Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/01/22 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 22, 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; Tom Grahnj Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that staff had received a request to continue Item O to the February 26, 1992, meeting. Mrl Buller remarked that tonight's meeting would adjourn to a joint meeting with City Council on January 29, 1992, to be held in the Rains Room beginning at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bullet noted that staff had received a letter from Forma indicating that Shell Oil would like to request that Item A be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion- Commissioner Melcher remarked that he had been privileged to attend the dedication ceremony for the new fire stations. He noted that the Planning Commission had received praise from the Mayor and others for work done on the stations. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of December 17, 1991, as amended. , , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - Resolution of denial of a request to establish a gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.31 acre parcel in the Medium Residential designation, (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. (Continued from January 8, 1992.) Be 2) 3) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 - U. S. HOME CORPORATION - Resolution of denial of a request to amend certain development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan as described below: 1) To allow single family detached residential development within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) utilizing Basic Development Standards~ and To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,900 square feet within the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards; and To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards. (Continued from January 8, 1992.) TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13835 - HOMESTEAD - A request for a time extension for a residential subdivision of 78 single family lots on 25 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Highland and Rochester - APN: 225-152-01 through 04 and 18. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request for a time extension for a 3-lot subdivision and design review of 115 condominium units on 10.27 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located north of Arrow Highway and east of Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-32 and 12. Item A was pulled for discussion. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vailerrs, to adopt Items B, C, and D of the Consent Calendar. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 22, 1992 George Theodorou, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was representing Shell Oil. He requested clarification on the resolution regarding the finding that there was inadequate buffering to mitigate the impacts of the station on the adjoining residential area. He asked if it was the intention of the Commission to deny the application based on the buffering. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Chitlea commented that she did not believe the use is appropriate directly adjacent to a residential area. She felt the impact is too great and additional buffering would be needed. Commissioner Vallette agreed that there was inadequate buffering. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the buffering may be adequate. He said he had voted against the project because of the proposed 24-hour per day operation in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Chitlea commented Commissioner Tolstoy had objected to the operation because of its proximity to the residences, and therefore, it appeared the buffering from the neighborhood was inadequate. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the landscaping to be sufficient buffering for day time operations, but not night time. He agreed that the statement regarding inadequate buffering should remain in the the resolution. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution denying Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-20. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , · , , PUBLIC HEARINGS Ee ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 8, 1992.) Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 22, 1992 Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 scheols, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and. preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 8, 1992.) Ge ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 8, 1992.) Chairman McNiel noted that staff had requested the items be continued to February 26, 1992.' Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · , , , He ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The development of Fire Station No~ 4, Phase II, consisting of a 24,030 square foot maintenance and training facility, a 3,432 square foot training tower, a 120 square foot pump test enclosure, and an emergency hellspot on 7.08 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-111-23. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from December 17, 1991.) Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Melcher questioned the training and utilization of maintenance workers to assist with the operation of the hazardous waste collection facility site. L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief, commented that the site will be open from 10=00 a.m. to -2:00 p.m. on Saturday only. He etated that the maintenance workers will be used so that it would not be necessary to close the collection facility if fire department personnel were called to respond to emergency calls. He reported that four community volunteers have also been recruited to assist in maintaining the site during hours of operation. He observed that the collection facility may expand its hours in the future. Chief Michael thanked the Commission and staff for their work on the project. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. closed the hearing. There was no testimony and he Commissioner Melcher requested the comments of the Design Review Committee regarding the revisions of the design of the plaza element. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Design Review Committee had suggested additional street furniture or tree wells in the circular element of the plaza. He said staff would follow through. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a negative declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 89-23. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-16 {GOVERNMENT REFERRAL 89-08) - CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - A request to establish a wastewater treatment plant on 32.5 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-283-62. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing. Vincent DePalma, Manager of Engineering and Planning, Chino Basin Municipal Water District, objected to Engineering Condition I requiring construction of the north half of 6th Street across the street from their project. He said their board felt there was no connection to their project and they estimated Planning Commis~ion Minutes -5- January 22, 1992 the cost to be approximately $200,000. He protested that the improvements were not Justified because their project would not be generating that much traffic. Regarding Engineering Condition 3, he said they did not object to installing the storm drain lines in 6th Street and Etiwanda adjacent to their property, but he felt they should not be required to construct the storm drain in Etiwanda Avenue down to 4th Street or to an existing portion if constructed by others. He stated a portion of the storm drain will front the newly constructed San Bernardino County detention center and felt the County should have constructed the storm drain in that area. He said it would be an additional $200,000 expenditure if they were required to construct the storm drain down to 4th Street. He remarked that the Board of Chino Basin Municipal Water District had taken a strong position in opposing those two conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the south portion of 6th Street is currently improved and the condition requires that the applicant improve the north half of 6th Street. He said it has been the Commission's policy to improve streets full width whenever streets are being improved. He observed that this project would be using 6th Street and there would be truck traffic. He felt that the current 26 feet of pavement is very narrow for truck traffic. He said Engineering Condition 3 regarding the storm drain merely complies with the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Plan in effect for tha~ area. He said that whoever builds first. puts in the lines to certain designated points. Commissioner Melcher asked why the County did not install the drains. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated the County and City have a joint project to install the storm drain in front of the detention center. He said there is a fixed funding source for the whole project and the County was told when they went out to bids that the storm drain would not have to be built if the bids came in too high. He observed it is still unsure if the County will construct the storm drain. He noted Chino Basin Municipal Water District has to intercept the runoff from the two culverts on 6th Street which take water right through their site. He said that runoff must be diverted to a location where it can be safely disposed of. Chairman McNiel asked if there would be a way to provide for reimbursement to Chino Basin Municipal Water District when the undeveloped County property is developed or sold. Mr. Bose stated it would be possible to prepare a reimbursement agreement if future development occurs. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to take the flows to a detention basin constructed on site. He noted that there is a lot of site area that is not being developed at this time. Mr. Bose responded that it would be against the City Council policy. He said they do not want to blanket the entire area with detention basins because that Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 22, 1992 would not work properly. He thought it would be advantageous to connect to the existing storm drain culvert at the intersection of 4th Street and Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Melcher commented that it was nice to have worked with the Chino Basin Municipa~ Water District on the project in a mutually beneficial way. He suggested that the Commission approve the project with a recommendation that the two conditions could be appealed to the City Council. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the appeal process in in place and Commissioner Melcher's comments would be noted in the minutes. Commissioner Chitiea commented that in the past the Commission has consistently required full-width streets and there have been problems where full-width streets are not in place. She noted that any vehicular traffic in and out of the facility will need to go both directions. She felt the street should be constructed full width as soon as possible and Engineering Condition 1 was appropriate. She thought the storm drains should be connected to the closest place possible and the improvements should be put in place as soon as possible. She did not wish to recommend that City Council modify the requirements- Con~nissioners Tolstoy and Vallette agreed. Chairman McNiel observed that no project is an island. He noted that the Engineering conditions were consistent with what has been required in the past and he commented that half streets are not safe. He felt the storm drain construction is vital to the City and mentioned that reimbursement agreements are available. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that additional wording be added to the resolution to clarify that Chino Basin Municipal Water District was responsible for changes incorporated into the project to lessen environmental effects. identified in the final Environmental Impact Report. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 90-16 (Government Referral 89-08), with the addition of clarification language regarding responsibility for lessening environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, M~LCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NSES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the City should take steps to be sure adequate piping is installed to allow the movement and use of the treated water. He thought the water should be used for irrigation of medians, parks, and parkways wherever possible. He suggested that whenever streets are torn up, a secondary pipe should be installed for transportation of the treated water. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 22, 1992 Mr. Bose etated that the City is actively pursuing the process of getting the reclaimed water from the facility. He said the sports complex will have a dual water system so that it can be switched over to utilize the reclaimed water. , , , , Je Ke MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-14 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER - A request to modify an approved 18.42 acre master plan by eliminating Building "G" and replacing it with parking spaces in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN= 209-021-16, 17, and 05. Related files Tentative Parcel Map 13961. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13961 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGy CENTER - The subdivision of 18.42 acres of land into 5 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-021-16, 17, and 5. Staff recon~nends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file= Conditional Use Permit 85-14. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked the reason for the project. Ms. Nissen responded that the applicant was proposing that each individual building with its own parking be contained on an individual parcel to facilitate sale. Commissioner Melcher asked if the intensity could not be increased. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded that it could. Chairman McNiel asked the difference in elevation from Archibald down to the parking lot. Ms. Nissen replied that it is slightly lower and the current grade would remain approximately the same. Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing. John Wurtz, J. W. Engineering, 99 "C" Street, Suite 200, Upland, stated the grading will be consistent with the existing parking but the building pad would be leveled for better drainage. Chairman McNiel asked if the drainage would run off into the parking area for Building H. Mr. Wurtz noted that the drainage will be directed to 9th Street, away from Archibald. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 22, 1992 Co~nissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be a reciprocal parking agreement between parcels. Mr. Wurtz responded affirmatively and said they had already obtained signed agreements. Chairman McNiel asked the plans for construction of additional buildings along 9th Street. Mr. Wurtz replied that Parcel 2 is a separate parcel and it will be the responsibility of whoever buys the parcel to process the development plans for Building B. Chairman McNiel stated there are planters filled with volcanic rock and a small, abandoned garage located near Building H. He requested that they be removed. Mr. Wurtz agreed that they should be removed. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that the parked cars be screened from Archibald Avenue. Mr. Wurtz remarked there is landscaping along Archibald Avenue consistent with City requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there will be berming in the area of the flood wall. Ms. Nissen stated that none was proposed. Commissioner Chitlea thought that harming may be appropriate. Mr. Coleman observed that the wall itself and the shrub massing on top of the wall will provide screening. Commissioner Vallette asked if the project should return to Design Review. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested harming and landscaping of the Archibald frontage could be conditioned to come back to staff for review and approval. Chairman McNiel believed staff could handle the matter. He thought the difference in elevation would also help to conceal vehicles. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 85-14, issue a Negative Declaration, and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 13961, with modification to direct staff to pay particular attention to screening of parking from Archibald Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote= Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 22, 1992 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT .- COMMISSIONERS: , · , , CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend Figure III-7, Master Plan of Trails, regarding certain trail locations. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Me ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend Figure II-7 and Figures IV-1 through IV-19 regarding certain trail locations. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Ne ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A proposal to amend Figure 5-18 and Figures 5-20 through 5-40 regarding certain trail locations and to amend Article 5.33,200 regarding Community Trails. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitlea commended Mr. Coleman and Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, for their work on the amendments to make the plans more accurate and consistent. She heartily recommended adoption of the amendments. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing hearing was closed. There was no testimony, so the Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of Negative Declarations and adopt the resolutions recommending adoption of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 92-01, Environmental Assessment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment, and Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 92-01. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEE, MELCMER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Tolstoy praised Mr. Coleman for his work with the Trails Committee over the years. Chairman McNiel noted that the League of California Cities had recently published an article from Mr. Coleman regarding trails. Planning CommisSion Minutes -10- January 22, 1992 DIRECTOR' S REPORTS O. LETTER FROM LARRY YOUNG REGARDING ORDINANCE NO. 398, CAR WASHES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Brad Buller remarked that the matter should be carried over to February 26, 1992. He said no action would be necessary because the matter is not a public hearing. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS P. CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE POLICY Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolution approving Cross Lot or Through Lot Drainage Policy. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, HELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried , , · · · Q. UPDATE ON STATUS OF REGIONAL MALL - (Oral report) Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it was not known when the Planning Commission would again be involved with reviewing the design elements of the site plan and the architecture of the regional mall. He remarked that the City Council was moving forward with the assessment district. He observed that the assessment district issue is a stepping stone toward moving along the development of the regional mall as the district would make it possible to obtain the infrastructure features needed to support the mall. Chairman McNiel asked if Planning staff had been in contact with the design team. Mr. Buller responded that the Redevelopment Agency has been in constant contact with the Hahn Company, but more on the assessment district issues rather than the design. He noted that Commissioner Melcher had asked if the presence of the horned lizard hadI been confirmed and if that had any bearing on the status of the shopping center. Mr. Buller stated that a letter had been received from the United States Department of the Interior regarding the potential endangered species and critical habitat review. He reported that Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 22, 1992 the species is listed as a Category 2 candidate, which means that development of the property would not be prohibited. He stated it had been determined that the area would not be the best habitat for trying to preserve or protect the species because of the urban development which has already taken place. He noted that with the introduction of domestic cats and dogs into the area, the lizards themselves choose to locate elsewhere. He stated that floodways and Edison corridors will still provide a habitat kor the lizards. He commented that the lizard has apparently been found elsewhere along the 1-15 corridor. Commissioner Melcher requested that the Redevelopment Agency be advised that the Commission feels the mall should be presented in a timely fashion to allow proper review time. Commissioner Chitlea wholeheartedly concurred. Chairman McNiel felt the request was fair and reasonable. Mr. Buller commented that it is the goal of City staff, including the Redevelopment Agency staff, to keep the Commission involved in the review of the regional mall and to provide adequate time for that review. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the Commission had provided input to the architectural team, but he was not sure if those comments would be appropriate after a redesign. He felt that historically when a large project lies dormant for a long period of time, suddenly approvals are needed in a hurry without allowing sufficient time for review. He hoped that would not happen with the mall. Commissioner Melcher remarked that the City is not an uninvolved bystander in the development of the mall because it has a major business objective of obtaining the sales tax dollars. Commissioner Chitlea felt it was an appropriate topic for the joint meeting. · , , , , R. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the item was placed on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Melcher to determine the process for formalizing Planning Commission policies. Chairman McNiel suggested that the listing of potential policy issues be reviewed to establish which should become policy. He thought the Commission should also discuss how Design Review Committee suggestions should become policy and which policies should be made into ordinances. Commissioner Melcher stated he had brought up the issue specifically because of Commissioner Vallette's request for dual glazing on all windows of homes on small lots to mitigate noise from adjacent properties. He felt that if the Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 22, 1992 requirement were placed on a specific project, it should be applied to all other projects with the same criteria. He observed that it is easier for developers to deal with written policies. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that according to the Building and Safety Department staff, it is possible for the Planning Commission to require dual glazing on all windows. He questioned if only lot size should be considered or if other factors, such as the location of the windows and their orientation and proximity to adjacent properties, should also be weighed. He observed that larger lots with 5-foot setbacks could have the same proximity to adjacent yards. Commissioner Vallette agreed that if a new suggestion is put forth during Design Review, the entire Commission should hear about the requirement to determine if it should become policy. She felt the adoption of policies would enable developers to learn of requirements earlier in the process. She suggested a procedure be set up to review and adopt policies. Chairman McNiel suggested that proposed policies might be introduced at one meeting and brought back for a decision at the following meeting. Mr. Buller suggested adding a topic' of Design Policies as a regular agenda item. He thought it important to begin formalizing the process. Commissioner Melcher suggested that when a new idea is suggested at a Design Review Committee meeting staff should begin advising developers that the idea may be adopted as policy. Chairman McNiel suggested that such items be introduced at the meetings following Design Review. Commissioner Melcher felt dual glazed windows should be required on all windows on minimum lot sizes. Commissioner Vallette felt that perhaps the dual glazing should also be required for all dwellings with 5-foot setbacks from side yards. Commissioner Melcher commented that dual glazing perhaps should not be required for garage windows with 5-foot setbacks. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested requiring the dual glazing for habitable spaces. Commissioner Chitlea observed that someone using a sander in their garage could potentially bother neighbors in their yards. Mr. Bullet questioned if the Commission may wish to require dual glazing on all windows. He suggested that staff could determine the additional cost of dual glazing. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Chitlea suggested that dual glazing of the windows would save heating and cooling costs. Mr. Buller pointed out that there may be a variety of economic tradeoffe if dual glazing is required. Commissioner Melcher was not sure the requirement should be applied City wide. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it should apply to multi-family projects. Chairman McNiel felt the requirement should be applied in the grandest fashion. He suggested that developers should present criteria to substantiate that the dual glazing is not needed. Commissioner Melcher observed there are certain other requirements which are more stringent on smaller lots. He noted that a problem has been identified which is apparent on small lots. He did not feel the requirement should be applied universally. He indicated he would support the requirement being imposed on windows of habitable space within 10 feet of a side property line and on all windows on lots of 5,000 square feet or less. He noted that there are more stringent construction requirements on multi-family development with respect to protecting people from noise from other units. He suggested dua-1 glazing may be required where windows are within 20 feet of another building. Commissioner Vallette thought multi-family units should have dual glazed windows. Chairman McNiel suggested that staff review the requirements with the Building and Safety Department. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had recently toured a multi-family project and observed six air conditioning units right by a window. Commissioner Melcher felt that dual glazing should be required on multi-family projects for any window within 20 feet of an air conditioning unit. Commissioner Tolstoy worried that if dual glazing were required on a unilateral basis, if it may limit special shapes because custom windows may be too costly. Mr. Bullet suggested the item could be discussed on a future agenda. Next the Com~ission discussed the proposed requirement for one-story floorplans on corner lots. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that single-story plans should be included in all developments. Commissioner Chitiea stated that when she recently toured subdivisions, she felt that two-story homes sometimes look better on corner lots because they don't appear so crowded. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 22, 1992 Chairman McNiel noted that on several occasions, the Commission had asked developers to incorporate approximately 15 percent single-story plans. Commissioner Chitiea felt it is appropriate to mix one- and two-story units. She thought it would be strange to have single-story houses on every corner. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that on some of the projects the Commission recently toured with small lots and large homes, there was an appearance of a concrete jungle. Commissioner Melcher disclosed that when he worked for Lewis Homes, they had used certain plotting criteria in developments with a mix of one- and two- story houses. He said they never plotted a single-story unit between two 2-story units and never placed a 2-story house between two 1-story houses. He said they also always utilized single-story units on corner lots. He thought the mix led to a lot of pl'easant streetscapes. He felt it may be difficult to get developers to build single-story houses and he suggested perhaps requiring wider side yards on two-story homes. Commissioner Chitlea agreed that might be a good way to approach the subject. She felt that a certain number of single-story homes should be required to provide a variety. Mr. Buller said the Planning Commission has the authority to look at designs. He said the Commission could require single-story homes within subdivisions. Commissioner Vallette observed that she did not feel comfortable having a developer go all through the process and then be told at Design Review that they must introduce single-story units. She requested that staff further investigate single-story introduction. Chairman McNiel agreed. The Commission next discussed the number of elevations. Commissioner Chitiea felt that at least three elevations should be required per plan. Mr. Coleman suggested that such a requirement may cause developers to propose fewer elevations. Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission review the list and make additions or deletions. Commissioner Chitiea felt that doors and downspouts should not be highlighted with accent color on either commercial/industrial or residential development. She said that when she was looking at residential projects recently she noticed one which had accented every pipe and downspout. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Melcher remarked that he would not mind that as a guideline, but he disagreed that it should be policy. He felt that accents can be meaningful for doors or downspouts'and a policy would stifle creativity. He asked if the Commissioners would require painted downspouts if an architect proposed a stucco building with copper gutters and downspouts. Mr. Buller remarked that developers have complained that the City's policies and directions continually change. He agreed that developers should be told as early as possible in the process. He commented that the Commission must be cognizant of how often policies are changed. He said new things should not be added every week and only the important items should made into policy. He suggested that the subject be discussed at the workshop at the Tolstoy residence. Chairman McNiel stated the process does not have an end until the project is built because the Commission has an opportunity to make additional changes when a time extension is granted. He commented that each project is unique and different things may apply. He said the project is in process until it is built and he did not think the Commission should feel guilty about adding requirements at any time during that process. , · , , S. DISCUSSION OF AGENDA EXHIBITS - (Oral report) Commissioner Melcher noted that some of the exhibits are too small to read. He said the package recently provided by the sign company, was easy to work with.. He requested that exhibits be provided on 11 inch by 14 inch paper. Commissioner Chitlea suggested that because three of the Commissioners would already have a full set of plans, perhaps extra plans could be brought to the conference room before the meeting so that interested Commissioners could scrutinize them. She said that would alleviate the additional paper, time, and expense that would be incurred in providing large sets for each Commissioner. Brad Buller, City Planner, agreed that staff could provide a full set of plans for each project. He asked how frequently the Commissioners felt they could not make a decision because they could not read the plans. Commissioner Melcher noted that grading plans are almost always impossible to read. He thought that a few minutes before the Commission meeting would not solve that problem. He said if it is not practical to provide 11 inch x 14 inch plans, that was satisfactory. chairman McNiel agreed that grading plans are hard to read. He noted that would be difficult and expensive to collate larger exhibits into the agenda. He said staff is generally working on a very short time line. Commissioner Melcher suggested adding language to the application forms that they must be readable at an 8-1/2 inch by 11 inch size. Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 22, 1992 The Commissioners agreed that was a good idea. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, observed that in many cities, the Commission receives full size plans. Commissioner Melcher noted that was done in Redlands and it is very cumbersome. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be satisfactory to have the plans available at the meeting. Chairman McNiel agreed that staff should also ask for more defined reduced drawings from the applicants. , , · , · Commissioner Vallette commented that she and Commissioner Tolstoy had toured with the public works staff. She said that City Engineer Joe O'Neil, Deputy City Engineer Shintu Bose, Parks/Landscape Maintenance Superintendent Jeff Barnes, Public Works Maintenance Manager Bob Zetterberg, Landscape Designer Laura Bonaccorsi, and City Council Member Diana Willlame had been on the tour. She felt it was a unanimous conclusion that there is a problem that needs to be addressed with regards to the trees. She thought the problems appear more extensive in the planned communities because of the extent of the landscaping and the location in the high-wind area east of Haven. She said they discussed a need for immediate staking of trees after high winds and City maintenance is dealing with that. She thought deciduous trees appear more appropriate than eucalyptus for those areas because the eucalyptus do not appear to be as resilient. She commented that Commissioner Tolstoy made a suggestion that 5-gallon eucalyptus would be more appropriate to allow establishment of a root system. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that 15-gallon eucalyptus trees are root-bound and they do not develop a proper root system after being planted. Chairman McNlel asked how long it would take for a 5-gallon tree to reach the same size as the 1S-gallon one. Mr. Buller said it would be equal within a year and half. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that a eucalyptus tree requires an extensive root system for the large head to withstand winds. He said most nurseries force their trees by over-fertilization and placing them close together so that the trees will grow tall to reach the sun. He said the result is that the trees are not strong. He thought the City should get rid of a lot of eucalyptus trees, especially those planted in lawns because they do not receive deep root watering, but instead are watered too frequently for the trees. Commissioner Melcher asked if it wnuld be possible to require more sophisticated irrigation systems. Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 22, 1992 Mr. Buller said that standards are constantly being upgraded. Commissioner Vallette stated that in newer areas a lot of the eucalyptus trees are not surviving. She said there had been discussions about phasing in deciduous trees for replacement. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that it was mentioned that the City may be growing some of our own replacement trees. He said the City could then be sure the trees are not root bound when they are planted. He said the City does not have enough inspectors to be sure that trees planted by developers are not root bound. He thought that some of the tree planting requirements should be changed. Commissioner Vallette commented that eucalyptus trees require a lot of maintenance, in that they continually need to be trimmed back in order to grow in a healthy manner. She felt that additional staff is needed in order to maintain the trees. She said that trees put in four years ago need to be maintained for several more years in order to ensure that they will be quality trees at maturity. She said it is sad when trees are lost because a lot of time has been invested. She was concerned that if trees are removed without a phasing process that other trees will be lost. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that one problem is that in the past inappropriate plant materials were selected by architects in the parks. He said at the time, the City did not have knowledgeable staff to know that the trees were not appropriate and were sometimes planted in incompatible areas. He said City staff now reviews all park plans to be sure that materials are suitable and planted in the proper areas. He said many of the trees currently being lost were planted without any City inspection because the City did not have staff to do inspections. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, commented that the City had received a grant to replace some trees. Mr. Bullet commented that Otto Kroutil is the staff person trying to resolve the windrow tree replacement policy. He said he was trying to fold in discussions regarding planting details, standards, and policy direction for replacement. He said Mr. Kroutil would work with the public works staff and keep the Commission updated on discussions. Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be appropriate for Ms. Bonaccorsi and Mr. Barnes to address the Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that Ms. Bonaccorsi and Mr. Barnes present some recommendations to the Commission regarding those items the Commission can help with, such as selection of trees, planting procedures, etc. Mr. Bose said he understood one of the main concerns from the tour was to chose the right species of tree for a particular use, mostly in the turf area. He said a question had been raised as to whether trees should be replaced in kind or with a different species when some of the street trees need to be replaced. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that was a tough question. Chairman McNiel agreed it would be a difficult decision, because not all of the trees fail. Mr. Bose thought it may be appropriate to discuss in ~ workshop forum. He said they are currently working on a replacement policy because of the grant. He thought it might be helpful to meet with the Commission prior to finalizing the program. Mr. Bullet stated that the item would be scheduled for Commission discussion when engineering staff indicates they are ready. He said that Commissioner Vallette had brought up the matter as a concern because the Commission reviews projects and should be educated and alert to the landscape materials and planting areas that are being approved to know what will work best. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is very evident when an inappropriate tree is planted along a passe because only a few survive and many snap .off or lean into adjacent yards. He said the Commission should not continue to require those trees. Mr. Buller said the task force on the tree preservation task force was set u~ because there were questions about preservation of existing windrows. He thought the questions now being raised may dovetail with the work of the tree preservation task force, but he felt that if Engineering and Public Works proposed recommendations that might be ~eparated, they could proceed without having to wait for the task force. Commissioner Melcher suggested that he be replaced on the subcommittee by Commissioner Vallette because of her keen interest in trees. Commissioner Vallette was agreeable. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that Jeff Barnes and some of the other City staff are very knowledgeable and he felt they would be able to generate some good suggestions for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Melcher agreed that trees are being lost at an alarming rate because of wind, homeowner neglect and abuse, and improper care by the developer. , , · , , Commissioner Chitlea remarked that the Von's Center at 19th and Carnelian had severely pruned the trees in the parking lot down to twigs. She said the City works hard to require tree planting programs so that the perking lots will be shaded and the trees ere consistently over-pruned. She noted that the planting area also has concrete up to the base of the tree which does not leave any room for the trees to expend. She asked what could be done to stop the abuse. Planning Commis&ion Minutes -19- January 22, 1992 Mr. Bullet said that on newer centers a condition has been added to require that trees be pruned only to the natural characteristic of the tree. He stated that staff would contact the center even though that condition had not been imposed. Commissioner Malcher suggested that the developer be contacted. He said when the center was new, he was contacted after every wind storm and told to replace any lost trees. He indicated that the developer was working on the Tetra Vista Village to replace the trees that were inappropriately removed. Mr. Coleman stated that Scott Murphy was working on the Tetra Vista Village tree problem. He indicated that staff has predicted that as newer commercial centers develop, the older centers are losing tenants and customers. He said that one of the reactions is to point fingers at problems and suggest that signs are not visible, so trees are removed or severely pruned, further accelerating the decline of the center. , , , , Chairman McNiel asked what items the Commissioners would like to see addressed at the joint City Council/Planning Co~enission workshop. Commissioner Melcher suggested there be discussion on the Council's ideas regarding policy on housing mix and housing quality. Me also felt the Commission's responsibility on City projects should be discussed. Me felt that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to consider the design on the inside of the building as well as on the outside on City projects, because he felt the inside is part of the public environment. Me said he felt extremely handicapped in reviewing the library Chairman McNiel stated a large library subcommittee was formed to design the building. Me said the building had been expanded through the process. Commissioner Melcher stated he was concerned about the physical character of the building. He wondered what type of spaces were being created. Commissioner Chitlea observed that when the interior use needs of the fire station were explained to the Commission, the Commission was able to suggest changes which were beneficial to the station. She suggested the Commission should be permitted to have a little more input earlier in the process. Chairman McNiel stated that the Friends of the Library and the County Librarian were heavily involved in the interior design. He said that people tend to be ver3[ territorial. Commissioner Melcher suggested that City staff does not have the expertise to assess what the consultants suggest regarding buildings. He felt the Planning Commission is heavily involved in reviewing buildings and he thought the Commission could make a valuable contribution. Commissioner Vallette suggested that the Joint Workshop discuss Route 30. Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 22, 1992 Chairman McNiel agreed it may be advantageous to discuss Route 30. Mr. Bullet reiterated the subjects would be City policy vis-a-vis housing mix and housing quality, Commission responsibility on City projects, Route 30, and status of the Regional mall. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried to adjourn. 9:45 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on January 29, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rains Room. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -21- January 22, 1992