can begin on Price Club or WalMart.
Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher noted that Mr. Wattson could have submitted a phasing
plan showing the entire eastern phase as all one phase and that would have
permitted construction to begin on Price Club and WalMart. He suggested that
the Commission approve a phasing plan with the provision that before any
construction can begin on the eastern phase, an appropriate phasing plan must
be approved if it is not to be built in one chunk.
Mr. Buller indicated he would support simplify the phasing into two phases to
allow the Price Club and WalMart construction to go forward with the
streetscape perimeter issue in conjunction. He said the applicant could then
approach the Commission if further phasing is needed.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that was reasonable.
Planning Commission Minutes -22- March 25, 1992
Mr. Murphy remarked that Mr. Wattson would prefer three phases with Phase I
being Price Club and WalMart, Phase II being the satellite pads adjacent to
Phase I and along Foothill Boulevard, and the eastern and western portions of
the site being the third phase.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing to ask if they had tenants for all
of the buildings along Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Wattson said they had tenants and would probably be starting construction
as they are finishing WalMart and Price Club.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the western phase should be divorced from the
eastern phase.
Mr. Murphy suggested that condition 2 be reworded to require that precise
phasing of the western and eastern phases be reviewed by the Commission at the
time of Development Review applications for any buildings within those phases.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated the eastern phase would have to be carefully
considered and he wanted more than one building at a time. He thought it
could possibly split into two phases.
Chairman McNiel said he would prefer temporary irrigation and lawn areas to
having billboard fencing on unbuilt areas. He noted that if Majors 1 and 2 go
in at one time the plaza link should be included in the package.
Mr. Buller noted that typically streetside small pads are not built before the
interior buildings. Me felt the Commission may want to make sure the
architectural vocabulary and the integrated art are locked in before the
Phase II buildings are approved.
Mr. Murphy noted that the applicant is requesting modifications to some of the
Historic Preservation Commission conditions at the April 8 Planning Commission
meeting.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution
approving the Phasing Plan for Conditional Use Permit 90-37, with
modifications to require that phasing plans for the eastern and western phases
be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the time of Development Review of
any buildings within the phase and to indicate that all pertinent conditions
of City Council Resolution 91-248 will apply. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Planning Commission Minutes -23- March 25, 1992
K. UPDATE REPORT ON FREEWAY LANDSCAPING
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report and a map delineating
the location of the freeway right-of-way and indicating the adjacent approved
and existing projects.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the meeting with the neighboring cities had been
set.
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, indicated a letter would be sent by the end
of the week attempting to set up the meeting for April 29.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if issues in addition to truck traffic would be
included in the letter.
Mr. Bose stated the letter would reference landscaping, HOV interchanges,
restrictions on truck traffic, plus other issues.
L. BRIDGES - LOCAL FEEDER TRAILS
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel asked if they are wooden bridges.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the attached drawing was the City standard one.
Mr. Buller responded it is was prepared by a developer.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the drawing should make it clear that the
wood is to be wolmanized, which is a chemical pressure treatment to preserve
the wood. He noted that untreated douglas fir would not be satisfactory.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked who would be responsible for the maintenance.
Mr. Buller said they are local trails, so the individual property owners will
be responsible.
Mr. Buller remarked that if a majority of the Commissioners planned to attend
the walking tour of Old Alta Loma, tonight's meeting would adjourn to that
tour on Tuesday, March 31, at 3:30 p.m.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated she could not be there until approximately
3:30 p.m.
It was the consensus of the Commission that they would meet at the Alta Loma
Heights Citrus Packing House at 3:30 p.m. for the tour.
Planning Commission Minutes -24- March 25, 1992
Mr. Buller also noted that on April 2 there would be a pre-application review
workshop beginning at 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn.
11:15 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a March 31, 1992, walking tour
commencing at 3:30 p.m. at the Alta Loma Heights Citrus Packing House.
Res ully s itted,
erBC.R~ek~yaunen
Planning Commission Minutes -25- March 25, 1992