Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/08/25 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steven Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he would like to discuss tentative workshop dates with Lewis Homes under Commission Business. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of August 11, 1993. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of the adjourned meeting of August ll, 1993, regarding the Route 30 Profile. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of the adjourned meeting of August ll, 1993, regarding Development Review 93-13 and Design Review for Tract 13316. Consent Calendar TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 - AKINS - A request for an extension of a previously approved County tract map consisting of 182 lots on 117 acres of land, located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-24, 25, and 26. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-12 - DAVIES - A request for a time extension for the development of Phases II and III of an industrial complex, containing six industrial buildings totaling 22,940 square feet on 2.2 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Feron Boulevard east of Helms Avenue - APN: 209-031-87 and 88. Commissioner Melcher requested that Item B be pulled for discussion. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, t~ adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE CHITIEA -carried B. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-12 Commissioner Melcher noted there appeared to be a conflict between the Time Extension and Item D on the agenda, Conditional Use Permit 93-22, which was for an interim use for the same location. He noted that if the Commission approved Item D, this use would expire during the approval time. Brad Buller, City Planner, acknowledged that was true and stated the applicant would have to apply for a new Development Review. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE CHITIEA -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-20 - EN AGAPE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP - A request to establish a church in an existing building totaling 12,825 square feet on 1.1 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9215 Arrow Route - APN: 209-012-09. (Continued from August 11, 1993.) Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if there would be lighting on the south end of the building. Mr. Coleman responded there is a light fixture on the southeast corner of the building. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel asked if the project would have access from Hellman Avenue or only from Arrow Route. Mr. Coleman responded that the parcel was previously owned by the same owner as the parcel fronting Hellman Avenue; but now that the church was on a separate parcel, it would only use access to Arrow Route even though the access to Hellman Avenue would not be physically blocked. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alan Dalmau, Pitassi-Dalmau Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, #105, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, stated the senior pastor, church treasurer, contractor, and realtor were available to answer questions. He stated they agreed with the staff report but would like to clarify two issues. He said they plan to restripe the parking lot and they would prefer 90-degree parking spaces rather than angled as shown in the site plan exhibit. He noted that the adjacent property owner was not allowing an ingress/egrees easement to Hellman Avenue other than for emergency access required by the Fire Department. He stated each property would have ingress and egress from their own separate driveways. Mr. Dalmau noted that the application is for a non-construction Conditional Use Permit and the only improvements being constructed by the church are to update the rest rooms and install a vestibule to the north. He requested that the Planning Commission eliminate the standard requirement for a sidewalk along Arrow Route. He noted that the curb and gutter exist and placement of a sidewalk would require removal of quite a few mature trees and moving a fire hydrant. He observed the parcel to the west is vacant. He stated the church was not opposed to installing the sidewalk at a future time, possibly when they convert the storage room to a gymnasium. He said the church needs all of its money to pay for the purchase of the building and remodeling of the interior. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if more parking would be required if and when the storage area is converted to a gymnasium. Mr. Coleman responded negatively. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. James to respond to the sidewalk condition. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, acknowledged that the application is for a non-construction Conditional Use Permit, but he said that the Development Code does not have separate requirements for non-construction conditional use permits. He said the Planning Commission has the right to require public improvements that are reasonable. He noted that staff had researched the files but was not able to find any similar situations. He observed that the church will be using the entire structure, as opposed to only a portion, and said Engineering staff felt it would be reasonable to require a sidewalk. He pointed out that although there is a vacant parcel adjacent to the site, the property to the west of the vacant parcel has an asphalt parkway and the property to the west of that has a sidewalk. He observed there is no street parking, so people would not be exiting their cars in front of the building. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel noted that Mr. Dalmau had suggested deferring the requirement for a sidewalk until the construction of a gymnasium. Mr. James responded that the construction of a gymnasium would be considered an alteration and additional requirements could not be tied to that alteration unless it intensified the use. He noted that a similar situation exists for Item F on tonight's agenda and felt the Commission should be consistent with sidewalk requirements for the two projects. Mr. Dalmau noted that a tenant is involved in Item F and the landlord could install the sidewalk for that tenant while the church is purchasing this site and does not have the money to finance the property or the ability to borrow more money. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt it would be reasonable to defer the sidewalk until construction of the gymnasium by tying it to this application. He commented that the Development Code gives the City the right to require those improvements which are necessary for the use of the property and he did not feel a sidewalk is necessary for use of the property. He observed that the present landscaping is uniform in front of the property and softens a rather plain building. He felt it would be best not to disturb the landscaping to provide a short stretch of sidewalk which would not connect to any other sidewalk. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the issue was whether a sidewalk is needed on both sides of the street on Arrow Route. He observed there is no parking along Arrow Route and a sidewalk is provided on the north side of the street. He did not feel a sidewalk is needed on the south side of the street. Commissioner Vallette stated she would support delaying the sidewalk until future development of the gymnasium. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that would be viable since the construction of the gymnasium would involve only interior changes. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the sidewalk could be deferred until construction of a gymnasium; however, he pointed out that the church may never put in the gymnasium and possibly the sidewalk would never be built. Commissioner Melcher suggested that a condition be added that the sidewalk would be required when the church further invested in the property by way of remodeling or a sidewalk is installed on either side. Mr. Hanson felt it may be hard to justify requiring the sidewalk when improvements are being made to adjacent property. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if a sidewalk is really needed on that side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel felt a sidewalk is needed and pointed out that there is a portion of sidewalk to the west. Commissioner Melcher pointed out that there is a large vacant property between that sidewalk and the church's property. Chairman McNiel observed that when the vacant property is developed it will most likely have a sidewalk. Commissioner Vallette remarked that Commission policy had always been to add infrastructure as redevelopment occurs. She wondered if the Commission was going to risk not getting a sidewalk because the Commissioners wished to be charitable. She thought the Commission would have to say there is no need for a sidewalk in the future. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that was the real issue. He thought the Commission should require a sidewalk now if it is felt a sidewalk should be there in the future. Chairman McNiel agreed and felt a sidewalk is needed for the future. · Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to be charitable and condition the sidewalk to be installed when the gymnasium is constructed. However, she acknowledged the gymnasium may never be built and she felt that would be the same as the Commission's stating no sidewalk is needed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt if the Commission established the need for a sidewalk, it should be installed now. Chairman McNiel felt the sidewalk is ultimately needed on both sides of the street. Commissioner Vallette asked if the width of the ingress and egress would be wide enough for two cars if the parking stalls are at 90-degree angles. Mr. Coleman answered affirmatively. Commissioner Vallette noted there are weeds and debris in the rear of the building which need to be removed. Chairman McNiel stated he was sure the church would clean up the area. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-20, with modification to provide for 90-degree parking spaces and removal of the weeds and debris from the rear of the building. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE MELCHER CHITIEA -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 25, 1993 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-22 - DAVIES - A request for an interim use to allow vehicle storage on 7.6 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9449 Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-032-23. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if a chain link fence with wooden slats is acceptable under the Development Code. Ms. Nissen responded that it is acceptable for interim uses only and interim uses cannot be in existence for more than five years. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Les Davies, 8737 Helms Avenue, stated the chain link fence with wooden slats would be on the north side of the property at Feron Boulevard. He noted the landscaping would be the primary screening. He stated that a new chain link fence would be installed on the eastern property line. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant had heard his concern that if this use lasted three years the approval for Development Review 89-12 would have expired. Mr. Davies stated he understood. Chairman McNiel noted that on the original project chain link fencing with landscaping had been allowed along Helms Avenue. He stated that every other plant appears to be dying in that landscaped area. Mr. Davies acknowledged that the landscaping has not taken over as well as they thought it would. He said that two types of plants were intermingled, and one seems to die back in the summer. Chairman McNiel felt the landscaping was not providing any screening. Mr. Davies responded that he would make sure the irrigation is running. Chairman McNiel asked if any other elements were considered other than chain link fence with wooden slats. Mr. Davies said they choose the wooden slats because they knew it would cover. He said they would be willing to plant some vines along the fence. He noted the bus company has a 3-year contract with Omni-Trans with two 1-year renewals. He said if the use winds up being permanent, they would talk about permanent screening. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette noted that Exhibit C indicates new landscaping will be installed along Feron Boulevard. She thought Chairman McNiel's concerns could be addressed if the trees are evergreen and hedging is required. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Melcher thought there is an approved landscape plan for the area. Chairman McNiel acknowledged that was correct and it is to be consistent with the balance of the park. Commissioner Vallette asked if they are evergreen trees. Chairman Mcniel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Davies said they are a mix of trees including some crape myrtles. Ms. Nissen stated the landscape plans had already been approved. Chairman McNiel asked that the landscaping be enhanced and vines be added to the fence. He requested that the slats be placed in the chain link fence to provide temporary screening until the vines grow in. Mr. Davies indicated that would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-22 with additional vines. Commissioner Vallette stated she would second the motion if enhanced landscaping were required as approved by the City Planner. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the streetscape has already been approved and some has already been installed. He did not feel the landscaping should be changed. Commissioner Vallette felt that as the use is temporary and the fencing material is not typical for permanent use, it would be acceptable to ask for more landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy noted the fencing material is permitted. Commissioner Vallette felt the City Planner could determine how much the landscaping could be enhanced. Chairman McNiel noted the types of plants are already established but he felt a few more could be added to camouflage the chain link fence. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he could look at the plans to determine if another tree or two could fit. He noted there is room behind the fence and he felt placing some landscaping behind the fence may make the fence seem to disappear. Commissioner Melcher noted the applicant has an approved landscape plan and he felt placing additional requirements for a temporary use means that the Industrial Area Specific Plan as written is inadequate. He thought the Industrial Area Specific Plan should be changed if the Commissioners feel it Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 25, 1993 is inadequate. He stated he would vote against the project because he felt it is unfair to require additional landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his motion stood to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-22 with enhanced landscaping and vines. Commissioner Vallette confirmed her second. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE MELCHER CHITIEA -carried Chairman McNiel observed that in virtually any other circumstance, chain link fencing would not be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher agreed that slatted chain link fence is not attractive, but he noted that there are other kinds of temporary uses where chain link is allowed to enclose the parcels for a long period of time. He felt the standards should be uniform. He noted the Commission appeared to be finding that the standards are inadequate and he felt standards should be applied equally to other temporary uses. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-23 - MONTESSORI ACADEMY - A request to establish a private school in a leased space of 4,000 square feet in the Vineyard West office park in the General Industrial District (Subarea 1) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8560 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 510 - APN: 207-262-49. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and remarked that the Fire District has now indicated that a two-hour fire separation wall will be required between different occupancy classifications and that 6-foot wide fire rated corridors, fire alarms, and fire exit hardware need to be provided. He said detailed plans depicting compliance would have to be submitted prior to occupancy. Chairman McNiel asked if the additional Fire District requirements had been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Hayes replied that the applicant had been in direct contact with the Fire Marshal and had a signed agreement with the Fire District regarding a delay in the installation of sprinklers. Commissioner Vallette noted that she had observed work going on in the building. She asked if the tenant improvements are already taking place. Mr. Hayes replied that the school has indicated they hope to be ready to start the school year in September. Commissioner Melcher asked if a loading area for students had been discussed with the applicant. He recalled that the Commission had expressed concerns Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 25, 1993 about that matter when it reviewed another school being placed in a business park. He observed that this building is near a driveway and he felt there may be a high volume of traffic because of the proximity to the service station. Mr. Hayes felt the applicant could better address the matter. He noted a van will be used to transport some of the students and he thought the class times will be staggered, so students would have varying arrival times. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Kris Thewes, Administrator of Montessori Academy, 7658 Ganby Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that Sandra Schmidt, the head of the school, was available to answer questions. She questioned the two-hour fire wall requirement and said she had previously been aware of a one-hour fire wall. She said she had spoken with the Fire District and the building owner and had been told they meet all the requirements. She asked where a corridor will go. She acknowledged that the school is currently being painted. Chairman McNiel asked where the children would be dropped off. Ms. Thewes indicated they proposed having students dropped off to the east of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the parents were required to sign in the students. Ms. Thewes replied that students sign themselves in and out; therefore, parents generally just drop off and pick up the students without having to park their cars. Commissioner Vallette observed that the facility in Claremont has a lot of open play area. She expressed concern about not having an adjacent play area because the school was being retrofitted into an office/professonal area. She asked what was planned regarding the use of the park and transportation of students to the park. Ms. Thewes responded that the school feels it is very important that students spend a good amount of time outdoors. She said they have a physical education program every day after lunch utilizing the park. She said she had been watching the park to see if there would be any conflicts and had observed that during school days there is very little use of the park. She stated the students would be supervised and the teacher would accompany the students to and from the park. She commented that walking to and from the park would be incorporated as part of the physical fitness program. Commissioner Vallette asked if they planned to build a permanent facility in the near future. Ms. Thewes replied it is their goal to build a permanent school at their property on Base Line Avenue but it is not currently economically feasible. She said they want to get a larger clientele established in the area. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette asked the status of the work of the subcommittee for developing criteria for private schools. Chairman McNiel stated they had met with Wolff/Lang/Christoper and received some data regarding schools. He stated no criteria were developed and they had ideas but no recommendations. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission ~ould go forward with the ideas. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-23. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Commissioner Vallette indicated she had voted no because she feels there is a need for adjacent outdoor play areas and her concerns for the safety of students. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-21 - ROBERT L. FISHER, SR. - A request to permit an indoor shooting range within a 7,280 square foot building on a 16,755 square foot lot within the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9049 9th Street - APN: 209-013-37. Steven Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and noted that the standard conditions had been omitted from the packets, but had since been provided for the Commissioners and applicant. Commissioner Melcher noted that this was the other Conditional Use Permit project with the sidewalk condition. sidewalk exists on Flower Street. non-construction He asked if the Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied negatively. He said the applicant was only being asked to install a sidewalk along the major street, 9th Street and there are intermittent sidewalks along 9th Street. Commissioner Vallette questioned if the wrought iron fencing which separates the parking is to be removed. Chairman McNiel questioned the construction of the roll-up doors. Mr. Ross replied that the doors will be covered with 1/4 inch steel plate with an exterior covering to give an appearance similar to the building's appearance and sound attenuation on the interior. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to access the building through the roll-up doors. Mr. Ross replied negatively. Chairman McNiel questioned the security of the retail stock after hours. Mr. Ross said the applicant had indicated the retail would be similar to a pro shop with a small display. He said they plan to have hand guns available for use at the site and those guns are to be locked in a safe after hours. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what caliber guns would be used. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Robert Fisher, 766 South Lugo Street, San Bernardino. He said they would be able to accommodate handguns, 22 rifles, and 30 carbines of 22 caliber up to a 44 magnum. He said all ammunition would have to be plated for environmental reasons. Chairman McNiel questioned the construction of the partitions at the firing line. Mr. Fisher replied that each stall would have a 6-foot long partition protruding 4 feet behind and 2 feet in front of the firing line. He said the partitions would be 3-inch thick concrete laminated with plywood and 12-gauge steel to protect the adjoining patrons. He stated loading will take place within the partitions. Chairman McNiel asked if the bullets would deflect from the wall at the end of the firing range. Mr. Fisher said they would not and there will be a state-of-the-art bullet trap. Chairman McNiel asked about the sound attenuation. Mr. Fisher described a combination of sound board, steel plate, and air gaps. Commissioner Melcher asked if members of the public are allowed to bring their own weapons, and if so, if the business is required to ascertain that people have the proper permits to carry weapons. Mr. Fisher replied that people can bring their own weapons and the business does not have to check for proper permits. He said individuals entering are asked to bring their weapons in an unloaded condition, either holstered or in a box. Commissioner Vallette asked if the wrought iron fencing will be removed. Mr. Fisher responded that the wrought iron will remain and the gates will be locked when the shooting range closes for the night. He said they would have Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 25, 1993 a sophisticated alarm system and wrought iron on the inside windows. reported he also locks up all weapons in a safe at night. He Commissioner Vallette asked the duties of the range masters. Mr. Fisher replied that they will go in and out of the shooting area but can observe the shooting from the back counter through bullet proof windows. He said they have microphones, so that they can speak to the shooters. He stated the range masters will also work individually with patrons to show them how to use guns safely. Commissioner Vallette asked if any of the guns would be for sale over the counter. Mr. Fisher replied they will have a display of guns for rental only and no firearms would be for sale except through ordering. Commissioner Vallette expressed concerns about the number of guns which would be on the premises on hold for customers. Mr. Fisher replied that they would probably have three to five guns on hold for customers. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant had any objections to installing a sidewalk along 9th Street. Mr. Fisher responded that his landlord had stated he would take care of the sidewalk. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the facility will provide a good opportunity for citizens to get firearm education and to practice shooting without going up into the mountains. He supported the use. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-21. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE CHITIEA -carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-25 - MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL AND COMMUNITY CENTER OF AMERICA (M.E.C.C.A.) - A request to establish a church within a 3,844 square foot leased space in an existing building on 2 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9375 Feron Boulevard, Suites I and J - APN: 209-032-17. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Nadir Khan, M.E.C.C.A., 6149 Amberwood Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they were willing to abide by the conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-25. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE CHITIEA -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request to amend the approved Uniform Sign Program for Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and distributed a color version of the proposed food court sign. Chairman McNiel questioned why the sign at the south end of the traffic circle was so large. Ms. Fong replied that the applicant wants the sign to be readable from the second on-site driveway intersection north of Foothill Boulevard, the one by Buildings Q and R. She stated they want the sign to be visible over vehicles entering the traffic circle. Commissioner Vallette questioned if it would be possible to differentiate that the proposed traffic circle signs are internal monument signs in order to avoid setting a precedent for large external monument signs. Ms. Fong thought they could be called internal monument signs because they do not face any public streets. Commissioner Melcher observed that the landscaping in the traffic circle appears to be declining. Ms. Fong stated that the applicant proposes a metal railing fencing around the traffic circle and staff has determined the landscaping scheme should be changed to serve as a backdrop, subject to City Planner review and approval. Chairman McNiel asked the distance between Buildings Q and R and the traffic circle. Ms. Fong replied it is approximately 300 feet. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 25, 1993 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Paula Dempsey, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated that Mike Lasley and Rick Mager from Western Properties and Dave Holtz and Brad Franksen from Signage Solutions were also present. She said they feel the food court has an identification problem. She stated they had conducted a sampling of shoppers and 34 percent were unaware of the food court. She felt the proposed signs maintain the standards of the center. She said they also would be putting in enhanced lighting and a music system in the food court area. She stated they had created a banner the size of the proposed sign and held it in place and feel it is acceptable. She observed that smaller signs are proposed for the east and west sides of the traffic circle because the distance is less. She showed a picture of a revised wall sign to address staff's concerns about the extension into the roof line. Commissioner Melcher asked if they had taken any pictures of the banner of the proposed monument sign. Ms. Dempsey replied they had not but they would be happy to invite the Commissioners to see it. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that when the center was designed, the intent was to keep things at pedestrian scale and he felt the traffic circle sign is too large. Ms. Dempsey noted that there is no sidewalk adjacent to the sign in the center of the traffic circle and pedestrians would be across the street from it. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the width of the street. Ms. Fong replied it would be 26 feet. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the sign would appear out of scale from 26 feet away. Ms. Dempsey felt the width of the sign would make the sign not appear too tall. She felt it will not be overwhelming to pedestrians. She suggested that if the Commission would approve the concept, they could work with the Planning staff regarding the size. Commissioner Vallette asked the proposed height of the sign. Ms. Dempsey replied it is 11 feet to the ground. Mike Lasley, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, felt they could work with staff regarding the size. He observed that the lettering is only 13 inches high. He said the traffic circle is a focal point and they need visibility from the intersection by Buildings Q and R. Chairman McNiel stated that he appreciated the need to increase business in the food court area, but he felt most of the restaurants are "airportish." He stated there had been a lot of thought about the placement of the buildings at Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 25, 1993 an angle and he feared such a large sign destroys the image and blocks the view corridor to those buildings. He suggested several small monument signs at the intersections would be better. He felt the proposed sign is too large and appears like a carnival. Ms. Dempsey said that one of the challenges of the food court has been that it is difficult to attract national tenants. She said that food courts are designed to be a compliment to the retail uses and they need to attract the center patrons to the area. Commissioner Vallette feared that accepting such a large sign would set the tone for the rest of the City. Mr. Lasley said they feel the sign is an internal monument sign and should be at their discretion. He said they are trying to have a sign that the design professionals feel will work and they would be happy to work with staff to lower the sign. Commissioner Vallette felt that if the sign had been proposed with the original project, it would not have been acceptable. Mr. Lasley observed that originally the food court was planned to be located only north of the traffic circle, but it now includes some users in the back of the southern buildings by the traffic circle. He therefore felt the identification sign should be located at the traffic circle. He said they hope to add color and excitement. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the food court needs better advertising, but she expressed concerns about how approval of such a large sign would affect future policy. Mr. Lasley felt the Commission could differentiate between internal and external monument signs. He said they were willing to reduce the size but they wish to identify the area with a symbol. Brad Buller, City Planner, felt staff could work with the size and he felt there could be justification as to why this site is unique. He noted there are no other traffic circles in commercial projects and the distance from the street is also great. He suggested the Commission consider the size as a separate issue from the design. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the height of the ribbon and the kind of material for the sign. Brad Franksen, Signage Solutions, Anaheim, replied the ribbon is 12 inches high and the sign is aluminum. Commissioner Vallette asked if they foresee problems with vandalism. Mr. Lasley replied they have continuous security in the area and do not anticipate any problems. Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Vallette recalled there had been some concerns raised by Commissioners regarding the Montgomery Wards signs and she felt those signs are acceptable. She felt perhaps this sign was acceptable, but in a reduced size. Chairman McNiel felt the damage done to the view corridor is more than just the size of the sign. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the sign is neither pedestrian nor automobile scale. He feared the sign will cut out the airiness of the food court. He suggested putting the words "food court" on the ribbon, eliminating the bulls eye, and making the sign smaller and shorter. Mr. Lasley did not feel that was an acceptable solution. Commissioner Melcher felt there are many elements affecting the busyness of the food court. He thought that when the property to the north is developed with businesses, that will bring in more foot traffic to the food court. He felt the air conditioning in most of the restaurants is inadequate when the afternoon sun comes in making the restaurants too hot and the outdoor area is too windy. He thought the traffic circle area is part of the greenway system in the center and the sign would spoil the view of the fountain. He felt much of the visual continuity of the center would be destroyed with the sign and he observed the back of the sign would be viewed from the food court area. He thought the sign would add visual clutter to the traffic circle and the idea should be rethought from scratch. Chairman McNiel thought everyone was in agreement that there is a problem and proper signs may help mitigate the problem but he did not feel that the proposed signs are the solution. He felt the sign is overwhelming. Mr. Lasley said they would like approval or denial. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the wall sign being proposed. Chairman McNiel asked if the signs could be considered separately. Mr. Buller commented they had been submitted as a package. Chairman McNiel felt the traffic circle signs should be treated as a package. He did not object to the revised wall sign but he acknowledged it would establish a theme. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not support the traffic circle signs but he felt the revised wall sign to be appropriate. However, he thought the wall sign should conform with the theme which would be established with approval of the traffic circle signs. Chairman McNiel stated that the landscaped areas were designed to be what they currently are and he felt the signs would destroy the entire concept. Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Tolstoy felt it should not be necessary to make the sign visible at the intersection over cars because he did not think there are always vehicles in the throat of the traffic circle. He suggested the sign be brought down to conventional monument size, approximately 8 feet. Commissioner Vallette noted the applicant had expressed a willingness to reduce the size of the sign. She thought the applicant may be willing to go as low as 8 feet. Mr. Lasley stated they would be willing to work with staff. situation is unique because of the traffic circle. He stated the Chairman McNiel felt staff had a good idea of what the Commission is looking for. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the applicant should work with staff and the matter could be brought back to the Commission. He thought consideration should be given to the view from the food court looking south. Mr. Lasley said that was why they had agreed to work with staff on the landscaping. He remarked they want to install the sign by Thanksgiving. He requested that the Commission approve the design. Mr. Buller suggested that the applicant set up the banner they had prepared and have staff take photographs to show the Commission at their next meeting. Richard Mager, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue,' Upland, stated they would be delighted to work with staff but they have struggled with signage for the food court for two years and they had worked on these proposed signs for five months. He said they like the festive nature of the signs and the logo and believe something needs to be done in the traffic circle. He said they tried to create a screen wall to define the circle as a space and designed the lattice work to tie in with the rest of the center and provide the base for the sign. He indicated the ribbon was to create a festive design in connection with the logo of the shopping center depicting the palm trees placed in the middle of the bulls eye. He said they want something they can all be proud of. He felt the past year's experience with the Plaza de Cafe low monument signs have demonstrated that they don't work. He remarked that the traffic circle is below the grade of the food court and he felt people sitting at the food court would look over the sign. He said they were not trying to stop the eye, but rather to allow people to look through the sign. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the low wall around the traffic circle might be solid and then filled in with dirt to raise the level of the plants in the circle. Chairman McNiel noted that Mr. Mager had identified the separate components of the sign. He felt the Commission's main objection was the size of the sign, resulting in obstruction of the view and an overwhelming appearance. He asked what other steps the applicant was taking. Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 25, 1993 Mr. Mager replied that the traffic circle signage is but one component of the solution they hope to create for the project with a series of additional embellishments. He said they hope to introduce banner and blade signs for the entire project. He indicated they plan to put in $260,000 worth of signs and the traffic circle monument sign is only 20 percent of that amount. He asked if the Commission was looking for a refinement of the concept for the next meeting. Mr. Buller stated that his thought was not to refine the concept but rather to bring back pictures of what the proposed sign would look like at various heights. Mr. Lasley commented that they have addressed the look of the back of the sign and the colors will be repeated there. Mr. Mager asked if the Commissioners could give clear direction that the design concept is acceptable with the bulls eye, logo, ribbon, and food court name. Commissioner Melcher felt it could work. Chairman McNiel agree it could probably work. Commissioner Melcher felt it was worth the applicant's time to pursue. It was agreed that the matter would be continued to September 8, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Vallette requested that the Commission receive an update on the status of standards for private schools. Commissioner Vallette suggested that there be further discussion regarding the use of chain link fencing for interim uses. Commissioner Melcher felt that interim uses can have a negative impact on surrounding properties. Commissioner Vallette requested that the matter be placed on a future agenda for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 25, 1993 Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked what dates the Commissioners would be available for a workshop with Lewis Homes regarding development in Terra Vista. It was the consensus of the Commission that September 9 at 5:00 p.m. would be available and that Mr. Buller would check with Lewis Homes to see if they would be available. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adjourn. 10:10 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following in the Rains Room regarding Development Review 93-13. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 25, 1993