Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/10/25 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROTJ, CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner b. Distance from intersection c. Screening of the drive-thru lane ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 95-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of a proposed fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) and restaurant pad in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Gil Rodriguez, Jr., the applicant, gave a brief presentation of the project. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff issues and concerns which included the following: 1. Consistency with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a. Building setback b. Parking setback 2. Master Plan requirements 3. The Planning Commission drive-thru policy a. Drive-thru lane setback d. Potential revisions to the policy contemplated by the Planning Commission subcommittee reviewing the policy. 4. Relationship to the Klusman House Vice-Chairman McNiel asked what was anticipated for the future pad identified as "multi-use." Mr. Rodriguez stated that the anchor tenant for the center will decide if a building will be permitted at all. He said that if no building is allowed, the pad would be used for special seasonal events such as pumpkin patches, Christmas tree lots, etc. Commissioner McNiel stated that rarely does fast food contribute to an activity center other than introducing cars to the area. He felt the fast food restaurant does nothing for the intersection. He acknowledged Burger King's desire to be at the corner but he did not feel that was the appropriate location because Burger King would dominate the corner. He suggested locating Burger King on the west side of the Foothill entry. Commissioner McNiel liked the location of Zendejas restaurant and the future pad. Commissioner Melcher stated that no Master Plan is available at this time and the Master Plan should be the first item completed to market the project. He felt the architect had done a good job disguising the Burger King; however, Burger King does nothing to respect the Klusman House. He thought the proper setting is essential for the Klusman House and the setback provided on the east side of the Klusman House should match the west side of the building. He felt the diagonal pedestrian walk through the center is the boldest and most imaginative attempt presented to the City. He did not think the parking lot layout is workable because there are an excessive number of turning movements over 120 degrees that would be necessary to pull into the parking stalls. Commissioner Lumpp indicated that if Burger King feels it is essential to be at the intersection, the more appropriate location may be along the Vineyard frontage. He suggested the Burger King and Zendejas' locations could be reversed and such a switch would make the drive-thru less dominant. He thought the orientation might even allow some pedestrian play off Burger King into the activity center area. He acknowledged Burger King probably wants to be on Foothill Boulevard because of the greater traffic volumes; however, he felt Burger King should not be located adjacent to the Klusman House. Commissioner Lumpp stated that if Burger King had to be located on Foothill Boulevard, the building should be on the west side of the Foothill entry, as suggested by Commissioner McNiel. He felt the architecture was acceptable, although he believed Burger King should be designed more consistent with the Klusman House. He noted some elements of the Burger King drive-thru design are consistent with the direction being taken by the Planning Commission Subcommittee studying the drive-thru policy; however, he reiterated his desire to see Burger King relocated to the Vineyard frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the site design approved for the Christmas House on Archibald Avenue results in a very hemmed in appearance. He felt the same situation will occur with this project if the site plan is approved as submitted by the applicant. He thought Burger King should be relocated to the west side of the Foothill entry or closer to the activity center to share seating with the other restaurant. He noted the drive-thru lane is however in conflict with the activity center goal of pedestrian orientation. He agreed relocating Burger King to the Vineyard frontage may be a good alternative. He thought the angled parking arrangement provided by the applicant is not workable. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker indicated his appreciation of the major entry at the activity center and the link into the site. He had not given much thought to relocating Burger King to Vineyard Avenue but felt that Burger King might be interested. He suggested the Planning Commission should look at the 19-foot setback proposed for Vineyard Avenue and provide direction to the applicant. He liked the architecture proposed by the applicant. Chairman Barker stated that the Burger King on Base Line Road and Haven Avenue has a serious circulation problem with the drive-thru lane obstructing the pedestrian access to the building. He indicated his support for another large, outdoor plaza/eating area. Mr. Rodriguez indicated he has been working with Burger King for the past six months on various design schemes. He observed the location on the west side of the Foothill entry is not desirable because the trees within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District block visibility of the site. He said he had reworked the site to make it economically feasible. He stated that the contrasting design between the Klusman House and the Burger King was intentional in order to set the two structures apart rather than trying to blend them together. Chairman Barker asked the Commissioners to address the setback deficiency questions. Commissioner Melcher stated that when working with a large parcel such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice the minimum standards. He observed that streets are being widened by developers throughout the City and in some cases, greater dedications and improvements are required than will be required of this site. He stated that Wohl Properties had a willing tenant for their site on Foothill Boulevard but it is not the right site for that tenant. He said that Burger King may be proposed on this site but that does not mean it is right. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He felt sufficient land is available to accommodate the design. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Burger King was shifted southerly. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Burger King should not be located adjacent to the Klusman House. Commissioner McNiel stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a 45-foot building setback everywhere except the activity centers where the setback is reduced to 25 feet. He thought the applicant needs to adhere to that criteria. He observed that if the Planning Commission approves a variance for a reduced setback, it would clearly set a precedent for future actions. He did not think shifting Burger King to the south would be good for the Klusman House or for the activity center. He stated that Burger King is not a point of destination with the nature of the business being that people get in and out of the facility quickly. Brad Buller, City Planner, recapped the Commission's discussions. He stated that Burger King was not acceptable next to the Klusman House and other options should be considered. He noted there was no support for a variance for building setbacks because of a shift in the street centerline. PUBLIC COMMENTS PC Adjourned Minutes -3- October 25, 1995 There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission business at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- October 25, 1995