Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/10/12 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 12, 1994 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. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson. Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer: Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 13, 1994, as amended. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy abstaining, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 14, 1994, as amended. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy abstaining, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 14, 1994. PUBLIC HEARINGS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 94-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the procedures for review of single family residences in hillside areas. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher observed that if an individual wishes to build a single family custom home on a lot up to 7.99 percent slope in the City, the review is by counter staff. He noted that if the slope is 8 percent or greater, the applicant must go through a more extensive process and he felt there is a temptation to tinker with the design of the house on the part of the various review bodies. He favored allowing such projects to be approved by the Grading Committee and then receiving counter approval like any other single family house or going through City Planner review. He did not think they should have to go through Design Review. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that in the past changes had to be made where houses did not fit into the required envelope. He favored having the applications go through the Design Review Committee with final approval granted by the City Planner. Mr. Coleman said the ordinance currently only requires Grading Committee Review but it has been staff's policy since the inception of the ordinance to run all single family homes in the hillside area through the Design Review Committee. He noted staff had suggested verbiage to codify that practice. Commissioner McNiel stated the Commission has been moving in the direction of delegating more items to staff, but he said he was hesitant to do so with hillside homes because most of the homes in these circumstances are large. He was hesitant to drop them from the Design Review process. Chairman Barker asked for clarification that single family houses in the hillside area have been reviewed by the Commission even if there were no problems. Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp stated that he is in favor of streamlining the process but said he had supported City Planner approval of such projects because Design Review would be looking at them to provide a second look beyond the counter staff. He said he would be reluctant to take such projects away from the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Melcher felt that creates a double standard because it allows someone with a lot of less than 8 percent slope to build anywhere else in the City without submitting to the Design Review Committee. He did not think that the Design Review Committee is any more competent than the Grading Review Committee to assess whether such projects fit the Hillside Ordinance in terms of the grading. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that often there is a way to have a house conform to the Hillside Ordinance with the use of retaining walls or other adjustments in the method of grading. He felt review by the Design Review Committee is beneficial to the applicant, in that he thought the Commissioners and staff have been able to give assistance in solving problems. He thought the Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 12, 1994 exchange between the Commissioners, staff, and the applicant has at times brought out innovative ways to bring the house into compliance. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Commissioner Melcher is more than qualified to review houses in the hillside area. He felt he also had some expertise in dealing with houses in hillside areas and noted that even those Commissioners not on the Design Review Committee receive copies of the submittal and have an opportunity to review them. He did not think it creates a double standard. He suggested the ordinance could be changed later if the Commission felt there was no reason to review the houses. Commissioner McNiel asked if there is a significant difference in the size of the parcels with over 8 percent grade as opposed to those which are under 8 percent. Mr. Coleman replied that there is and the lots which are 8 percent are higher are generally a minimum half acre. Commissioner McNiel felt that is reasonable criteria because of the potential size of the house. Commissioner Melcher felt it may be more fair to base the standard on lot size instead of slope so that everyone in that lot size would be subject to the same criteria. Commissioner McNiel supported staff's proposed language. Chairman Barker stated he would like to be sure the process is not delayed. Commissioner Melcher suggested that staff be given the authority to approve such projects but make the applicant aware at the outset that staff may, at its discretion, refer the project to Design Review. Chairman Barker supported Commissioner Melcher's suggestion. He opened the public hearing. There was no public testimony, and Chairman Barker closed the hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that if the Commission decided that the City Planner could approve such projects unless there are issues which do not adequately address the intent of the ordinance, then the reference to Design Review could be deleted from the first paragraph and the language could be kept as is. Mr. Coleman suggested adding wording that any proposal could be referred to the Design Review Committee by the Grading Committee or City Planner. Commissioner McNiel feared the intent may not be known by future staff and only the ordinance is in place. He thought the Design Review Committee has more latitude than staff to make suggestions and the Committee's suggestions carry more weight. He was not comfortable with giving up that leverage. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 12, 1994 Chairman Barker hated to slow down the process when there are no problems or ...... concerns. Commissioner McNiel commented that developments on the hillsides have always been a source of problems because the vast majority of applicants want to severely grade the lot and build a large home. He said there have problems even with the existence of the ordinance. Commissioner Lumpp felt all projects should go to Design Review. Motion:: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 94-05 as written. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY MELCHER NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he voted no because he did not believe the projects should be sent to the Design Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-11 - BERTINO - An appeal of the City Planner's conditions of approval requiring a 25-foot setback on Eighth Street, dedication of right-of-way for the entry monument, relocation of the driveway access, and undergrounding of utilities serving the site as related to a 770 square foot addition to an existing automotive repair shop in the General Industrial District (Subarea 1) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Eighth Street - APN: 207-271-33. Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel thought there had been a variance for other properties along 8th Street because of the narrow depth of the lots. He asked if other parcels along 8th Street have a 25-foot setback. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied the standards call for a minimum of 25 feet and an average of 35 feet of landscaping along the boulevard but the projects immediately to the west were granted a variance to allow a 25-foot setback. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the addition has already been built. Ms. Perez responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the setback was from the right-of-way line or from the curb. Mr. Buller replied it is from the ultimate face of curb. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 12, 1994 Commissioner Melcher asked what impact that would have on development of the property. Mr. Buller replied that the applicant contends that any setback impacts the property and would like as little of a setback as possible. Commissioner Melcher noted that there are small concrete block businesses elsewhere on 8th Street that seem to share a driveway between businesses with rather nice landscaping. He asked if those properties are deeper between the railroad and the street right of way. Mr. Buller responded those properties have a 25-foot setback and were granted a variance from the standard 35-foot setback. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that those properties were built after the landscaping was planned and were not preexisting when the condition was imposed. Mr. Buller confirmed it had been vacant ground when the project was built. Commissioner Melcher felt it is possible to develop on the street and have it be rather attractive from the street. He did not understand the applicant's objection to the condition. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Charles Bertino, 11047 Furman Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the property is very narrow in depth and the buildings already exist. He said the property next to him was able to design their buildings to fit the narrow property but he could not afford to tear everything down and do a major development. He did not think it would be feasible to develop the property with the landscape setbacks which are required. Me showed a drawing of the landscape setback and monument size requested by the City. He did not feel the property is long enough to move the driveway 200 feet west of the intersection. He said he would lose too much parking space and vehicles would have to back out and turn around in the shop area with the proposed design. He stated that would take up over 41 percent of the property including 14 feet for the street improvements and 25 feet for the landscape setback. He indicated the biggest problem with moving the driveway to the west, would be that he could not secure his automotive service business with a fenced yard. He said the restaurant customers would also have to park too far from the restaurant. He felt the parking at the corner is just large enough for the restaurant business. He showed another plan with a 15-foot landscape setback, a downsized monument, a driveway 30 feet from the beginning of the curb return (BCR), and a second driveway to the west. He said that would allow a wall and landscaping and fencing off of the shop area to provide security. He felt the property on the north side across the street had not developed because of the setback requirement. He said the addition had been only .8 of a percent over the 25 percent trigger point to require the undergrounding and he thought perhaps he could do the undergrounding over a 3 to 5 year timetable. He stated he had spoken with Dan James, who said the parking would not be lost because the City does not currently have the money to construct the Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 12, 1994 monument. He said it would cost him approximately $1,000 to dedicate a part of the property to the City. He observed he is also being requested to pay an in-lieu fee of over $7,000 for future undergrounding of the railroad communication lines along the north property line and he would have to borrow all of the money to do any improvements. Commissioner Lumpp asked why the conditions were applied since the building already exists. Mr. Bertino stated the building was there when he bought the property and when he was in the process of reroofing, an inspector came by and discovered that the addition had been built without a permit. He said he then applied for a permit because he was told he would have to tear down the addition if he did not apply for a permit and pay the fees. He questioned if there would be permits on any of the buildings since they were built before the City was incorporated. Commissioner Melcher asked when Mr. Bertino had purchased the property. Mr. Bertino replied he bought it in 1989 and had been leasing it out since then. He said he planned to move his automotive business to the property as soon as his lease expires at his present location. Commissioner Melcher asked if there is a need for a permit for reroofing. Chairman Barker replied there is. constructed. He asked when the building addition was Mr. 8ertino said it was probably built a few years before he bought the property in 1989. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the applicant has a right to apply for a variance from the 25-foot landscape setback requirement. He thought there was not much the Commission could do about that. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the current tenant would take all of the parked vehicles when he moves. Mr. Bertino replied that he will and that the current tenant runs his business differently from the way he runs his business. He said the current business is run like a wrecking yard. He said all of the junk would be cleared out, there will be nice landscaping, and a decorative wall will be built when his current lease runs out in a year. Commissioner Melcher felt the parking situation at the restaurant on the corner is not good and is very difficult to access and park. Chairman Barker agreed it is hard to get in and out of the restaurant. Mr. Bertino noted that the driveway for the restaurant is right at the BCR and he was proposing to move it down 30 feet. He acknowledged that was not the distance the City wants the driveway moved but said it would work for him. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 12, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp asked the applicant's proposal regarding the monument sign. Mr. Bertino proposed reducing the amount of dedication, which would require a reduction in the size of the sign. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Bertino was offering some dedication of land with a reduced monument size. Mr. Bertino responded he was offering a reduced dedication for the monument. He noted the full size monument plan calls for 22 feet deep from the inside of the sidewalk curb and 54 feet across; he proposed 10 feet deep and approximately 30 feet across. He said the smaller dedication would allow two more parking spaces. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it is difficult to develop lots with such a narrow depth and he noted that the buildings are already there. He expressed support for a landscape variance if one is requested. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Commissioner McNiel stated his heart went out to the applicant and he acknowledged the situation is awkward. He noted the applicant had improved the restaurant. He asked if all parking requirements would be met with the conditions as imposed by staff. Mr. Buller did not believe that parking had been reviewed. He said that the parking does not have to be removed if the monument sign area is dedicated because the sign will not be built at present. He thought the project on the opposite side of Vineyard may have received a variance reducing the dedication down to 16 feet of landscape frontage along 8th Street. He thought that if that is correct, there may be grounds for approving a variance on this side because of the uniqueness of being an existing, non-conforming site development. Commissioner McNiel stated he could agreed. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Commissioner Melcher preferred to try to negotiate an agreement with the property owner so that over time the uses would be allowed to expire so that when the property is redeveloped, it could be redeveloped consistent with the remainder of the neighborhood. He thought that the City should not try to exact thousands of dollars worth of improvements after the business had been in existence for over 5 years. Chairman Barker thought that Planning Condition No. 4 could be addressed by a variance. He asked the Commissioners to address Engineering Condition No. 2 regarding the entry monument dedication. Commissioner McNiel asked if the entry monument has been designed. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 12, 1994 Mr. Buller replied that the concepts have been designed. He said the project on the east side of Vineyard provided dedication. He did not feel staff would be in favor of reducing the size if the full size was dedicated on the east side of the street. He noted the City is not asking that the monument be installed at this time, so the parking would not be reduced. He thought a compromise could be worked out regarding the interim landscaping prior to installation of the monument sign. Commissioner Melcher noted that if the property is dedicated, it would then be City property. He asked if the City would be accepting potential liability by allowing parking in that area. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the property would not be dedicated at this time, it would merely be an offer to dedicate and would be perfected in the future, which would not increase the City's liability. However, he noted that when the City does take possession and the monument is installed, the parking would be replaced and he thought the problem should be addressed now. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the physical structure of the monument sign is 22 feet deep and 50 feet long, or if that would include landscaping area. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that there is typically room for landscaping surrounding the monument signs. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the City could work with the applicant to reduce the dedication to the physical limits of the actual sign. Mr. Buller stated that all of the various hierarchy of monument signs had been designed in concept. Mr. James said staff could look at it in more detail. He said that typically the sign itself is toward the back of the dedication with landscaping in front and the length of the sign governs the easement width. Mr. Hanson noted that the monument signs were adopted by policy, not an ordinance. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant will have to pay for the sign. Mr. James replied the condition as written only requires a dedication. He said that if the site is completely redeveloped, then further conditions would be applied which could include installing the monument. Me noted that the condition as written does not specify the size of the monument dedication. He suggested staff could look at that during the plan check review process at the direction of the Planning Commission. Commissioner McNiel felt the setback should be comparable to that on the other side of the street. He acknowledged that all of the 22 feet may not necessarily be used, but he felt the offer of dedication should be the same and the City could reduce the dedication if it is found that not all of the 22 Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 12, 1994 feet is needed. He said in the meantime, the applicant would have an opportunity to use the land. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Planning Commission participated in the development of the monumentation policy. Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher noted that the entry monumentation map shows an assortment of sizes. He asked if the Commissioners had considered the relationship of the monuments to the railroad tracks and the resulting constrained location. He suggested a different design, such as the one on Base Line Road at the west entrance to the City, might be more appropriate and would take up considerably less space. Commissioner McNiel responded that the Commission had considered the various entrances to the City. He stated he was not opposed to reconsidering the size of the monument sign. He acknowledged that perhaps the entire 22 feet would not need to be consumed, but he felt the City should protect itself and request the dedication. He said the Commission had looked at entrances to the community with respect to the monuments and laid out a general overview as to what the monuments might be. He said a hierarchy was established, but not every entrance to the community was measured to see what might fit based on existing conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the corner of 8th Street and Vineyard is a special case because of the railroad tracks and because the business has been there for a long time. He thought it would be best not to require the 22 feet at this time. He felt the size of the monument should be reduced because of the size of the property, the position of the railroad tracks, and the scale of the building. He suggested that the City work with the applicant to determine what would be a reasonable size dedication which would allow the applicant to accommodate the necessary parking. He thought the monument sign could be redesigned to better fit the property. He felt the scale of any buildings on that corner will be small, and the monument size could therefore be reduced. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner McNiel that this intersection was designated to get a monument similar to those at several other places in the City; such as 4th and Etiwanda, Miller at East, and Arrow and Grove. Commissioner Tolstoy pointed out that those intersections have larger properties and do not have the nearby railroad tracks. Commissioner Melcher agreed but felt it would be worth looking at the concept sketches once again to see if there may be a way to uniformly change them so that the hierarchy concept could be preserved. He suggested that whatever is granted in this case could become the standard for the other intersections. Chairman Barker felt the design of the monument should relate more to the size of the expected buildings. He thought it may only be required that the size Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 12, 1994 be reduced in this location, but he agreed it could be looked at for all ........ locat ions. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. He stated there are currently at least three different entry monument designs in the City and he was not sure they need to be uniform. Chairman Barker noted that Commissioner Tolstoy did not indicate an exact amount of land, while Commissioners McNiel and Melcher thought the dedication should be for the 22 feet. Commissioner McNiel stated the hierarchy of entry monuments into the community was based on the significance of the entrance to the community with Milliken, Haven, and Archibald being the three main entrances. He said the other monuments were then reduced in size by hierarchy down to the size for the entrance from Upland on Base Line Road. He felt that Vineyard Avenue is a significant entrance to the community and therefore was given this particular size. Chairman Barker agreed the City should get the 22 feet but he felt the City should meet with the applicant to make it work. He asked for comments regarding undergrounding. Commissioner Lumpp suggested the applicant evaluate the cost of undergrounding the utilities and weigh it against removal of 25 square feet from his building so that the addition would be less than 25 percent and would thus not trigger the undergrounding requirement. Commissioner McNiel acknowledged the site is small and he felt there was a legitimate complaint regarding the cost of undergrounding the utilities; however, he noted the policy of the City is to underground as frequently as possible. He supported requiring the undergrounding but preferred that the City negotiate a timeframe which would be acceptable to the applicant. Commissioner Tolstoy also supported the undergrounding and suggested that the applicant be permitted to make the improvements over a period of time. Commissioner Melcher noted the addition was built more than 5 years ago and contains a number of square feet that is slightly in excess of the 25 percent that could have been built without triggering the requirement. He commented that in 1981 priorities were set for the use of the fees paid by Southern California Edison towards undergrounding on a street-by-street basis, but the City Council recently decided to change those priorities and use the money elsewhere. He therefore saw no reason why the Planning Commission should not be willing to overlook this policy in that it is only an .8 percent variance. He agreed with Commissioner Lumpp. Chairman Barker stated he agreed with Commissioners McNiel and Tolstoy that the undergrounding should be required, but a reasonable length of time should be permitted to accomplish the undergrounding. He asked for comments regarding Engineering Condition No. 5 requiring that the driveway access be moved a minimum of 200 feet from the intersection. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 12, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp noted that it is a standard requirement and he understood why it is a requirement. He also observed that it is an existing property with certain limitations. He was not sure the 200-foot requirement could be met. Commissioner McNiel asked the length of the property. Mr. James replied it is 216 feet from the BCR. He acknowledged the 200-foot requirement could not be met, but stated the intent of the condition would be to move the driveway as far west as possible. Commissioner Lumpp noted that when Mr. Bertino moves his business into the facility, there will be two different uses on the property with the applicant wishing to fence the automobile shop. He noted that if the applicant is required to eliminate the driveway into the restaurant and only have one driveway, he would not be allowed to secure the automotive business. He commented that the applicant had expressed a willingness to move the driveway for the restaurant westerly from the BCR and install a second driveway to the west and he thought that was the best that could be done on this property. Commissioner McNiel noted that the 200-foot setback from BCR is for safety purposes. He felt that the current driveway is unsafe. He said driveways have been moved on other projects and houses have even been moved so that driveway entrances would be on the more visible side of an intersection. He felt that unfortunately a driveway in the location desired by staff would not best serve the two businesses, but it would eliminate the existing unsafe condition. He supported the intent of staff's proposal. Commissioner Tolstoy supported allowing two driveways because the corner is signalized and cars would be able to safely exit the driveway when the signal is red. He favored moving the driveway for the restaurant as far to the west as possible. Commissioner Melcher agreed that Commissioner McNiel was correct about the intent but he noted that it would work a serious hardship on the automobile repair business because it would make it impossible to secure the yard. He felt the applicant's plan is a reasonable alternative for the interim period of time. He thought it important to gain control over the use of the property on a longer basis so that it can be brought into full conformance at the time of redevelopment. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that when the property is redeveloped, additional conditions could be applied to adjust the driveway. Chairman Barker felt that moving the driveway to the west end of the property would not only create a hardship for the automotive repair business, but would effectively eliminate the restaurant business. He supported two driveways. Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant undergrounding on the railroad right-of-way but that mentioned in the staff report. had also discussed issue had not been Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 12, 1994 Mr. James stated the issue had not been discussed in the staff report because the letter of appeal did not mention that condition. Mr. Buller suggested the matter be continued to allow staff to work with the applicant on the design presented this evening and the direction given by the Commission. He noted that staff had not previously seen the proposal and suggested that the application may then be amended. Commissioner Melcher suggested staff and the applicant work on the project. Chairman Barker and Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Commissioner McNiel agreed and felt the Commission had established direction that could be followed. Mr. Buller requested clarification on the time schedule the Commission would like for undergrounding. Chairman Barker noted the applicant had mentioned a 3 to 5 year time frame. He noted the Commission had expressed support for a variance for Planning Condition No. 4 and had indicated 3-2 support in favor of a 22-foot dedication for the monument, 3-2 support in favor of undergrounding, and 4-1 support in favor of moving the existing driveway further west and allowing a secondary driveway at the western end of the property. He asked Mr. Bertino if he was willing to review the matter further with staff. Mr. Bertino said he would prefer a decision tonight. Chairman Barker said that the applicant would still have to work with staff on the design. Mr. Bertino feared the area dedicated for the monument would be increased over the downsized monument plan he had shown. Chairman Barker said the feeling of the Commission was that there could be findings to support an application for a variance regarding the landscaping and that the monument dedication would be required, but that it could be less than 22 feet. Commissioner McNiel noted that in the interim the land could be used for parking. He said that in all probability, the amount would be less than the 25 feet. Commissioner Tolstoy felt Mr. Bertino should know what the actual conditions will be and his working with staff would establish a better understanding. He urged Mr. Bertino to allow the matter to be continued so that he could work with staff. Commissioner Melcher noted that the only resolution before the Commission was a resolution of denial of the appeal and the Commission could therefore not act this evening to approve any part of the appeal. Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 12, 1994 Mr. Bullet suggested that staff and the applicant meet and return with a resolution at the November 9 meeting. Mr. Bertino agreed to the continuance. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to continue Minor Development Review 94-11 to November 9, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher commented that if a variance is to be granted, it should take into consideration if any variances have been granted to the east and west and should have some sort of a life span that it be tied to the remaining life of this project so that when the property is redeveloped, it not necessarily go along with the redevelopment. Mr. Hanson stated that although variances run with the land, they are unique as to the specifics as to why a variance is granted. He said that uses may change which would negate the reasoning for the variance. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS C. TOWN CENTER SOUARE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned the approximate number of square feet of the development. Ms. Fong replied it will be approximately 222,000 square feet. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Chuck Beechef, Project Manager, Western Development Company, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they agreed to omitting the 4-foot high trademark on the free standing pad signs and felt they can design the project/tenant monument sign to allow approximately 2 feet of landscaping in front of and behind the sign on the median. He felt that pedestrian signs are normally for smaller tenant spaces where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic and this center would have a lot of big box, destination tenants. He said they would like the ability to do pedestrian signs in the future, but they preferred that be an option rather than a requirement. Mr. Beechef stated they had provided staff with an elevation depicting the Best Buy sign with a Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 12, 1994 1-fOOt clearance from the architectural elements by adjusting the angle of the sign while retaining the 12-foot 3-inch x 20-foot sign. Commissioner Melcher asked if the sign will be an internally illuminated canned sign. Ms. Fong showed a sample of the sign material. Commissioner Melcher questioned if it will be a bright field of yellow plexiglas with black letters. Mr. Beecher said it will be a 9-inch deep extrusion aluminum with a stretched panaflex face with the letters screened in black and gray to achieve a three-dimensional aspect to the letter. Chairman Barker asked the original size of the sign. Ms. Fong replied that the conceptual elevations showed a 36-inch clearance between the top and bottom elements with a 10-foot by 16-foot 6-inch sign. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the sign on the east elevation of the building would be a square sign. Ms. Fong replied they proposed individual channel letters for the east elevation. John Heemstra, Young Electric Sign Company, 1413 East Philadelphia Street, Ontario, stated the south elevation for Best Buy is a tremendously wide building which sits 390 feet back from the street. He said Best Buy standardized their ticket signs to be used at seven locations which are set to open November 11, as they are all manufactured in Salt Lake City and the 12-foot 3-inch x 20-foot sign is the smallest of those three ticket sign sizes. He said staff urged that at least 1 foot of space be put between the top and bottom architectural lines of the building and they achieved that by adjusting the angle of the sign. He asked for a compromise of 1-1/2 feet minimum at the top and bottom of the sign. Commissioner McNiel asked how tall the letters are. Mr. Heemstra replied they are approximately 3 feet to 3 feet 6 inches high. Commissioner McNiel asked if the ticket will be yellow. Mr. Heemstra responded that was correct. Commissioner McNiel asked if any other different kind of signs are used anywhere else in the country. Mr. Heemstra replied the program is for the price ticket on the front of the store and the channel letters used on other elevations. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 12, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp asked why they would not want to use the price-tag sign on the side of the building. Mr. Heemstra responded that the prototypical corporate identification calls for the price ticket sign on the front with secondary signage being channel letters at a variety of heights appropriate to their location. Commissioner McNiel asked the color of the channel letter signs. Mr. Heemstra replied they have black edges and trim cap with a yellow face. Commissioner McNiel asked the proposed height of the letters on the east elevation. Mr. Heemstra responded 4 feet tall. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner McNiel stated that the Commission's approach in the community has been that signage should be architecturally appropriate with structures. He said uniform sign programs have been used for all projects built in the community with some allowances for national logos. He acknowledged that the Best Buy signs may be a very good marketing concept but he felt they go beyond the limit. He said the Target building is set back approximately 1,000 feet from Foothill Boulevard and has letters from 3 feet 6 inches to 5 feet tall and that sign stands out nicely from Foothill Boulevard in red. He noted this sign would be significantly larger in terms of its field and would not contribute to the architecture. He said that in this community signage is primarily for identification and secondarily for advertising. He said he was on the edge of being offended by the sign as he felt it is far too big, too graphic, and ugly for him to support. He stated he also did not support the size of the secondary signage on the side of the building. Commissioner Melcher stated the matter was before the Commission because of the urgency of Best Buy's opening. He said attempts had been made to streamline the processing of projects, but he did not feel it was the intent of the Commission to allow any diminution of quality in the City on account of streamlining. He noted the Commission had approved the shopping center on the basis of very little information in a very limited amount of time to allow the developer to get the building under construction. He thought there are things which have been left undone. He felt the on-site road system is one of the major things which the developer promised three months ago would be brought back to the Commission; however, the project has been built as it was shown three months ago which will make it all the more difficult to get it changed. He said he was therefore not in a hurry to approve the sign program or even the Best Buy signs because these things will be in the community for 50 years. He recalled the Commission had been promised this center would match Terra Vista Town Center in every respect and he had expected that would extend even to the name, which is now Town Center Square. He said he was surprised to see different monument signs and that the sign program is not being presented in relationship to Terra Vista Town Center. He agreed with Commissioner McNiel and said he was offended. He observed the Commission has Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 12, 1994 held the line against canned signs with Ralph's being the only exception, which has a red background with a highly transparent white letter so that at night the whiteness is more apparent and the Ralph's sign is architecturally integrated into the face of the building. He said he would like to further study the sign program and he was not in favor of the Best Buy signs. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when the project was first presented, the Commission was told it would be an extension of Terra Vista Town Center and it would be as good with the outstanding features of the Town Center. He felt channel letters are much more appropriate than canned signs. He thought the sign is far too large. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. He did not feel the sign is appropriate for a center in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated that yellow is the color that is most visible from the greatest distance away. He thought the sign could be made substantially smaller and it would still read very well from a distance. Chairman Barker noted that a proposal had been made for a compromise of a 1-1/2 foot clearance top and bottom. He thought the sign is garish. He felt the envelope has been pushed by streamlining the process. He said the project was fast-tracked and he thought everyone would have been much happier if the sign had been left at its original size of 10 feet x 16 feet 6 inches. He noted that all of the Commissioners had expressed opposition to the Best Buy ticket sign but Commissioner Melcher had indicated a desire to further study the uniform sign program. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He thought the Commission should more carefully review the sign program because it is so different from Tetra Vista Town Center. Commissioner Melcher concurred. He said that all through the process, comments were made that this center would be an extension of Terra Vista Town Center. He agreed it has now become something different. He was not ready to accept the sign program. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Commissioner Melcher suggested a workshop be conducted so the developer could present the program and compare it to the Terra Vista Town Center program. He requested that illustrations be provided so the Commission could assess how it relates. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that in reviewing the sign program, staff recognized there was a difference between the two centers and there had been discussions about concepts of whether this is an extension of Terra Vista Town Center or a new center. He felt architectural vocabulary was the extension. He said staff accepted the rationale that there is probably good. reason for a sign program change. Me recalled that a large canned Best Buy sign had been presented at a previous meeting with the Commissioners and this user had always been up front with the fact that this particular sign is their corporate identification. He did not recall that sign color or size had been discussed. He said the Commission has always accepted corporate Planning Commission Minutes -16- October 12, 1994 identifications for major tenants and staff felt the only issue was size as it relates to architecture. He acknowledged that staff does not believe yellow is a welcoming color to the building architecture but he said in the past the Commission had always allowed a major tenant to have their corporate colors and identification as part of their sign. Commissioner McNiel recalled that when the architecture was presented it had a sign on it but the Commission had always indicated that no signs were approved until a sign program was approved for the center. Chairman Barker stated he had been aware of the color and style of the sign and his main concern at this time is the size. He noted the City wants the project and has fast tracked it but stated it now seems as if the applicant is now pushing to see how much it can get. Commissioner McNiel agreed the Commission had allowed the project to be fast tracked in order to accommodate the applicant and tenant. Chairman Barker said he supported staff in that he was aware of the color and image. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to go back through the exhibits they had seen and that he would be willing to alter his position somewhat if that was the case. He did not recall ever having seen the sign on the facade and certainly not imposed on the facade at that angle. Chairman Barker agreed he had not seen the sign at that angle. Commissioner Melcher recalled a rectangle being clearly illustrated when they saw the elevations in July. He said he considered those proportions as he looked at the composition of the facade of the building. He said he had not thought of it as a yellow tag even then. He doubted this building is further back from the street than the Target store and he believed Target's bull's eye is less than 6 feet in diameter. He suggested combining the yellow tag with a sign that reads Best Buy. He thought the matter needs more study. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner McNiel that the Commission has always said when a project is presented that a sign program would have to be worked out. He noted that some pretty interesting signs had been presented on a conceptual level that were subsequently not permitted when the sign programs were adopted. He observed that the developer is not new to the City and that each time the developer has presented a project, the Commission had always made the statement that a sign program dictates eventual signage, not conceptual drawings presented during project review. He hoped the Commission would have a workshop and suggested that the Commission have an opportunity to compare the Terra Vista Town Center program to this one. He said he had thought they were going to be alike. Chairman Barker agreed that it had also been his understanding that this center was a continuation of Terra Vista Town Center. Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 12, 1994 Mr. Buller recommended that the applicant be asked when they would be available to meet in the near future as the applicant intends to open in early November. He suggested a workshop on October 18. Mr. Beecher agreed to the date. He said they would do a comparison between Terra Vista Town Center and this program and said they had based'this sign program on the Terra Vista Town Center. He said they did take some exceptions which are now permitted by the Sign Ordinance which allow greater signage. He felt the format of the signage and the monument signage are all similar to Terra Vista Town Center. Chairman Barker observed that the Commissioners had all expressed the view that the sign program was going to be a continuance of the Terra Vista Town Center program and he thought the applicant should bear that in mind. Commissioner McNiel noted that Commissioner Melcher had suggested using the tag as a logo and some other signage or individual letters in conjunction with that as opposed to the enormous ocean of yellow. Commissioner McNiel felt that may increase the chances of approval. He was not sure if that was consistent with Best Buy's policy, but said he had found that most policies have flexibility. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to continue Town Center Square Uniform Sign Program to 5:30 p.m. on October 18, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments at this time. E. DESIGN EXCELLENCE AWARD Chairman Barker suggested wording for a plaque to be given to Mayor Stout at his farewell dinner. The Planning Commission reached a consensus on the wording to be used. Mr. Buller stated there had been a request from Lewis Homes for a workshop on the design review of Terra Vista Town Square, as they are ready to submit for the Pet Metro building adjacent to Best Buy. Planning Commission Minutes -18- October 12, 1994 Commissioner Melcher said he was willing to workshop the Pet Metro building so long as it is understood that the study would be completed before the matter comes before the Commission for final action. D. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the key elements of the work program. The Planning Commission discussed the priority of items they would like to address as staff resources are available. The Commissioners agreed that their first priority is the Commercial Land Use Market Study. They also discussed the importance of keeping all planning documents current so that the business community can be assured that the information they need is readily available, accurate, and up to date. Mr. Buller indicated that many of the planning documents need to be updated and reprinted to incorporate the amendments and changes that have occurred over the last several years. He said amendments are now being handed out as supplements to those documents. He reported that he understood the matter of the Commercial Land Use and Market Study would go to the City Council in November. He further indicated that staff will begin to develop a status report on updating efforts of the various planning documents. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0 to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October 18, 1994, for a workshop on Town Center Square Uniform Sign Program. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 12, 1994