Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/03/11 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 11, 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 Chitlea, 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; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , · , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that Item C had been withdrawn by the applicant and the Commission had received a memorandum from Community Development Director Rick Gomez advising that the Rancho Little League had secured an agreement with the School District to place the storage bins on school property. Mr. Buller announced that tonight's meeting should adjourn to a March 19, 1992, workshop following Design Review and that workshop would adjourn to a field trip on March 20 at 3:00 p.m. to tour the Design Awards nominees. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-0-2 with Chitiea and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of February 12, 1992. , · , , , CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 - LUSK COMPANY - A request for a time extension of the design review for building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-081- 06. Related files: Minor Exceptions 89-21 and 90-02. (Continued from January 8, 1992.) VACATION OF A PORTION OF STRANG LANE - GARY THOMPSON - A request to vacate a portion of Strang Lane, located east of Carnelian Street, approximately 30 feet wide and 150 feet long - APN: 1061-271-05. Chairman McNiel noted that there had been previous discussions regarding Item A and it should be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, approved 5-0, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 SteVe Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and commented that revised plans with proposed modifications and a letter from the applicant had been delivered to the Commissioners on March 10. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Bill Lusk, Lusk Company, P. O. Box C-19560, Irvine, commented that they had been unable to build the approved units because of the recession and they were therefore seeking a time extension. He stated they understood the Commission's concern about the street scene and he remarked that his architectural firm was available to review their proposed mitigations. Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant had studied the idea of introducing a one-story house and had determined that the house could only be 1,500 square feet because the lots are 4,500 square feet. Mr. Lusk affirmed that was the case because of the required setbacks. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Vallette observed that staff had recommended that the Commission approve the Time Extension unless the Commission determined that the project's current design is. inconsistent with the City's design goals and policies. She provided some pages from the General Plan that she requested the Commissioners consider. She noted that the General Plan indicates that "Community design is the expression of community goals in their physical form." and development should "provide street spaces which are both functional and attractive." She remarked that the General Plan notes that "when development occurs rapidly it often loses its sensitivity to the way that residents will be affected by it..." She thought that the Commission had indicated that not every square Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 11, 1992 foot of lot space should be maximized and various housing products should be offered within each development. She did not feel this project meets those goals. She also noted that the General Plan calls for homes to "provide opportunities for maximum individual and family privacy." She did not feel that the 5 foot side yards would allow an opportunity for privacy and she did not feel that the project relates to users at a pedestrian as well as an automobile scale, as called for in the General Plan. She thought the project is overwhelming and gives the appearance of row housing. She did not feel the project was the direction in which the City should be moving. Commissioner Melcher remarked that he was in complete sympathy with Commissioner Vallette's perspectives. He felt the City has an overabundance of small lot, large house subdivisions. However, he favored granting the Time Extension for this project. He remarked that the Commission would shortly be conducting a Pre-Application Review on a subdivision with a density of 5.1 with a single story house which he felt overwhelmed the lot. He noted that the density on Tract 13280 project is even higher at 6.1. He observed that the Pre-Application review tract does not meet Recreational Vehicle storage requirements while Tract 13280 does. He felt it is unwise to make such changes at the time of a Time Extension. He remarked that he had been following discussions regarding growth management and the current thinking seems to be that urban sprawl should be cut back by developing at higher densities to make better use of infrastructure. He thought such thinking may result in changes within the next year or so. He felt the changes proposed by the developer for Plan 3 would make a significant effort to reduce the apparent scale and he favored granting the Time Extension. However, he thought that all of Commissioner Vallette's concerns should receive thorough and immediate review so that new projects being processed would show more sensitivity. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he agreed with Commissioner Melcher and he felt the place to have made changes would have been in the Design Review stage. He thought that as the project had already been through Design Review, the Commission should not make changes now. He disagreed with Commissioner Melcher that someone at the state would tell communities that they should use smaller lots to make better use of infrastructure. He felt that community standards are a community issue and Rancho Cucamonga's standards call for more openness. He thought the Commission should retain those standards and follow what the community wants, rather than a perceived notion of what the state would like. He agreed with Commissioner Vallette's concerns, but .thought that since the project had gone through Design Review, the Time Extension should be granted. Commissioner Chitlea agreed with Commissioner Vallette's concerns and felt they should be looked at very carefully in the future. She also agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy, but remarked that when the project went through Design Review some concerns were raised. She noted that the community will have to live with the results for a long time. She remarked that the project was returned to Design Review with an opportunity to make modifications to address the concerns raised, and she did not feel those concerns were adequately addressed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 11, 1992 Chairman McNiel thanked Commissioner Vallette for the excerpts from the General Plan. He noted that plans are open to varied interpretations. He thought structuring lot layouts with proper setbacks makes sense. However, he thought that within a consistent small lot subdivision a single story shoehorned on a small lot can overwhelm the lot even more than a two-story model. He noted that the applicant had made one small change in one of the models by removing a portion of the elevation that protruded from the front of the house. He was not sure that modification was a marked improvement, but he supported the Time Extension. He felt the Commission could make changes at any time during the processing of a project until the project is built. Commissioner Vallette observed that the project had returned to Design Review with a request to only modify the exterior elevations. At that time she saw the lot configurations and she requested that the applicant look at some way to break up the streetscape. She said she did not force the issue because she realized she did not represent the entire Commission. She said it was her opinion that when the project came before the full Commission, the Commission directed that the project return to Design Review to identify those areas where the project could be modified to meet the concerns regarding breaking up the streetscape. She remarked that when the project returned to Design Review, the applicant offered no modifications. She felt that the newly proposed modifications of reducing one bedroom in the front of one elevation did not adequately address the concerns. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for Design Review for Tract 13280. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, asked if the motion included the modifications to Plan 3. Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that the motion remain as a simple Time Extension and that the applicant be directed to work with staff regarding the modifications proposed to Plan 3. He indicated staff did not feel the changes proposed made a major difference to the streetscape in addressing the problem identified by the Commission. Commissioner Melcher deferred to the wishes of the Design Review Committee members. Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy felt comfortable with the matter returning to staff. , , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 11, 1992 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-09 - RANCHO LITTLE LEAGUE - A request to place two storage bins on the south side of Salina Street, east of Malvern Avenue to use as a snack stand and to store sports equipment used on the adjoining baseball fields - APN: 209-041-47. Chairman McNiel reiterated that Item C had been withdrawn by the applicant and no action was necessary by the Commission. , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15354 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision and design review of 155 condominium units on 12.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Woodruff Place and Kenyon Way - APN: 227-011-26. Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission was to have received details of the landscape for the the poolside recreational area. Mr. Ross responded that the conditions require that the applicant work with staff and it would be worked out during the plan check phase. He suggested the landscaping could return to Design Review if the Commission would prefer. Commissioner Vallette commented that she thought the landscaping details would be ready tonight. Mr. Ross replied they were not done as yet. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 4490 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, commented that Items D and E were both submitted in July 1991. He noted that when the projects went through Design Review a Victoria resident was involved. He observed that the William-Lyon Company had worked with the Commission and staff on new design standards, and despite certain vesting rights on the tracts, they worked with staff to meet the new standards. He indicated they were willing to accept the conditions but requested clarification onthe extent of the requested enriched paving between the two driveway entrances. He noted that the paving now goes approximately 150 feet from each entrance. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner stated the intent was not to go all the way over to Woodruff Way. Commissioner Vallette thought the intent was to go through the interior of the project. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 11, 1992 Mr. Luque stated they planned to have unique landscaping along the length Larry Ryan, RJM Design Group, 27285 LaB RamblaB, #250, Mission Viego, project architect commented that he envisioned rich pavement off Kenyon Way and Street A to a depth of approximately 150 feet from each entry. He stated there would also be entry monumentation consisting of walls and terraced planters. He said they intend to pick up a design element, such as an enriched bollard with a cap to be continued along the entry drive to connect the two entries together. He said they had not envisioning that the enriched paving would connect. Chairman McNiel asked how long the street is overall. Mr. Ryan guessed there was approximately 250 feet between the two proposed enriched paving areas. He noted that the street furniture would also be continuous. Commissioner Chitiea asked when Victoria Park Lane will connect the eastern and western parts of Victoria. Mr. Luque responded the portion going from the bridge to the east is tied to the formation of a Community Facilities District which is being formed with the City at the present time. He said that portion is estimated to be a two- year construction period and there is no priority of phasing for the infrastructure which goes from Highland to below Arrow Route, to Rochester and the new sports complex. He said the portion going from the bridge to the west would be tied to Planning Area 10, Tract 14534, which was being held pending completion of the multi-family density review. He said they are now working on a tract map for submission to the City this year, with hopes to be under construction by next year. He therefore estimated that the western end of the bridge would be in 1993 and the eastern end in 1994. Commissioner Vallette asked where the additional recreational vehicle storage spaces would be located. Mr. Ross noted that 25 percent of the units require recreational vehicle storage spaces. He said those would be located off-site within the Victoria Community Plan area because they are not proposed on-site. Commissioner Vallette asked if that would mean an additional off-site storage area would be built. Mr. Luque noted that he was working with Dan Coleman regarding an overall plan for recreational vehicle storage. Commissioner Melcher asked the timetable on construction of the off-site vehicle storage facility. Mr. Luque felt the developer would not be able to meet the condition because they submitted an application a year ago, but the City requires that any project built south of Base Line must put in the entire infrastructure which Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 11, 1992 amounts to over $30 million. He noted that a small storage facility could not support such an expense and he was working with staff on that and other issues. He said there are currently available recreational vehicular spaces in the existing facility north of Base Line. He stated 173 spaces will eventually be built south of Base Line. Commissioner Melcher wondered if there would be problems when the last 25 percent of the project is ready for occupancy. Mr. Luque thought the problems would have to be resolved prior to reaching 75 percent build-out. He thought the City may have to delete the requirement to provide all of the infrastructure with the building of the storage lot because the parcel fronts on Base Line Road. He thought the problems could be worked out. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant was objecting to Condition 2 which requires the additional 39 storage spaces. Mr. Luque responded that he was not objecting to the condition at present, but it is something that needs to be worked on. Chairman McNiel asked if staff felt the problems could be resolved. Mr. Coleman stated that the Victoria Station 2 application will be reactivated and the Community Facilities District will help with the infrastructure. He observed that the community plan requires that every year the Planning Commission shall review the amount of recreational vehicle storage spaces required and adjust that requirement as deemed necessary. He noted that the Commission had never adjusted the percentage required from the original 25 percent. He thought the Commission may receive an application from Lyon to adjust that percentage based upon the vacancy factor experience with Station 1. Commissioner Vallette noted that enforcement of recreational vehicular parking had been on hold pending action by the City Council. She thought there would more than likely be a need for the recreational vehicle storage spaces now that the Council had taken action. Commissioner Melcher observed that as the applicant was not making an issue of the condition, he did not feel it was appropriate for the Commission to do so. He thought the entire driveway connection was to be enhanced and noted that it was the area of the street system which would receive the most wear, so he thought it would be an advantage to the eventual homeowners to have a better street system in that area. He thought the Commission's intent was to have it entirely enhanced. Mr. Luque indicated he was willing to enhance the entire area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 11~ 1992 Commissioner Vallette remarked that CalTrans had suggested at the last Route 30 meeting, that if a City wanted more enhanced landscaping adjacent to the freeway, fees should be attached to projects. she noted that this project is adjacent to the freeway. Mr. Rots noted that Commissioner Vallette was concerned about freeway landscaping that would be on the north side of Highland Avenue which will remain once the freeway is constructed. He said that according to preliminary plans, there may be 70-80 feet between the freeway and the north side of Highland Avenue. He said the total area will probably amount to 1/2 to 3/4 acre subdivided by a fence. Mr. Coleman observed that he had worked with the Planning Commission on the development of the 1-15 Freeway landscape policy and at that time the Commission had also looked at Route 30. He said it was not included in the policy resolution for two reasons; (1) the majority of the land adjagent to the corridor was already developed or approved for development, and (2) there is no approved design as yet for the Route 30 Freeway. He noted that the Environmental Impact Report analyzes three different scenarios. He said that makes it difficult to calculate a fee because the design, height of slopes, and areas involved are unknowns. He commented that Highland Avenue will still be there at this location when the freeway is built. He noted that this project will not front on the freeway as do projects along the 1-15 corridor where the in-lieu fee is applied. He noted the project applicants are being required to fully improve Highland Avenue including the landscaping treatment. Chairman McNiel felt the freeway landscaping policy should be revisited with respect to what is considered adjacent to the freeway. He didn't know when solid information will be available to facilitate establishing the policy. He asked about how much undeveloped land exists along Route 30. Mr. Bullet felt it would probably be about 30 percent. Chairman McNiel asked if there was some other method by which the City can enhance the landscaping installed by CalTrans. Mr. Bullet remarked that at the Freeway Subcommittee meeting, there had been some discussion regarding creating a Joint Powers Authority similar to what had been established along 1-10. He said that would foster cooperation to come up with a concept and potential financing options. He noted that any freeway landscaping would benefit all the communities. He reported that Engineering was working on setting up the meeting with other cities. He noted that Commissioner Vallette had requested an update on the 1-30 Freeway for this agenda, but it was postponed to allow the Subcommittee members to meet with the City Council Subcommittee first. Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Vallette's question regarding freeway landscaping had been satisfied. Commissioner Vallette responded it had been satisfied as much as possible at the present time. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 11, 1992 Chairman McNiel was not sure if the City would ever be able to establish an in-lieu fee along Route 30 because most of the area is already developed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 15354 and design review thereof. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher noted that the Commission had expressed a great deal of interest in what the freeway will look like and he felt a main contributing factor will be how it is landscaped. He thought that even if only 30-40 percent of the area is undeveloped, he felt the City should collect an in-lieu fee where possible. He thought the issue should be studied as soon as possible. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Mr. Buller noted that at the last Subcommittee meeting, the Subcommittee had given direction to staff to study the landscaping issue. Commissioner Vallette requested that the Co~unission look at the landscape issue at the next meeting. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the Commissioners feel that steps should be taken in~nediately to provide for additional contributions to the eventual landscaping of the CalTrans right-of-way by the imposition of appropriate fees on projects not yet approved. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Chairman Mc~iel suggested that the matter be discussed at the end of the meeting. , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15289 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision and design review of 189 condominium units on 18 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the southeast corner of Kenyon Way and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-011-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested that Standard Condition Cl should be deleted regarding alternative energy systems. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 11, 1992 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 4490 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, requested clarification of Planning Co~nission No. 12, regarding landscaping along the easterly project boundary. He thought the intent was to provide trees along the westerly boundary along Milliken, which he was willing to do. Commissioner Vallette recalled there was a request for landscaping adjacent to the greenbelt area. Mr. Buller asked if the Commissioners wanted the rear yards to be landscaped along the entire perimeter of the project. Con~nissioner Tolstoy remembered the discussion and recalled that at a minimum trees were requested. The other Commissioners agreed that all rear patio areas along the entire project boundary should be landscaped. Commissioner Vallette requested that the applicant work with City staff for direction regarding possibly using deciduous trees in City rights-of-way and greenbelt areas along with updated planting methods. Mr. Luque remarked that it was mentioned during Design Review that the City is considering new tree specimens in the landscape pallere and he agreed to work with staff. Chairman McNiel requested that he also work with staff regarding using the most effective watering systems so that the trees will achieve growth. David Dennis, 616 Padova Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lived immediately south of the project. He asked if the current theme wall would be continued on the south side of the project, and if so at what height. Ms. Hernandez responded that it would match the Victorian theme wall and be approximately 6 feet high. Mr. Dennis asked if it will be solid or open. He noted that the wall on the south side of the street is open at the end of cul-de-sac streets. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that it will be open only at the driveway entrance. Mr. Dennis asked that if the walls on the project are not solid that the walls on the south side of the street be closed off at the cul-de-sacs. He felt there is a major transition problem with the new project and he opposed the application. He thought the project would be approved, so he said he was asking that it be isolated from his neighborhood. Chairman McNiel remarked that the openings at the ends of cul-de-sac streets are to provide pedestrian corridors and to open up view corridors so that Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 11, 1992 streetscapes are pleasant and do not appear as tunnels between two long rows of walls. He noted that some people want the pedestrian accesses closed off because cul-de-sacs are used as playgrounds. He concluded that cul-de-sac streets should not be used as parks. Mr. Dennis noted that his cul-de-sac is used mainly as a playground and it creates problems because objects are being thrown out to Victoria Park Lane. Ms. Hernandez showed a slide of the elevation for the Victoria Park Lane entrance. Mr. Dennis asked where the entrance would be in relation to the cul-de-sac to the south. Ms. Hernandez showed the relationship of the cul-de-sac to the entrance. Commissioner Vallette observed that at Design Review the need to have a nice appearance was emphasized with the single family homes adjacent to the multi- family development. She noted that in a lot of areas the unit sizes were reduced to duplexes along the boundary. She said along Victoria Park Lane four-plexes are plotted, but there is at least 70 feet from the street itself to the wall area. She felt it is one of the nicest projects seen in the City and the developer had worked with staff and the Commission to address a lot of the new concerns from when the Development Code was amended. She said she understood Mr. Dennis' concern regarding the density transition, but felt the large landscape buffer will mitigate the problems. Mr. Dennis noted that by looking at the map, people driving north on the cul- de-sac will be able to see directly across Victoria Park Lane into the entrance of the project. Chairman McNiel agreed that was true but noted that entrances to projects are highly landscaped to create a very attractive entrance. Commissioner Vallette observed that no buildings would be in a direct line, only the inner greenbelt would be seen. Mr. Dennis was concerned that the area would not be maintained. He noted that the area north of his property had been planted but most of the landscaping was lost because of a freeze a few years ago and the winds. Chairman McNiel noted that there will be a Homeowners' Association which will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. Mr. Dennis said that when he bought his house, the parcel had been posted as a location for future single family homes. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project is well designed. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 11, 1992 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 15289 and design review thereof, as modified to delete Standard Condition Cl and to provide that landscaping be provided within private patios along the project boundaries to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · · , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 8:36 p.m. to 8:51 p.m. , , , , Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02 - JACK MASI - A. A request to modify the local circulation pattern within Subarea 7, along Rochester Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and the Sports Park, to accommodate a proposed industrial development at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. 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. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and noted that three additional letters had been received from the applicant and were in front of the Commissioners. Commissioner Melcher asked how the Commission should deal with the new materials from the applicant as they were being received at the last minute. Chairman McNiel remarked that the new correspondence could possibly be absorbed but couldn't be acted upon. He opened the public hearing. Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Company, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, thanked staff for providing answers to their questions. He also thanked the Planning Commission for holding eight workshops since the project was first presented in August 1991. He remarked that the March 11 letter provided this evening was a response to the Staff Report. He noted that they agreed with staff's analysis of Part A of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. He said they were generally in agreement with staff's recommendation on Part B Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 11, 1992 but felt there should be some clarifications. He thought it should be clarified that service stations may have ancillary car washes and food marts. He requested that architectural screen walls be permitted in addition to or in lieu of landscaping along major and secondary arterials instead of requiring dense landscaping around the perimeter of the site. He felt that the buildings will need visibility to attract customers. He noted that some buildings would require service bay doors on opposite sides to allow drive through uses. He therefore requested deletion of the requirement to orient service bays to the rear of all buildings. He suggested that their project be used as a prototype and such strict design standards should be left to the discretion of the Design Review Committee. He felt that staff supported Part C in concept. He requested a master conditional use be permitted for a listing of specific uses and requested that maximum user size be set at 30,000 square feet instead of staff's recommended maximum of 25,000 square feet. He proposed that Auto Supplies be permitted only in projects with approved Auto Courts, with adequate trash containers provided, and where there are no other auto parts stores within 2,500 feet. He remarked that Auto Supplies are a convenience item and such retailers need visibility from the street. He provided proposed expanded definitions of the various uses. Jack Masi, owner, 5416 Electric Avenue, San Bernardino, noted that the property had been in his family for 50 years. He felt that because the sports complex is underway, additional land uses are necessary to make the project viable. Doug Nye, Bishop Hawk, broker, 2143 East D Street, Ontario, felt the Auto Court would be a good plan because it would provide services needed in the community. He noted that the requirement to place all service bay doors to the rear would cause problems. He disclosed that Chief Auto Parts had expressed interest in the site and they would require visibility because the use is an impulse retail use. Dick Dahl, P. O. Box 7198 SVE, Victorville, expressed appreciation for the amount of time the Commission had spent on the project. He requested that door placement and screening be handled at Design Review. He also requested that the Commission approve the requested conditional uses. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel noted that staff recommended approval on Part A. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the proposed realignment would allow enough distance between individual driveways. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if part of the rationale was that two of the parcels belong to the same party. Mr. Hanson confirmed that was the case. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 11, 1992 Co~nissioner Tolstoy noted that as they are different parcels, one may be sold and the new owner may want their own individual driveway. Mr. Hanson felt that could be provided. Chairman McNiel asked for comments on Part B. Commissioner Melcher noted that the Deer Creek car wash on Foothill Boulevard and the Chevron car wash on Haven Avenue are developed with two different concepts, in that one is visible from the street, while the other is hidden. He remarked that when the Industrial Area Specific Plan was adopted, it was determined there was no need for an Auto Court use in Subarea 7. He questioned if the plan was wrong and if it should be amended merely because an applicant would like such a use in that location. He wondered why anyone would be willing to build a business in a location where it needs to be hidden from view and thought if the use were in the right location, it should be visible. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that service stations are already conditionally permitted in Subarea 7. He remarked that gas dispensing stations are currently being built instead of service stations. He thought the Auto Court would provide those services that used to be provided in service stations and Auto Court would merely be a replacement for the traditional service stations. Commissioner Melcher asked why the use should be hidden if it is in the right location. He thought if it is in the wrong location, it should not be built and hidden. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use is justified because service stations are already a conditionally permitted use. He noted that City standards call for the working area of service stations, the gas pumps, to be screened from view. He noted that an Auto Court is a new concept and felt the Commission was merely trying to make the use palatable for surrounding users by downplaying similar features. He felt that an Auto Court would be desirable with proper design standards and he did not think such a use would be objectionable to the community if it were designed properly. Chairman McNiel noted that the two car washes mentioned by Commissioner Melcher are integrated and pleasing within their respective streetscapes through either architectural or landscaping treatments. He felt that signage adequately indicates where the businesses are located and service bays should be hidden from view because they are not attractive. Commissioner Tolstoy commented the Commission was merely trying to conceal objectionable features, not the use. He agreed with most of staff's recommendations, but felt there should be some modifications. He agreed that some businesses need drive-through service bays and it would not be practical to require service bays only in the rear. He felt the issue of door placement could adequately be addressed at Design Review. He felt it should be sufficient to merely make it clear that such doors are to be hidden from view from the street. He agreed that walls and berming could be used along with dense landscaping to accomplish adequate screening. Planning Co~unission Minutes -14- March 11, 1992 Commissioner Melcher asked if it was Commissioner Tolstoy's view that the view could be similar to Deer Creek. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it should be a compromise between Deer Creek and the Chevron station. Commissioner Chitlea indicated she could support the Auto Court concept with the mitigating measures proposed. She felt there could be a slight modification on the orientation of the service bays but indicated they should not front major streets. She thought some sort of architectural statement should indicate that the location is an Auto Court and suggested the location of an auto parts store on Foothill Boulevard may be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher asked if the amended language suggested by the applicant in his March 11 letter would be acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the screening should be a combination of berming, landscaping, and walls. Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant was proposing screening only along major streets instead of on all perimeters. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that adjacent properties should also be protected. Commissioner Melcher felt that more restrictive standards work to the detriment of the City. He agreed such a project would need to be properly designed all the way around its perimeter but felt flexibility could be permitted to deal with the design parameters on a project-by-project basis rather than such strict standards. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a provision must be included to provide screening from adjacent properties. Chairman McNiel noted that dense landscaping around the perimeter of the site would not mean the whole site, as obviously driveways would be needed. Commissioner Vallette preferred that the door orientation and landscaping issues be decided in Design Review. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be some indication that the Commission would be strict. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the wording be changed to provide that garage doors and service bays must be carefully sited to minimize unsightly views from all surrounding properties. He felt there may be some areas where dense landscaping may not be appropriate and there should be an appropriate combination of landscaping, berms, or architectural features to provide adequate screening. He thought those changes would provide enough leverage for the Design Review Committee and the full Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that pump islands should also be screened. Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 11, 1992 Commissioner Vallette felt Design Review could take care of the visibility issue. Mr. Coleman requested discussion regarding the addition of car washes and/or food marts to the definition. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if Auto Courts are to be permitted in Subarea 7, all of Subarea 7 should be considered. He felt the regulations should be for the entire subarea, not just one specific proposal. Mr. Buller suggested that if the Commission agreed that ancillary uses such as car washes and food markets may be appropriate, the definition could merely be expanded to include service stations, "with or without ancillary uses such as car washes and foot marts." Chairman McNiel felt a coin operated car wash would not be appropriate. Mr. Buller suggested that Part B be continued to allow staff to bring back new language for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Melcher asked where the question of auto parts stores should be considered. Mr. Buller indicated that staff felt the sale of auto parts could be considered in an Auto Court, but did not feel the use should be allowed outside of an Auto Court. Commissioner Tolstoy felt an auto parts store would be appropriate within Subarea 7 only in connection with an Auto Court. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Specific Plan defines what is considered an automobile. He wondered if the Commission was opening the door to truck maintenance facilities and he questioned if there should be a definition limiting the servicing to passenger automobiles and/or trucks not in excess of a certain number of pounds. Chairman McNiel felt it important to identify that this would not be a truck stop. He thought the Commission may want to enlarge the maximum size from 4 acres if the Commission wanted to integrate an auto parts store into such a project. Commissioner Melcher liked the 4-acre maximum size because he felt it would prevent a project such as the one on Archibald. Chairman McNiel requested discussion on Part C. Commissioner Tolstoy reminded the Commission that Subarea 7 was intended to provide a transition between industrial and retail uses. He noted that there is a lot of retail space within the City which is empty. He felt the Commission should consider any changes very carefully, keeping in mind the other commercial area that is available. He did not think Subarea 7 should be Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 11, 1992 turned into another retail area. He noted that Archibald Avenue already has a lot of commercial projects south of Arrow Route even though it is not a retail center. Commissioner Chitlea concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy. She observed that an enormous amount of time went into the preparation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan with a tremendous amount of community input as to what was appropriate. She felt there is a lot of merit in the current plans. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel Drug Stores are appropriate for Subarea 7 as it is strictly a retail use. Chairman McNiel asked his opinion of Media1 and Hospital Supply Stores. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that use is completely different from a drug store. He indicated that currently such supplies can be ordered at Gemmels and they will deliver the goods. He thought such a use may be appropriate in a retail center. Chairman McNiel felt such a use may be more appropriate adjacent to medical facilities. Commissioner Melcher felt such users may not be able to afford the retail rental rate. Commissioner Chitiea felt a Medical and Hospital Supply Store use may be appropriate in Subarea 7. However, she felt Drug Stores or Superstores would not be appropriate. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Chairman McNiel asked staff's opinion on the request for Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvement uses. Mr. Buller commented it was staff's opinion that the use is a policy issue. He remarked that if the Commission felt the use is appropriate, they may wish to incorporate t~e guidelines suggested by staff, such as limiting size to 25,000 square fee~ and limiting the use to buildings or projects adjauent to Foothill Boulevard Activity Centers. Commissioner Melcher felt that stores fitting in the home improvement category, such as Lamps Plus and Krause's Sofa Factory, would probably hold off for Regional Related Commercial properties. Chairman McNiel agreed they tend to be freeway oriented. Commissioner Melcher indicated he was reading the proposal to mean individual stores selling very narrow product lines. Chairman McNiel agreed that was what he also anticipated. Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 11, 1992 Commissioner Melcher questioned if those types of users would be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the City had already been approached with plans for a potential designer center with those types of users all in one place, rather than piecemeal. He indicated the proposed definition talked about selling wholesale to contractors. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned about opening the area for uses better suited in the Regional Related area. She felt a store that sells paint such as Dunn Edwards may be appropriate, but not a general merchandise store such as Standard Brands. She felt the Commission should be very careful about maximum size because larger sizes would be more appropriate in Regional Related areas. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel questioned if a portion of the site would be suitable for Dunn Edwards, Color Tile, etc. Commissioner Melcher volunteered Carpeteria would be a similar use. Chairman McNiel asked if anyone was opposed to those uses. Commissioner Vallette felt she could support such uses. Mr. Buller suggested it may be helpful for the Commission to consider the Regional Related Commercial designated land around the mall and along Foothill Boulevard. He noted that a lot of land had been so designated to get those types of uses similar to what is seen around the Montclair Plaza. Commissioner Chitlea felt those uses were more appropriate by the mall. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel felt such uses may be appropriate along Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Vallette felt the uses may be an appropriate transition from the restaurants along Foothill Boulevard. She did not feel there would be an opportunity for them to become overwhelming. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that a carpet installer may be appropriate, but she felt that uses such as Circuit City would be inappropriate. She felt the retail aspect should be ancillary to industrial uses. Chairman McNiel felt that might be the key. furnishings from the definition. He suggested dropping garden Commissioner Vallette suggested dropping furnishings. Commissioner Chitlea noted that sale of benches could be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 11, 1992 Chairman McNiel agreed. Commissioner Melcher questioned if a store such as Barbeques Galore would be appropriate. Chairman McNiel asked for opinions on the appropriateness of Office Supplies, Furnishings, and Services. Commissioner Chitlea thought the uses were appropriate. Commissioner Melcher noted that some of those listed are small users. He remarked that postal/mail receiving and packing businesses are typically found in Neighborhood Centers. Commissioner Chitlea felt such uses would be appropriate in order to service the small industrial users in the area. Chairman McNiel then went on to Medical and Hospital Supply Stores and Medical/Drug Superstores. Mr. Coleman observed that Drug Stores are conditionally permitted throughout the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel then moved on to Pet Stores, Pet Care, and Recreational Supplies and Services. Commissioner Chitlea felt the uses are strictly retail. Commissioner Melcher thought horse clubs would not be appropriate. He agreed the listing was all retail uses. He questioned if a large piano store would be included. Commissioner Chitiea felt a large piano store should be Regional Related. She thought a photo laboratory may be appropriate in Subarea 7. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Vallette agreed with staff's r~commendation that the category was too broad and that art and music studios.could be added to the definition of Personal Services. Chairman McNlel noted the sports park will be an adjacent use. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to allow sporting goods because of the proximity to the park. He noted that Regional Related Commercial is also located nearby. Commissioner Tolstoy felt sporting goods was retail. He asked the definitions of a music studio and an art studio. Mr. Coleman indicated staff's interpretation was a recording studio and the place where an artist would work. Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 11, 1992 Commissioner Chitlea felt art galleries should not be permitted. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel asked for comments on the Activity Zone concept. Mr. Buller indicated the applicant wished to create Activity Zones along Foothill Boulevard with certain retail uses then permitted by right within a conditionally approved Activity Zone center. He noted that staff recommended that the Activity Zone concept not be adopted and that revised land use definitions and criteria for location of proposed conditionally permitted uses could be utilized. Commissioner Melcher supported staff's recommendation. Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitlea concurred. Mr. Buller asked for the Commission's conclusion regarding Specialty Building Supplies. Chairman McNiel suggested it would be users such as Dunn edwards Paints or Color Tile. He said they would sell retail building materials~ however, they would be the smaller users who specialize in a particular field. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested such users would generally have both retail and contractor trade. Chairman McNiel agreed they may generally be perceived as retail but with contractor discounts. Mr. Bullet indicated it would be difficult to generate language that would limit the users to those envisioned by the Commission. Commissioner Vallette asked if uses could not be brought before the Commission as a Use Determination. Mr. Buller stated that the Use Determination could be used to judge what category a use falls in. He indicated that the uses outlined are quite broad and are not limited other than size. He did not wish to continually return to the Commission each time a potential user applies to the City. He suggested that questions would arise, such as what if a user had three or four categories of products. He wondered if that would be allowed since they would no longer be handling one specialty product. Commissioner Chitlea stated they were trying to get away from the department store concept of sales. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission was trying to identify those over-the- counter or retail types of operations they would be acceptable when in fact the Commissioners were not comfortable with retail uses being there in the first place. Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 11, 1992 Commissioner Chitiea observed they were looking to service the industry more than the general public. Chairman McNiel felt a master Conditional Use Permit was not appropriate. He felt uses should only be conditionally permitted and financial institutions understand and accept that process. Commissioner Vallette felt it makes good planning sense to require conditional use permits. Mr. Buller noted that Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution is permitted. He felt an argument could be made that a Dunn Edwards is just a stretch of that definition. He felt that was where the policy discussion was needed to see how far the Commission would like to stretch. He noted that the square footage limitation was suggested by staff to limit the extent of these uses. He said there are definite flaws in that thinking because the various users will forever try to challenge the line. He indicated there are daily use questions because uses change rapidly. He noted that City Hall is located in Subarea 7 and the uses requested must be viewed as being proposed in all of Subarea 7, not just the applicant's site. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is a sensitive situation because the Commission was' being asked to convert a transition zone into something that it is not. He did not think that was wise. Chairman McNiel felt there should be additional study on Subarea 7 and the ramifications of the changes on the entire subarea. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should also consider the impact on the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Commissioner Melcher felt that would be an appropriate approach. Chairman McNiel suggested continuing the matter for two weeks. Commissioner Melcher suggested the item be continued for a longer period of time to allow a study session on Subarea 7. Commissioner Vallette suggested that staff return in two weeks with clear language on what they had heard tonight. Commissioner Tolstoy felt each of the Commissioners should do research on their own rather than having a formal study session. He said formal study sessions were held when the plan was first adopted. Commissioner Melcher felt an overview of the plans and the .history behind them would be helpful. He indicated he could meet with staff to have his questions answered. Chairman McNiel observed that there were three parts to the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment before the Commission; Part A, circulation; Part B, Auto Court use; and Part C, Retail and related uses. Planning Commission Minutes -21- March 11, 1992 Chairman McNiel indicated he had been comfortable with the Auto Court use until the City Planner had indicated that City Hall is also located in Subarea 7. Mr. Buller noted that the condition requiring a gas station with the Auto Court would probably preclude anyone from placing an Auto Court next to City Hall because a developer would want to place a service station on a major arterial. He also indicated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for activity centers at major intersections. He thought the Commissioners should try to determine if the uses being requested would energize activity centers in a way that they could not be energized otherwise. He said if the Commissioners felt the requested changes would further develop the activity centers in the way they had been envisioned, the Commission may wish to hone in on the intersections. He remarked that Foothill Boulevard was specifically chosen as the dividing line between uses to the north and to the south. He suggested that the Commission may want to take action on Parts A and B and defer Part C. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that all the Commissioners were comfortable on Part A, but he requested that Part B be continued so that he would have time to think about the suggested changes. Chairman McNiel remarked that the Commission was struggling because the request transcends the project and has effect on all of Subarea 7. He reopened the public hearing. Mr. Scandiffio commented that they were proposing changes only to two activity centers, one at the intersection of Milliken and Foothill and the other at Rochester and Foothill; and those activity centers had not originally been located in Subarea 7. He said they had only proposed that the uses be permitted in the activity centers of 1,000 feet along Foothill Boulevard and about 700 feet from the center of the street. He thought that would only allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail. He said the activity centers merely deal with streetscape and building setbacks. He said they had been approached by many people to locate on their site because of its proximity to the sports center. He felt regional centers do not provide the kind of spaces needed for the uses they were proposing. He noted they were not proposing apparel, general merchandising, or food. Mr. Buller commented the applicant's request had been for an activity zone but staff felt it was larger than the activity center defined in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He remarked that the applicant had expanded the use further than staff thought it should be expanded. Chairman McNiel indicated he was not ready to proceed. Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant had been up front in that he had a group of users ready to go on the Auto Court. He felt the applicant may still be searching for what to do with the remainder of the property. He indicated he would prefer not approving Part B without reviewing the guidelines established against the rest of Subarea 7. Planning Commission Minutes -22- March 11, 1992 Co~nissioner Vallette felt comfortable in approving Part B. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel comfortable with Part B. Commissioner Chitlea agreed. Motion= Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 92-02, Part A. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES= NOES: ABSENT= Motion: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to continue Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 92-02, Parts B and C. vote: AYES= COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Motion carried by the following CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried G. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR TWO DESIGNATED MULTI-FAMILY PARCELS SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD NEAR VICTORIA PARK LANE Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the staff r~port adequately answered Commissioner Vallette's questions. Commissioner Vallette felt the High Residential designation is out of place, in that it is surrounded by Medium. She indicated ~she had been also questioning the Medium parcel located adjacent to the Low-Medium. She asked if the other Co~nissioners felt the two properties should have been reviewed. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that staff felt the direction from City Council was to address only those parcels north of Base Line Road. Commissioner Vallette stated it was her understanding that City Council felt the Victoria Lakes project had been through a long process and they did not wish to change anything. She was not sure the designated parcels had been through the process. She therefore was not clear that the Council Planning Commission Minutes -23- March 11, 1992 specifically meant to exclude those properties and she suggested that a request be forwarded to City Council to clarify the direction. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the Planning Commission may wish to initiate a change without asking first. Mr. Buller noted that the City Council Resolution excludes the parcels but he could see where Council clarification would be helpful. He thought a memorandum to City Council asking if the Council wished to exclude the parcels may be a better course of action. It was the consensus of the Commission that a memorandum be sent to City Council asking if the parcels should be considered. , , , , Chairman McNiel requested that the Commission discuss freeway landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Engineering was in the process of getting together with surrounding communities, such as Fontana and Upland, regarding landscaping. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated staff had been instructed to contact the neighboring cities to set up a meeting withi~ 60 days to discuss truck traffic issues. Commissioner Vallette indicated she was not aware it was the direction of City Council to investigate truck traffic. She feared the City was losing sight of original concerns regarding the elevation of the freeway and the landscaping issues. Commissioner Tolstoy thought it was specifically stated that landscaping would be discussed with the other cities. Commissioner Vallette indicated she remembered that CalTrans had stated they would only be providing minimum landscaping and if the cities wanted an enhanced landscaping program, they should start collecting in-lieu fees as development occurs adjacent to the freeways. Mr. Bose said that policy would not require approval of adjacent cities. Commissioner Tolstoy said landscaping had come up in relationship to the other cities because CalTrans had indicted cities may pay for enhanced landscaping within their own City. He stated CalTrans had indicated that if the cities jointly adopted a regional approach, CalTrans would consider that approach. He said he had heard direction that Engineering was to contact other cities along the freeway to ascertain their expectations regarding landscaping along the freeway. He said CalTrans had said they were only planning to group some trees by offramps unless a regional plan is adopted. Mr. Bose indicated staff was in the process of contacting the other cities to set up a meeting as soon as possible. Planning Commission Minutes -24- March 11, 1992 Mr. Buller observed he understood that the Commission was trying to determine if it is appropriate for applicants with property adjacent to the freeway to pay an in-lieu fee at the time of development. He said that if a landscape concept were determined for the freeway corridor, staff could then determine a cost upon which to base in-lieu fees. He indicated that on the 1-15, staff had used a CalTrans figure and did not come up with a concept. He observed it is staff's opinion that adequate dollars will not have been collected when it comes time to landscape. Commissioner Vallette felt the City should start trying to get the best possible as soon as possible. Mr. Buller remarked that the City's in-lieu fees along 1-15 are currently being legally challenged. He also noted that upon appeal to City Council, a previous developer had been relieved of the responsibility to landscape up to an offramp instead of up to the edge of the actual freeway travel lanes. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the City would have any say so on what would go between Highland Avenue and the freeway because it would all be CalTrans right-of-way. He said he was under the impression a landscaping plan is needed. Chairman McNiel asked if there are available staff hours to develop a plan. Mr. Buller stated that the Engineering staff was given the opportunity to manage the Route 30 efforts under the Community Development Department. He indicted that five different subject areas had been discussed at the last Subcommittee Meeting, with landscaping being one of the topics, and it was his understanding those areas were to be pursued. He said the concept of a Joint Powers group was to be used to possibly motivate CalTrans to include more landscape mitigation measures. He felt the vehicle of the Subcommittee would be the best vehicle to work through. Commissioner Vallette agreed but she did not think the Subcommittee had been that successful. She requested a report on the landscaping issue be made to the entire Commission with direction then to be given by the whole Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is important that the City move forward as quickly as possible. Mr. Bose indicated there are other issues to be considered, such as the height of the freeway. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is important to let CalTrans know that the cities have an expectation of what the freeway should look like throughout the entire distance. He feared that CalTrans will only plant five trees at each offramp. Mr. Bose felt it will be from 6-18 months before the City will even know the profile or design of the freeway. He questioned if it would be possible for the City to do any landscaping master planning in the interim. Planning Commission Minutes -25- March 11, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that it is not known if the freeway will be elevated, at grade, or depressed$ but he did not think that is relevant at the present time. He thought it is important to get consensus from the surrounding cities that some landscaping needs to be done no matter what the grade. Commissioner Vallette suggested that the Subcommittee be included in the meetings with the neighboring cities. Mr. Bose said the meeting will probably be set up at the Council level. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he and Commissioner Vallette are trying to move the process along. He noted that the Joint Powers Agreement along 1-10 was an extremely slow process and did not accomplish ae much as could have been accomplished because it took too long. Commissioner Vallette felt that the City should start collecting in-lieu fees as soon as possible even though the elevations are still unknown. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the fees would need to be based upon a landscape concept. Commissioner Vallette asked if two weeks would be enough time to get a report. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, indicated that would not be enough time. He said they would talk to the City Engineer and get back to the Commission with information as soon as possible. , , , , , Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission should promote the concepts focused on by Commissioner Vallette regarding residential development. Commissioner Melcher reported that the Subcommittee on Dual Glazing had completed its efforts and submitted a report to the City Planner. He asked that other design guidelines mentioned at the January 22, 1992, meeting also be considered. Chairman McNiel agreed that the design review guidelines policy needs to be discussed further. Mr. Bullet indicated the design policies had not come back at the following meeting because there had been some discussions at the workshop on February 20 regarding when guidelines should become policy. He said that staff was working on the design guidelines and had developed an interim summary of the single-family design guidelines. Mr. Buller disclosed that he had met with the Building Official, who had some administrative questions. He indicated he would try to schedule an update to the Commission for the April 8 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -26- March 11, 1992 Commissioner Melcher asked that a tour be planned for Old Alta Loma. Mr. Buller indicated staff would get back to the Commissioners to discuss a date for the Old Alta Loma tour. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission could discuss the Design Awards program in connection with the Design Awards tour. Commissioner Melcher commented that he had offered a couple of times to assist in developing better standard drawings for trash enclosures. However, he suggested that the Commission analyze the trash enclosures concept because they are becoming significant structures. He felt that when they are placed in the middle of parking lots they become very prominent. He thought the Commission should think more about siting of the enclosures. Mr. Bullet remarked that Commissioner Tolstoy had raised a question regarding air quality at a previous meeting during process of a non-construction conditional use permit for a furniture finishing business. He noted that South Coast Air Quality Management District personnel would attend the April 8 Planning Commission Meeting to make a presentation to the Commission on their efforts to obtain compliance with their standards. He indicated the Building Official would also attend that meeting. , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. · , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adjourn. 11=45 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a March 19, 1992 workshop at 8:30 p.m. following Design Review regarding a pre-application review of housing product for Tract 13573. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -27- March 11, 1992