Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/04/12 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCMO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 12, 1995 Chairman Barker 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 Barker announced that the pledge of allegiance had been recited at a 6:00 p.m. Adjourned Meeting. ROT,T. C~T.T. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. , , , , , APPROV~T. OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded b}~Tolstoy, carried 4-0-0-1 with McNiel abstaining, to approve the minutes of February 8, 1995. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of February 22, 1995. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of March 8, 1995. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 22, 1995. , , , , , PUBr,IC HR~RINGS Ae VARIANCE 95-01 - MRSTER - A request to waive the required parking for a second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential designation (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8455 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-701-10. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that a temporary structure would be defined as a structure without a foundation or footings. He stated that a modular or prefab unit could be used with tie-downs but not a permanent foundation. Chairman Barker asked if a permit would be required for a temporary structure. Mr. Murphy replied a building permit would be required to ensure that there are adequate tie-downs in place, lateral support, et~. Commissioner Melcher asked if a variance would be necessary for a temporary structure. Mr. Murphy replied that it would not. Commissioner McNiel asked why the Development Code permits a temporary structure without a variance. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that the provision was put into the Development Code when the state legislation was enacted. He observed the purpose of the state legislation was to provide additional opportunities for housing. He noted it was originally targeted to provide senior citizen housing, but the age restrictions have been dropped and they are now simply called second units. Commissioner Lumpp thought there is a provision in the code giving an applicant the right to put a modular dwelling unit on a single family residential lot. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the provision in state law is to encourage acceptance of manufactured homes in order to increase the supply of affordable housing. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there would be a time limit placed on a temporary structure. Mr. Murphy replied the Development Code does not establish a specific time limit but states that the structure will be removed when the designated time period, activity, or use of the structure has ceased. Chairman Barker asked if the age limit is still in effect. Mr. Murphy replied that provision would be preempted by state law. Chairman Barker asked if a permanent structure would require a one- or two-garage space. Mr. Buller replied that City code calls for two while state law permits requesting a maximum of one per bedroom. He noted that two spaces could be required, as the application is for a two-bedroom unit. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Joel Mester, 8455 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his in-laws were also in the audience. Mr. Mester commented that he understood the reasoning for the code and he acknowledged that the unit could become a rental unit with people parking on the street if they were to move. He said he had reported his in-laws do not own a car to alleviate any kind of fear that vehicles will be parked on the street while they own the property. He commented he has a large driveway which can easily hold five vehicles in addition to their two-car garage. Me thought that if they sell the property, the future owners could utilize the driveway and garage. He reported that a den has been added to the back of his garage and stated that continuing the driveway past the gate would require the removal of four aged citrus trees along the fence. He acknowledged that a Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 12, 1995 temporary structure could be an option but said their first preference would be to build a separate unit. He noted that his in-laws currently live 60 miles away and they wanted to move them closer. Commissioner Melcher asked how an emergency response team could reach the rear unit if there was no one home in the main house. Mr. Mester replied an emergency vehicle could enter the driveway and then take a stretcher or gurney through the gate to the east of the garage along the walkway. He said they plan to build ramps to get into the second dwelling unit because his mother-in-law has knee problems. He noted that manufactured housing generally is built higher with steps involved. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Mester to point out the location of the trees. Mr. Mester indicated the trees are located along the wall and stated he also has a small garden shed in the general area. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the basic reason for not wanting to add a garage is because Mr. Mester's in-laws do not drive. Mr. Mester felt a garage would not be necessary because they do not have a vehicle. He said it would also add a lot of cost to the project. Chairman Barker noted that the main house has four bedrooms and the second unit would contain two bedrooms. He felt future owners could easily have at least one car per bedroom. Chairman Barker asked what type of gate is located to the east of the garage. Mr. Mester replied it is a block fence with a small carriage-type gate. Delfin Poquiz, 15725 Paine Street, Fontana, stated the site has an approximate 10 percent slope behind the den. He said they would have to bring in fill to build a garage and adjust it to the existing pavement. He thought a garage would cost about half the value of the residence because of the necessary grading and filling. Commissioner McNiel observed that the site plan indicates there is a 6 percent slope. Mr. Poquiz responded that 6 percent is the overall average. Commissioner McNiel asked how much fill will be required to build the dwelling unit. Mr. Poquiz said they will try to flatten the grade, so he thought about two truckloads of filling material would be used because the grade flattens out toward the back of the lot. Chairman Barker asked if the existing house is on fill. Mr. Poquiz replied the house appears to be about 50 years old. He thought they may have maintained the natural elevation and used fill on the swimming pool portion of the lot. He said there is a 45 degree berm with an approximate 6-foot drop south of the pool area. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 12, 1995 Mr. Murphy thought the front portion of the house might be on a little bit of cut and the back portion on a little bit of fill. Chairman Barker asked if steps will be required to get down to the second house. Mr. Poquiz replied they will probably provide a ramp to the second dwelling unit. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp sympathized with Mr. Mester about his in-laws being far away and he commended Mr. Mester for wanting to bring his in-laws closer. However, Commissioner Lumpp did not feel the Commission could make the required legal findings to grant a variance. He thought it would be difficult to argue convincingly that there are extraordinary circumstances preventing the addition of a garage based on the plan submitted, even with the modifications indicated tonight. He noted there are approximately six existing second units within the City, all of which have a two-car garage built for the second unit. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Lumpp that he could not make the required findings. He also noted the applicant had raised concerns about his in-laws' health and he thought access should be provided so that emergency vehicles could get as near to the second dwelling unit as possible. He felt there is a logical path to build a driveway to the back requiring only the removal of the trees and the gated wall. Commissioner Tolstoy appreciated the applicant's concerns for his in-laws and the associated problems. He also concurred with the other Commissioners that he could not find any of the findings to support the variance. Commissioner Melcher stated he was in the same position. He asked if there would be any possibility of designating the structure as a temporary structure other than not providing a foundation. He asked if there could be a recorded document requiring demolition at the time of property transfer. Mr. Hanson stated that was the dilemma that was encountered under the original "granny flat" legislation; i.e., what happens when the age group leaves, how does the City monitor the age of the occupants. He said the second dwelling unit state laws were created because of those problems and state law now indicates that such units may be rented. Commissioner Melcher asked if a modular unit would be acceptable. Mr. Hanson stated that a modular unit could be regulated because it is a temporary use and that would negate the requirement for enclosed parking. Chairman Barker empathized with the applicant but stated he also could not make the findings required for a variance. Commissioner Lumpp asked what parking requirements will be requested by staff if the variance is denied. Mr. Bullet stated that a two-car garage will be required for a two-bedroom unit or a one-car garage for a one-bedroom unit. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there would be a way to modify that requirement without a variance. Mr. Hanson replied it would take a Development Code amendment. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 12, 1995 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution denying Variance 95-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried B. ENVIRONMm. NT~L ASSESSMRNT AND CONDITION~T. US~ P~RMIT 95-06 - APPT.~B~'S - A request to construct a 4,880 square foot restaurant and bar on 1.28 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 208-352-09. Related File: Preliminary Application Review 93-03. Brad Bullet, City Planner, observed that the applicant had provided a folder with literature regarding Applebee's as well as a computer-generated rendering of the proposed building. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He remarked that the posted drawings reflected some of the changes suggested at the April 4 Design Review meeting, including the change to the tower element and the landscaping palette. He said there were also conditions of approval in the resolution to address all of the items recommended by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Melcher asked where the ideas for the outdoor dining patio and the brick veneer had originated. Mr. Coleman responded that the outdoor dining area had been part of the applicant's original proposal. He observed that Applebee's has two basic prototypes: one a brick veneer and one a stucco scheme. He said staff had informed the applicant that the Commission had considered the brick to be a higher quality material on a previous application. He also thought that there is a preponderance of stucco on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. He noted that two blocks away a brick building received a design award from the Planning Commission. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. John Tarlos, Tarlos Associates, 17802 Mitchell North, Irvine, stated he is the project architect. He thanked staff for their assistance. He noted they had complied with most of the suggestions made by staff and the Design Review Committee. He said he was in agreement with the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Design Review Committee had requested single- color awnings. He noted that the rendering depict multi-color ones and he asked what is proposed. Mr. Tarlos replied that they would prefer the striped, multi-color awning, as it is a marketing tool used on their units nationwide. Commissioner Melcher asked about the decision to provide outdoor dining. Mr. Tarlos replied that some of the units provide outdoor dining facilities and the Applebee's headquarters had requested that a location be found that could accemm3date outdoor dining. He stated they may wish to enclose the area in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 12, 1995 Co~unissioner Melcher asked the extent of the design work being done by Mr. Tarlos. Mr. Tarlos responded that the buildlng was initially designed in Kansas City and his firm is doing the corporate work in this area to meet local requirements and earthquake standards. Commissioner Melcher commented that outdoor patio dining was proposed for the west end when the project first went before the Design Review Committee but has now been moved to the east side. He asked if Mr. Tarlos had analyzed the functional relationship of outdoor dining to the movement of guests and the serving staff. Mr. Tarlos said the patio had been moved from the west side because of the westerly sun. He said he was satisfied with the functional layout. Commissioner Melcher stated he had recently visited four Applebee's locations along Interstate 10. He noted that the entrance to the outdoor dining area is down an exit corridor towards the restrooms and he thought that would be an unappealing relationship. Mr. Tarlos stated that corridor is also used to service the raised dining room. Gary Fisher, Applebee's International, Two Pershing Square, 2300 Main Street, Suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri, stated that Applebee's has over 500 restaurants nationwide, including six operating in the Inland Empire area. He stated they have tried to remain flexible on their design elements, so that they are compatible with local design guidelines and the designs of adjacent properties. He said there are three major components they try to incorporate into all of their restaurants: their logo signage, gooseneck lighting on the building, and the striped awnings. He felt the proposed restaurant is very attractive and requested approval. Commissioner Melcher commented that Santa Ana winds are common to the area and summers are very hot. He felt the patio made no attempt to shelter diners from the winds or the hot summer sun. He a~o thought the eastern location did not appear to function very well with the ~terior floor plan. Mr. Fisher stated the patios are not designed to accommodate customers 365 days per year. He said they felt they could get more use from the patio on the east than on the west. He thought the building would shield the area from the afternoon sun. He also felt the patio would work better on the east side because of the orientation of the area with regards to the parking. Commissioner Melcher noted that there were no patios at the four locations he visited in Redlands, Colton, Highland, and Fontana. Mr. Fisher said that the buildings in Redlands, Colton, and Highland were a large prototype building which is 400 to 500 square feet larger, accommodating 25 more seats. He commented there has been a change in policy direction from their corporate offices to use the smaller building for their more recent acquisitions in California. He felt that adding the patio would not add that much cost and would provide flexibility for the future. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy supported solid color awnings. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 12, 1995 Con~nissioner Melcher felt the awnings attract attention to the building but are not attractive to look at, particularly when they wrap around the corners. He provided pictures of the Applebee's he had visited and stated he did not think they hold up well. Chairman Barker noted the awnings look better in the rendering than in the pictures. Con~nissioner Melcher preferred that the awnings be individual, rather than being suspended over a solid wall. He also thought the awnings should have squared ends, rather than wrapping around. Con~nissioner Lumpp agreed that would be better. He felt the multi-color awnings would add to the dark colored building. Chairman Barker asked if there was agreement among the Commissioners that the awning should not wrap around the end of the building. Commissioners McNiel, Tolstoy, and Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher. Commissioner Melcher preferred the older Applebee's sign style with the apple used as the apostrophe rather than above. He felt the newer sign may be more colorful at night, but dies in the daytime. He thought individual red letters with the apple used as an apostrophe would be better than the canned sign. He also thought it would work better proportionally to the areas available for the sign. He noted that the tower is not offset equally from both walls of the building, and he thought that appears clumsy. He suggested the tower be offset an equal amount from both walls and thought that would give a stronger element. Commissioner McNiel thanked the architect for working with the Design Review Committee. He felt Co~nissioner Melcher had raised some interesting issues. He agreed with the comments regarding the awnings. He was not troubled about the relationship of the tower to the building and thought that the rendering depicts that it relates quite nicely to the front of the building. He noted there is a 3-foot recess on both sides of the tower. He thought it would give some exposure to the outside eating area from Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Melcher stated the building will be asymmetrical. Commissioner McNiel asked if the columns are positioned where they are because the building is at its limits in terms of setback. Chairman Barker reopened the hearing. Mr. Tarlos responded that was correct. Mr. Colenan suggested the building could be slid to the south by eliminating two parking spaces. He noted the site is over parked approximately 50 spaces. Commissioner McNiel suggested a few feet of Plexiglas could be added to the outdoor patio to buffer the wind. Co~nissioner Melcher feared canvas umbrellas would be added to the patio and they would stand like folded sentinels all winter gathering dirt and grime. He co~ented that the outdoor eating areas in the City which appear to be successful are sheltered by permanent overhead structures, either a vine covered trellis or roof element. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 12, 1995 Commissioner McNiel agreed that would be appropriate. He liked the way the striped awnings look in the rendering, but not in the photographs. He felt the awnings should be a solid color. Mr. Tarlos indicated the Commission had a sample board with the actual colors. He felt the striped awnings would be attractive against the brick exterior. Commissioner McNiel felt the service doors should be painted to match the building, rather than green. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed regarding the squaring off of the awnings and that the service doors should match the building, rather than contrast. Commissioner Lumpp preferred the multi-colored awnings. He agreed they should be individual awnings. He thought the tower element should be balanced on the other side as well. He felt moving the building back and changing the tower would add emphasis and add to the building. He thought the combination of the tower element and the copper roof would be unique. Mr. Tarlos commented that in order to change the tower, the inside of the building would have to be changed. He stated the entire building is asymmetrical and making the tower symmetrical would make the rest of the building appear off balance. Commissioner Melcher understood that the faces of the building approaching the tower are different, but he thought moving the tower would give more relief to the building in the front facing Foothill Boulevard. He felt it is presently a flat wall with a 3-foot pop-out around the one column. Commissioners McNiel, Lumpp, and Tolstoy felt the proposed tower works. Chairman Barker asked for comments on the color of the awnings. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the multi-color awning appears to be circus-like. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. Commissioners Lu~pp and Melcher felt a striped awning would work. Chairman Barker wanted a single color awning. He requested comments on the sign. Mr. Tarlos stated the proposed sign is not canned. Mr. Coleman stated the proposed sign has individual channel letters and a raised channel neon border with a solid green metal back flush against the brick. Commissioner Melcher felt the older style sign would better fit the available space. Mr. Fisher stated that the location depicted in Commissioner Melcher's photographs had unusual circumstances which prohibited them from having their signature logo. He said the majority of all their locations now have the logo with the apple above and the green background. Chairman Barker commented that Rancho Cucamonga occasionally becomes an unusual circumstance. Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 12, 1995 Con~nissioner Melcher observed that individual letters are used on three of the four locations he visited. Mr. Tarlos felt they could use individual letters. Commissioner Melcher pointed out that the logo with individual letters and the apple as an apostrophe was shown on the front of the Applebee's brochure while the logo with the apple above the word appears on the back. Chairman Barker asked if the Conwnission agreed with staff that a raceway-mounted sign with channel letters should not be used. Commissioners Melcher, McNiel, and Lumpp agreed with staff. Commissioner Lumpp stated that the Design Review Committee had not considered signs, because they require a separate approval. He agreed with Commissioner Melcher's recommendation for the sign. He thought the proposed sign with the apple above looks like a canned sign. He preferred the individual letters with the small apple as an apostrophe. Mr. Buller stated that it is within the purview of the Commission to give direction to staff regrading the signs. Con~nissioners Tolstoy and McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher regarding the sign preference. Mr. Tarlos said they would agree to individual letters for the sign. He asked what color the Commission wanted for the awnings. It was the consensus of the Commission that they should be green. It was the consensus of the Con~nission that service area and utility doors should be painted to match the building, rather than a contrasting color. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Motion= Moved by Eumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-06 with modification to provide that the door and gate colors to service areas and utility rooms should be painted to match the brick color. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES= COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT= NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, NELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried , , , , PUBLIC COUNTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , , COMMISSION RUSIN~SS Chairman Barker commented that at the direction of the Commission, he had sent a memorandum to the City Council approximately eight months ago asking for a commercial study. He said it was his understanding that the matter will be on Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 12, 1995 the April 19 City Council agenda and he intended to attend the meeting. suggested that other Commissioners might wish to also attend. He Commissioners Melcher and McNiel both stated they had been contacted by the reporter for the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin regarding the proposed study. Chairman Barker con~nented that some of the codes and specific plans have not been updated because of lack of staff. He suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda for the joint meeting with City Council. He felt the Commission should explain the problems that raises for the Commission and the public. He asked the Commissioners to discuss what they would like added to the agenda for that meeting. Commissioner Melcher felt that although CEQA is important, it would be better to identify three to four things that are key to the Commission's being able to do a good job. He thought the Commission should be able to explain to the Council that good planning is good for the City and not obstructionist. It was the consensus of the Commission that the following items should be added to the agenda for the Joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to be conducted on April 25. 1. Economic Development and Planning Commission Participation 2. Modernization of General Plan and Supporting Documents 3. The Development of Policies Based on Philosophy 4. Planning vs. Project Processing ~DJOURNMRNT Motion: Moved by Lumpp, McNiel, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 9:10 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following in the De Anza Room regarding Conditional Use Permit 94-26. That workshop adjourned at 12:05 a.m. to a Joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop at 5:00 p.m. on April 25, 1995. The minutes of both workshops appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 12, 1995