Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/02/08 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 8, 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 then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROT.T. C~T.T, COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that a letter had been received from McDonald's, the applicant for Item A. He said a request for continuance to March 8, 1995, had also been received from Taco Bell. Mr. Buller also reported that a sign advertising an upcoming Shell service station and Church's Fried Chicken had recently been erected at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and one of the Commissioners had questioned if a food service had been approved with the service station that was approved for that corner. He stated staff had investigated and Church's is looking at the opportunity to provide over-the-counter chicken in connection with the mini market that was approved. He said staff had not received any requests for additional signage and staff would keep the Commission informed as plans come in. , , , · , PUBT, IC H~.~RINGS Ae ~NVIRONM~NT~T. ASS~SSM~.NT AND CONDITIONAT. USR P~RMIT 94-30 - MCDONAT.D'S - A request to demolish an existing bank building and construct a 2,210 square foot drive-thru restaurant with enclosed play land on 1.1 acres of land in the Office Professional District, located on the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street - APN: 207-031-27. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the applicant was not in the audience as yet and he asked if the Co~nission wanted to wait a few minutes before hearing the item. Chairman Barker felt that would be best. , , , , Be mNVIRONM~NTAr. ASSRSSMR. NT AND CONDITIONAr. USE P~RMIT 94-40 - TACO BET.r. CORPORATION - A request to construct a 1,989 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru on a 0.73 acre parcel within an integrated 82 acre shopping center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-30. Chairman Barker noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to March 8, 1995. He opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, to continue Conditional Use Permit 94-40 to March 8, 1995. A. ~NVIRONM~NT~T. ASSeSSMeNT AND CONDITION~T. US~ P~RMIT 94-30 - MCDONA;.D'S Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented a staff report and suggested a revision to conditions regarding undergrounding of utilities to require a cash contribution towards future undergrounding on the opposite side of Base Line Road. He also observed that a letter had been received from McDonald's regarding proposed conditions. Commissioner Lumpp asked for clarification regarding the Minor Exception for the setback of the drive-thru lane. Mr. Hayes responded that the City'e policy requires a 45-foot setback on drive- thru lanes and the proposed setback is between 42 to 43 feet. He said a Minor Exception can be granted by the City Planner for reductions of up to 10 percent. Commissioner Eelchef asked if any trees are to be removed. Mr. Hayes responded it was staff's understanding that no trees are to be removed. He noted that Standard Condition E-2 requires protection of the existing trees by a construction barrier. Commissioner Eelchef suggested that Standard Condition E-2 be reworded to indicate that all existing trees are required to be preserved in place and shall be protected during construction. He asked the current minimum setback on the existing building from Base Line Road. He asked the finished floor elevation on McDonald's as compared to the finished floor elevation on the existing bank building. Mr. Hayes replied that the floor elevations are within i foot of each other. Commissioner Melcher questioned the difference in grade between the grade of the driving surface and the top of the retaining wall adjacent to .the drive-thru lane. Mr. Hayes replied that the applicant's engineer has indicated that.no retaining wall will be required in that area and the plans have been corrected but the landscape plans still show a discrepancy. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that in the past conditions have been included regarding the level of maintenance for landscaping when landscaping has been used for screening. He noted that some centers have severely pruned landscaping following occupancy and defeated the purpose of the request for landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 8, 1995 Mr. Hayes noted that Standard Condition A31 requires tree maintenance criteria to be approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that staff has not been able to regulate the pruning. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that has to do with the staff resources. Chairman Barker con~ented that because Co~nissioner Tolstoy had mentioned it, he felt that staff would make a note and follow through. Co~nissioner Melcher asked if the existing shopping centers on the southwest and northeast corners were built prior to City incorporation. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded affirmatively. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Rod Lucio, McDonald's Cor13oration, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, #800, San Diego, stated that McDonald's Project Manager Rose Flinton and Deborah Kerr, their consultant, were present. He said that last year they opened their second restaurant in Rancho Cucamonga and he acknowledged that develo~nents in Rancho Cucamonga are a cut above. He said they revised their architecture and site plan to acco~unodate the requests of the city. He reported there is no existing easement agreement with the adjoining property regarding utilities, drainage, parking, or access. He said they closed escrow prior to obtaining an easement agreement and in the process of negotiating for such an agreement, McDonald's has agreed to enhance the entire corner including landscaping, signs, parking lot upgrades, and painting of the existing Exchange office building, resulting in significant additional costs to McDonald's. He asked if it would be permissible to replace the time/temperature sign so that it would be compatible with the additional ~onument signs they will be installing. Mr. Lucio requested that they not be required to provide a focal point, such as a sculpture, in the outdoor seating area. He commented that Planning Condition 6 requires introduction of special paving at the driveway entrances and at key pedestrian crossings throughout the center. He noted that the center is not entirely their property. He thought such a requirenent is normally for new developments, and he felt that introducing special paving in their area would create inconsistency in the remainder of the development. He did not feel it is appropriate to require construction of a bus shelter because there are no Planning or Engineering standards and O~nitrans does not have an interest in constructing a bus shelter. He also thought a bus shelter would lead to potential problems with graffiti and loitering and stated McDonald's does not want to be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Lucio stated that they had understood they would have considerable work on Base Line Avenue to create a bus turnout and widen the driveways but he did not feel they had been provided adequate information about the need and benefits of providing a right-hand turn lane for the Carnelian driveway. He noted they were being required to make a cash contribution toward future undergrounding of utilities on Carnelian and 50 percent on the opposite side of Base Line. He asked when they would see results because there are existing developments on all four corners. He said they would be willing to bond for the fees. 'He asked why the existing property on the opposite side of Carnelian had not been required to pay 50 percent of the cost. Chairman Barker noted that the property on the opposite side of Carnelian was developed prior to City incorporation. Planning Com~ission Minutes -3- February 8, 1995 Mr. Lucio stated that costs on the project now exceed $300,000 beyond initial projections and the initial projections had included widening of Base Line. He thought their project will benefit the City because the corner will be upgraded and they hoped the improvements will generate new interest for the adjacent Exchange project. He said the costs associated with the project are making McDonald's question the feasibility of the project. Chairman Barker stated that it appeared a number of the items Mr. Lucio brought up should have been discussed with staff and the adjoining property owner prior to coming to the Commission. He said the Planning Con~nission meeting environment is very structured in that the Commission listens to concerns, takes public testimony, and then makes decisions. Mr. Eucio responded that McDonald's is flexible regarding the clarification items. He said they had addressed some of the issues at Technical Review and it was their impression that because there was no resolution at the Technical Review, that the only place they could raise those questions was before the Commission. Mike Radamacher, Property Manager, MGR Services, Inc., 1425 West Foothill Boulevard, Upland, stated his company manages the adjacent Exchange property. He said they support McDonald's efforts to develop on the corner and McDonald's conwnitment to work with his company to renovate the entire corner. He said they are trying to improve the Exchange project. He opposed the bus shelter because he felt it would attract graffiti and loitering. Chairman Barker noted that the applicant had asked if it would be permissible to replace the time/tenperature sign to make it compatible with monument signage to be erected. Mr. Buller stated it had been a staff recommendation that the sign be repaired and repainted because it is almost like a landmark. He did not recall the matter being addressed at Design Review. Co~nissioner Lumpp stated he had discussed the sign with Co~nissioner Tolstoy and Commissioner Tolstoy had expressed a preference that the sign remain. Co~w~issioner Tolstoy stated he likes time/temperature signs and he would like to see it saved. He did not object to the sign being replaced so long as the replacement sign is not an advertising sign. Co~nissioner Melcher felt that time/temperature signs are associated with banks. He did not think the sign is an important issue. He felt there were significant issues which had not yet been addressed. Chairman Barker agreed that a time/temperature sign would be nice and he did not care if the sign is replaced. He agreed that it should not be an advertising sign. He noted the applicant had requested deletion of the requirement to provide a focal point such as a sculpture in the outdoor seating area. He asked the applicant's reasons for wishing deletion of the condition.' Mr. Lucio replied that the condition seems open ended and they could not estimate costs. He said they were willing to work with staff but wanted to have something more specific. Co~nissioner Melcher felt that adding sculptures to drive-thru restaurants will dilute the concept of public art. He thought the City was looking for an Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 8, 1995 inviting, pleasant area and that could be accomplished with a pleasant shade structure to protect from the wind, sun, traffic noise, etc. Rose Flinton, McDonald's Project Manager, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, #800, San Diego, noted that there are 66 kV electrical lines along Carnelian which would need to be relocated if a right-hand turn lane is installed. She said a fire hydrant would also have to be moved. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, clarified that a right-turn lane on Carnelian would mean that one of the 66 kV poles would have to be moved. He said Engineering would permit a shortened right-turn lane, so that both poles would not need to be moved. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He noted that Commissioner Melcher had already made comments regarding the focal point of the outdoor seating area. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher that the City is after a quality space and he did not feel that public art is required. He suggested that the condition be revised to eliminate the words, "such as a sculpture." He noted that a design focal point had been requested at other fast food restaurants. He recalled that E1 Pollo Loco put in a large specimen tree and seating area which he felt was adequate. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the E1 Pollo Loco patio is a very pleasant eating place. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Camnissioner Tolstoy suggested something in the design of the seating and tables would be adequate. Chairman Barker felt it should not require additional costs. He asked for carments regarding the special paving being introduced at the driveway entrances and at key pedestrian crossings throughout the project. Commissioner Lumpp said he understood the applicant's concerns regarding the special paving, but he noted it is a common requirement in the City. He hoped the adjacent property owner would be willing to work with the applicant because he felt the enhanced paving will be an asset to the total center. Chairman Barker was sure that the adjoining property owner would cooperate. Commissioner Melcher observed that he had driven on the property today and he felt the entire parking lot is in an extremely deteriorated condition. He supported anything that could be done to improve the parking lot and bring it more up-to-date in terms of current City standards. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman Barker asked for comments regarding the bus shelter. Camnissioner Melcher felt that forward-looking cities in California are removing bus shelters. Ca~nissioner Tolstoy said he had mixed feelings. He felt the requirement should perhaps be deleted because of the close proximity to the high school. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 8, 1995 Co~mnissioner Lumpp questioned why Con~nissioner Melcher felt that forward-looking cities are removing shelters. Commissioner Melcher felt they are scarcely needed in the environment. Co~unissioner Tolstoy did not feel that would be a good reason to remove the requirement. He said the only reason he would suggest not having a bus shelter is that it might provide a loitering area for students who would not be using the buses. Chairman Barker disclosed he supported elimination of the bus shelter in this location because of potential for graffiti and security/safety concerns. Co~w~issioner Tolstoy stated he supports bus shelters in other parts of the City and would not like elimination of the requirement here to set a precedent that shelters will not be required elsewhere in the City. Cc~nissioner Lumpp said he was willing to delete the requirement only because of the proximity to the high school and the potential for significant maintenance costs for removing graffiti. Chairman Barker asked for comments regarding the right-turn lane for the Carnelian Street driveway. Co~e~issioner Melcher felt that projects without right-turn lanes are responsible for dreadful traffic slowdowns and potential accidents. He supported retaining the condition. Chairman Barker asked about the applicant's reasoning that the cost would be too high. Commissioner Melcher said he was not concerned about the cost factors. CommAssioner Tolstoy observed that the intersection often has a large backup. He felt a right-turn lane would be a good ideas however, he questioned where the pole would be moved and if it would be offset. Mr. James replied that if the pole is offset, a guy line would be required from the parking lot of the Exchange project. He said there may be a chance the pole could be ~oved due north approximately 40 feet without a guy line, but he wasn't sure if that would be too long of a stretch for the lines. Co~nissioner Tolstoy felt that if the line needs to be offset, it would look out of the ordinary. He thought a right-turn lane would be advantageous, but questioned if the condition should be dropped because it is an older, established neighborhood and the lane would be on an adjacent property. He supported elimination of the condition because of the moving of the pole and the fact that it is on adjacent property. Co~nissioner Eumpp agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. He expressed ~oncerns that the City at times conditions an applicant to improve property belonging to others and if the adjacent property owner objects, the applicant is blocked. He questioned if the right-turn lane will be built at Carnelian and Base Line. Mr. James said the applicant was only being required to dedicate the right-of-way for a possible future City project of widening the intersections and in exchange Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 8, 1995 for not building that right-turn lane, staff had requested a right-turn lane into the project to handle the increased traffic which the project will generate. Commissioner Lumpp still felt the right-turn lane into the driveway should not be required. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioners Tolstoy and Lumpp. He requested discussion regarding the applicant's comments on the cash contribution toward future undergrounding and his request to bond for the fees. Commissioner Melcher stated the City does not normally waive the fees under any circumstances and he expressed opposition to waiving the fees in this case. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City had ever accepted bonding in lieu of the fees. Mr. James did not recall ever having done so. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the chances of money being available in the future, if it is bonded. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it would depend upon the quality of the bonding company. He did not support using a bond. He said the alternative has been to have the applicant perform the work. Commissioner Tolstoy supported retention of the condition as written. Commissioner Lumpp and Chairman Barker agreed. Commissioner Melcher stated that the City previously prided itself on requiring integrated developments. He felt the pendulum has swung with this project in the other direction. He observed this is the first major intersection into the City for eastbound traffic on Base Line Road. He noted the southwest corner is already blighted and the northeast corner is visually blighted. He stated the project on the southeast corner is troubled because it was conceived by developers who were not experts in office design. He did not think the project will ever prosper. He noted that the McDonald's is smaller in scale and will be dug 2 feet deeper into the ground and moved 30 to 40 feet closer to the street corner and he believed that will not improve the corner, but would instead lead to more rapid decay. He thought McDonald's will succeed but it would not help the adjoining project. He did not think a McDonald's should be built so close to the high school, and he coumnented that many McDonald's across the country have posted signs prohibiting high school students during school hours. He felt the large, unused parking lot will invite loitering. He remarked that it is difficult to maneuver vehicles within the parking lot because of its unusual configuration and he did not feel it would be a good setting for young, inexperienced drivers. He felt the project is wrong for this location and the project should not be approved merely because it has gone through the process. Chairman Barker observed that the project had gone through design review and had been before the Commission at a workshop. Commissioner Melcher stated he had never been at a meeting where this project was discussed. Mr. Bullet confirmed there had been a Planning Commission workshop on December 14, 1994. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 8, 1995 Commissioner Melcher stated he was absent from the December 14 meeting. He observed that when the item went to Design Review, he had registered some strong objections to the project in writing to the staff. Chairman Barker recalled those objections having been discussed and he noted that the objections had not stated that McDonald's should not be on that corner. He did not recall that issue ever having been stated and he felt it was unfair to now introduce such objections. He said he did not disagree with Commissioner Melcher's right to make that point, but he felt it was too late in the process. Commissioner Melcher felt there had been no previous occasion when he was present and could make such an objection. Chairman Barker felt the comments could have been made in writing. He felt such an objection should have been made prior to the application's proceeding to this point. Co~nissioner Tolstoy felt that Commissioner Melcher had raised some interesting issues. He commented that the issue of the proximity to the high school might be valid but he observed that a Carl's is located across the street in even closer proximity to the school and has not recently had problems with the high school. He thought Carl's had initially had problems, but its management was able to grapple with the problems and he felt that proper management could alleviate such problems for McDonald's. Chairman Barker felt that school administration can also play a role in avoiding problems. Mr. Bullet observed that the Planning Commission had previously approved an Arby's Restaurant for the Stater center, but the Arby's has not been built. Commissioner Eumpp did not believe Commissioner Melcher's objections were a physical planning issue, but more a social planning issue. He said he did not necessarily agree that a McDonald's should not be placed near a high school. From a physical planning perspective, he felt there were three options for development on the corner: 1) try to create a product on the corner that will present itself as best as possible given the type of land use available~ 2) try to create a product which is architecturally consistent with the existing center, which he felt is less than appealing~ or 3) leave it the way it is and allow the center to further deteriorate. He did not feel another bank would relocate to the corner or another office building would be built in the near future. He thought this was the best that could be done frem a physical planning perspective to try to create a product on the corner which is as inviting as possible. He did not feel the Commission should address social planning. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher that the project is out of scale with the corner. He noted the Exchange Building is a large, rambling building and the McDonald's is a boxy, small product. He still supported the project. Commissioner Melcher did not feel it is a social planning issue but he felt it is a visual and aesthetic situation. He noted the contrast between that entrance to the City and those on Archibald and Haven at 4th Street. He felt the scale relationship could easily be seen by viewing the McDonald's Classic which was built at the corner of the WalMart project on Foothill Boulevard in Upland. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 8, 1995 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-30 with modifications to delete the reference to a sculpture, eliminate the bus shelter and right-turn lane into the Carnelian driveway, require a cash contribution towards future undergrounding on the opposite side of Base Line Road, and permit replacement of the time/temperature sign to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: MELCHER ABSENT: MCNIEL BARKER, LUMPP, TOLSTOY - carried , , , , PUBT.IC COMMF. NTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS C. SIGNS Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that at a recent Planning Commission workshop, a question was raised as to how far the City is willing to go when an applicant states a sign is their national trademark. He said that point was raised with the signs for PetMetro, Home Express, and Best Buy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Best Buy had replaced the existing sign with the approved sign as yet. Mr. Bullet responded that staff contacted Best Buy when the deadline passed and Best Buy had responded that the correct sign will not be available until April. Commissioner Lumpp recalled that Commissioner McNiel had requested that this issue be placed on the agenda. Chairman Barker felt the freeway sign by Foothill Marketplace is an example of poor design with the small logos. Commissioner Tolstoy did not believe that the sign was built as approved. He thought additional logos had been added to the sign. He felt many illegal signs are showing up in the community and he asked if Code Enforcement is still looking at signs. Commissioner Melcher observed that Code Enforcement is no longer under Planning jurisdiction. Commissioner Tolstoy acknowledged the reassignment of Code Enforcement staff but questioned why so many neon signs and other illegal signs are now proliferating. He asked if the City Council had directed a moratorium on sign ordinance enforcement. Mr. Buller responded that there is no moratorium. He believed that Code Enforcement is trying to attack nuisance abatement and public safety issues, with illegal signs being worked on as time permits. He suggested that when the Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 8, 1995 Co~wnissioners find a sign they believe to be illegal, they should bring it to the attention of Planning staff or direct the matter to Code Enforcement. He said there has been no directed relaxation. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that illegal signs wiil dramatica'lly increase if no action is taken. Mr. Buller noted that the Building Official had supervised Code Enforcemant staff at a previous city and had undertaken a fairly extensive sign code compliance program in that city. He said there has been no such City Council direction in Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Barker requested that a memo be sent expressing the Commission's concerns regarding illegal signs. , , , , D. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ITEMS Chairman Barker commented that no workshop discussion items have been submitted as yet. Commissioner Melcher observed that the City Council had scheduled a meeting to set goals on February 14 and he expressed concern that the Commission not be caught off guard if the City Council wishes to move forward with a joint meeting. He felt the Commission should hold a workshop to discuss Planning Commission issues. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Commission meet at 5500 p.m. on February 22, 1995, regarding Planning Commission issues. If it was the consensus of the Commission to schedule the workshop. Commissioner Melcher hoped the Commissioners would prepare some thoughts prior to the meeting. He also requested that staff suggest any appropriate topics. , , , , , E. TRASH ~NCT.OSUR~ D~SIGN Co~nissioner Tolstoy suggested the Co~nission restate its objectives with regards to trash enclosures, including how the design evolved and some of the considerations leading to the current design standards. He said some of the considerations included location, convenience for the user and trash collector, safety, in or out of public view, wind, sanitation, aesthetics, maintenance. Chairman Barker stated the item had been placed on the agenda because an applicant had requested that the Commission make a policy decision because they did not want to build trash enclosures to the current specifications for that particular project. Brad Bullet, City Planner, showed slides which had been taken by Chairman Barker. It was the consensus of the Commission that there is a need to readdress the standards for trash enclosures. , , , · , Planning Con~nission Minutes -10- February 8, 1995 ~nJOURNM~.NT 9=30 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 1995, for a workshop on Planning Issues for 1994/95. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 8, 1995