The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997/03/26 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY MARCH 26, 1997 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Bethel__ Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Macias m Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 12, 1997, Adjourned Meeting IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS - A request to vacate Vehicular Access Rights over Orange Street and Bristol Drive as shown on Tract Map 9302, associated with Tentative Tract 15726. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. (Continued from March 11, 1997) Vl. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Go REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN TO 'AMEND THE STREET SECTIONS FOR WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AND YOUNGS CANYON ROAD. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not a/ready appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS D. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report) IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-32. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 20, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 2"' VICINITY MAP .:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ......................................................................:.:.:.:.:...: ....:..-...................................:.:....:.:.:..:.:.: ......: ............................ ........., -.I I ...............'.'-':':':'.':':' ': ...............: ......:.. -:.--:.: ....:.'.'.'.'-'.'-':': ......:': .....:':'-: ....:..:.--:.: ......:- .:-'.'-'.:.'.'.'.'-'.':':":': ....:" -:.:.: ....:' A,T.& S.F. ;R CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUC_&MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 26, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS - A request of vacate Vehicular Access Right over Orange Street and Bristol Drive as shown on Tract Map 9302, associated with Tentative Tract 15726 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On June 12, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 96-38, and approved Tentative Tract 15726. During the plan review process it ~vas discovered that Tract 9302, located to the east of the tentative tract, dedicated vehicular access rights. - Tract 9302, an old County tract, recorded October 5, 1977, dedicated 1 foot strips across the dead-end portion of Orange Street and Bristol Drive, for the purposes of dedicating vehicular access rights. The tentative tract for circulation purposes will be connecting to the dead-end portions of Orange Street and Bristol Drive, and in order to do so, the existing vehicular access rights need to be vacated. The vacation of the vehicular access rights is consistent with the General plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding though minute action that the subject proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. The finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing. Respectfully submitted, Dan James ~' Senior Civil Engineer DJ:JAD Attachments: Vicinity Map (E:daibit 'A') Proposed vacation of access rights (Exhibit 'B') ITEM A Exhibit "A" VICINITY MAP > < (D ' .< o i LEMON AVENUE ~ . ORANGE STREET BRISTOL DRIVE l__ TENTATIVE TRACT 15726 HIGHLAND AVENUE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Tentative T~'act No. 15726 /'- X EXItlBIT 'B' ~'~ "1" 3 HIGHLAND AVENUE ~,' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Vacate Vehicular Access R. ights I:ilc: h:\cxhihils\acccssrt CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. (Continued from February 26, and March 11, 1997). BACKGROUND: At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission further continued this project at their meeting of March 11, 1997. Since then, staff has been in contact with the applicant to discuss the Preliminary Design Guidelines prepared by the applicant. The applicant was notified about potential issues and it was recommended that the guidelines be expanded to include more information regarding the architecture for future buildings within the Master Plan area. Because the direction of the Commission to staff was only to prepare a Resolution of Denial, staff has not performed a detailed analysis of the Preliminary Design Guidelines. Staffs cursory review indicates that the guidelines are incomplete. The most critical component, "Architectural Theme," is blank and does not provide the required text and graphics indicating architectural concepts including style, various product types (major anchor, inline retail shops, freestanding pads), form, bulk, height, etc. RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission, a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration. In addition, the previously prepared Resolution of Approval is attached. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Preliminary Design Guidelines Exhibit "B" - March 11 & February 26, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Reports Exhibit "C" - February 26, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes Resolution of Denial Resolution of Approval ITEM B RECEIVED DESIGN GUIDELINES ('Preliminary) t~AR 1. 0 City o! Rancho Cucamonga planning 'Dwisioa \t Southwest Comer of Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave., Rancho CucamoNo. a Developed by Rodriguez Jr. _3 PROJECT DESIGN GOALS ARCHITECTURE THENIE COLORS ANT) FI, 1SHES N CENTER ACCESSORIES HARDSCAPE TRELLISES AND ,ARBORS BUS STOP AND TI:LqSH ENCLOSL'RES £¥ The objective is to create a unique PL.--XCE that the public will find original and exciting. The ultimate design wil capture and reuse the rich architectual heritage of the immediate vicinip,,' of where the prqiect is located. The architecture ranges from adobe srvle construction with a wine~' theme in the earlx 1800's ( Thomas Wineo'): fired burned brick and mortar style construction with a southern accent in the late 1800's ( Raines House ); Spanish revival with lath and plaster style construction set in the late 1920's ( Klusman House ): and field rock with corrugated metal used for various ranch related buildings. MAJOR TENANT Phase Design Review Conm~ittee SHOPS Phase Design Reviexv Committee FI:RJEE STANDING PADS Design Revie~v Committeei [~el[r. jR AND FINISHES EXTERIOR WALLS , \~,~-tlTE WASH STUCCO WALLS TwO PIECE CLAY TILE [WOOD STAIN' ROOFING CORRUGATED METAL EXPOSED WOOD AREAS STONE FACING SI M"ULATED WOOD SHINGLE WATER ELEMENTS co~.oas W~L V,~R¥ BENCHES ART PIECES PqTER.AC.TIVE \\'ATER ELEMENT The art piece for the center shall be one of the following: Project Theme - Historical - Abstract TI:LAS H RECEPTACLES EXTERIOR TABLES AND CHAIRS USED INACTI\'IT~ CENTER POTTED PLA. NTS BtCY'CLE RACKS PARKl%~G LOT LIGHT BOLLARDS Parking lot area and pedestrian areas will have two different stTles exaci sb,'le and color to be decided· COLORS \;'ILL VARY PUBLIC SIDE WALK BRICK. OR COLOR£D CONCRETE ACTIVITY CENTER INFRONT OF HOUSE NATURAL CONCRETE ' - USED INSTEAD OF' RED WALKWAY AT PAD BLi[LD[NGS POSSIBLE COLORS TO BE USED IN TRINI AREAS PARKING LOT WALKWAYS CIRCULATION AISLE ENTRY TO CENTER J TRELLISES SOLED [~ON, NO TUBE STEEL 1920'S WROUGHT IRON FOR SPANISH STYLE BUILDINGS REDWOOD FOR WINERY STYLE BUILDINGS ARBORS Arbors for pedestrians not planned at the moment II[,JS ST()P AND TRASH ~N ,CLOSUB~S / BUS STOP . -. . ._ ~ C." ~: ~'~-. ' ~x/ ~" .~? r~ z" ~ : : CONCRETE BENCH T~SH CAN TRASH ENCLOSU~RE Trash enclosures shall match the architectual style of the closest buildin~ or shall be built of rock in basic ranch style. /- DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from February 26, 1997). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced project at its meeting on February 26, 1997. Because of the significant number of recommended Conditions of Approval and the overall lack o.f information on certain issues, the Planning Commission continued this item until March 11, 1997, for the purpose of having staff prepare a Resolution of Denial. Both the original Resolution of Approval and the new Resolution of Denial have been attached to this staff report. Staff has met with the applicant on two separate occasions since the last Planning Commission meeting to identify those issues which are being conditioned that normally would have been addressed prior to a request for Phase One approval. The applicant has indicated an interest in preparing a draft set of Design Guidelines for his project as soon as possible. Staff will present at the meeting any updated information from our meetings with the applicant. The applicant has stated his desire to work with the Commission and staff and address any unresolved issues. If the Planning Commission denies the current application, no application for a Conditional Use Permit for the same or substantially the same use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year per Development Code Section 17.04.030.H. RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, ~e~ City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 26, 1997 Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolution of Denial /- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related File: Pre-Application Review 95-04. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Go Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant; Community Commercial'- South Vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East Service Station and Condominiums; Community Commercial and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West Vacant; Flood Control and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Commercial North- Commercial South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Commercial and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site currently contains the historic Klusman House and related on- site improvements in the north central portion of the property. The balance of the site is currently vacant, and curb and gutter exist along the entire property frontage. D. Parkinq Calculations: Square Type of Use Footaqe PHASE ONE Drive-thru Facility 2,900 Restaurant 5,548 Outdoor Eating Area 2,000 Proposed & Existing Pad Buildings 11.030 PHASE ONE TOTAL 21,478 Number of Number of Parking Spaces Spaces Ratio Required Provided 1/75 39 1/100 55 1/100 20 1/250 44 158 230 MASTER PLAN TOTAL 74,478 1/200 372 414 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 93-04 of the project on April 14, 1993; however, the scheme was considerably different from Conditional Use Permit 95-25. The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 95-04 of the new project on October 25, 1995. The Commission identified a number of significant design issues. Staff identified several setback deficiencies, (see attached Exhibits "J" and "K"). The applicant formally submitted their request for this Conditional Use Permit on August 29, 1995. Unfortunately, the originally submitted development plans did not address the Commission's concerns and required a Variance. During the public hearing for Variance 96-01, the applicant requested a continuance when it appeared that the Commission would not support the request. At the applicant's request, the Commission continued indefinitely the hearing for Variance 96-01 on April 24, 1996. The project was subsequently redesigned to conform to required building and parking setbacks. Attached in Exhibit "L" is a chronology of the processing of this project. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to develop Phase One of a larger shopping center with this application. The phase considered specifically under this application includes a Burger King drive-thru facility, a sit down restaurant with outdoor eating area and all related landscape and parking lot improvements, including the on-site improvements within the pedestrian activity center, as shown on the proposed phasing plan (see Exhibit "C"). As part of this phase of development, the existing parking area for the historic Klusman House (labeled as "Existing Building" on the Site Plan) will be modified and upgraded. Even though shown as part of Phase One, Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are shown in concept only and are not proposed to be built at this time; they will be required to go through a separate application through the Development Review process. The primary vehicular access to the project is proposed to be provided from driveways off both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. A secondary service driveway access is shown in concept on the Master Plan; this driveway would be intended to serve as access for large service vehicles only for the major tenants within the next phase of development. An extension of the pedestrian activity center is being proposed on-site near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The use of the diagonally spaced Crape Myrtle trees and special paving is incorporated into the project design along the public right-of-way along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway access. Within the on-site expansion area is a proposed fountain with seating around its perimeter and expansive use of special paving in a circular pattern. In addition to these amenities, the applicant has also stated that additional seating areas will be provided and tenants within the buildings flanking the activity center will be carefully selected to enhance the pedestrian use of this area. Burger King has been designed to be consistent with the Interim Design Policies for drive-thru facilities established by the Planning Commission. The building and drive-thru lane is set back 45 feet from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue and a combination of low walls and landscaping is proposed to completely screen activity in the drive-thru lane from view of Vineyard Avenue. The vehicular circulation pattern proposed for the Burger King is similar to that utilized at the Taco Bell at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues; the drive aisle directly adjacent to the Burger King is proposed to be one-way so that traffic does not overflow into the main driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue. In order to make it more obvious that this drive aisle is intended to be one way for southbound traffic PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 3 only, on-site directory signage and painted arrows on the asphalt will be used to properly direct customers to the drive-thru lane, the parking spaces lining the adjacent drive aisle have been angled at 45 degrees, and the planter islands at the south end of the drive aisle have been expanded by using rolled curbing and turf-block, thus narrowing the width of the access to the main east/west drive aisle at this location. The proposed Master Plan includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant (i.e. a supermarket) and shop buildings totaling approximately 13,750 square feet. These buildings are shown south of and adjacent to the main east/west drive aisle with the main entrances facing the field of parking north of the buildings. On the south side of these buildings are potential loading docks with service drive areas for large vehicles. The Master Plan is not being considered at this time and is conceptual only. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed this item on numerous occasions as courtesy reviews prior to staff deeming the application complete. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) on February 18, 1997. The Committee determined that the applicant had not submitted the previously requested Roof Plan for Burger King nor provided sufficient information to explain the roof equipment. The applicant also wasn't sure whether the chimney element was to remain or if it was no longer functional and would be removed. The-applicant indicated that his architect was not cooperating in providing plans. The Committee did not recommend approval and asked the applicant to provide plans and answer a number of specific questions regarding roof equipment, prior to tonight's meeting. Technical Review Committee: On January 2, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. Gradinq Committee: The project was reviewed on several occasions by the Grading Committee but was rejected each time for incomplete plans and drainage problems. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on February 18, 1997. The applicant chose to drain approximately two-thirds of the site to a drainage facility at the southwest comer o; the site which consists of graded berms designed to direct surface runoff into a basin, which feeds into a 36-inch pipe connecting into Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. The proposed drainage system was rejected for the following reasons: The overflow spillway height is 3 feet higher than the berm at the southeast corner of the basin area; therefore, water will overflow the berms before reaching the spillway. The overflow would drain uncontrolled onto the property to the south. The applicant has not obtained a letter of acceptance from this property owner. If not maintained properly, the drain pipe inlet may become plugged with mud and debris which would result in water ponding up to 10 feet deep. Historically, staff has recommended no greater than 18 inches of ponding to avoid creating an attractive nuisance and safety hazard. The area could be enclosed with a 6-8 foot high wrought iron fence. Surface runoff from the southerly parking lot is collected into a graded swale along the south property line which is proposed to drain westerly; however, the grade is 5.5 feet lower than the basin berm height. The plans simply do not show how the site will be graded to get the water from the par,~jot swale uphill to the basin. To achieve the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 4 necessary 1 percent flow grade, the parking lot would have to be raised about 9 feet higher than shown on Grading Plan. This would result in a fill condition of approximately 7 feet and create a 13-foot high wall along the south property line. At the time this report was prepared, staff was working with the applicant to revise the Grading Plan and drainage design to resolve these issues. The applicant was directed to submit a revised Grading Plan prior to tonight's meeting. An oral update will be provided. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. A portion of the site is located with a fault study zone; hence, a geologic report was prepared. Staff found that although the project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment in several areas (i.e. traffic, noise, air quality, geology, water, aesthetics) the project will not have a significant impact on the environment with the recommended mitigation measures being incorporated into the project design and/or being monitored on a periodic basis by staff. All of the recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Refer to attached Initial Study for detailed analysis. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-25 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Attachments: Exhibit"A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "B-2" - Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "F-I" - Exhibit "F-2" - Exhibit "F-3" - thru "F-5" Exhibit "G" - Exhibit "H" - Exhibit 'T' - Exhibit "J" - Exhibit "K" - Exhibit "L" - Exhibit "M" Site Utilization Phase One Site Plan Master Plan Phasing Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Conceptual Grading Plan Building Elevations (Burger King) Roof Screen Alternatives Burger King Roof Plan Burger King Roof Equipment Plans dated Feb. 4, 18, & 20, 1997, consecutively Building Elevations (Restaurant) Design Review Committee Comments Initial Study, Part II Pre-Application Review 93-04 Minutes Pre-Application Review 95-04 Minutes Project Chronology Photographs of Site Resolution of Approval with Condition~/~) UTI L~ ZATION KEY NAP f~z. ot. mll boulevard ~ CONCEPTUAL /'qc~s-/-,,r F~t~ I~'~ ~oo~11 boulevord ~ SITE PLAN -, ;.r'TTl.u T~qVT~oulevard ,~. : -t--Ii'- iiI CONCEPTUAl lANDSCAPE PIAN~"~ ! HY~qC~oGY DATA :"' C C.'A/';1ERC CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN Z 0 0 0 ~J : DINING DRIVE THRU Wi KIT ~' 18.5t ROOF EQUIPMENT PLAN 2~'-0' DINING WINDOW K~~iqEN" RECEIVED FEB 2 0 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 0 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS .5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes May 14, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square tbot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard'ired Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from May 1, 1996) Design Parameters: The site is currently developed ~`.4th a single family residence that has been converted to commercial uses. The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The balance of the site is undeveloped with a gradual slope from north to south. The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP) as an activity center. Background: On October 25, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application workshop on the application. The Commission considered a site plan almost identical to the plans submined with the current application. The Commission felt that the location of the drive-thru facility adjacent to the Klusman House `.`.,as not acceptable. Also, the Commission did not believe introductioh of a drive-thru facility within the activit2' center was appropriate. The complete minutes of the Pre-Application are attached for the Commirtee's reference. Related Application: In conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant has submitted a Vahance application to address buildinglind parking setback deficiencies along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The Variance application was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on March 27, 1996, but was continued to April 24, 1996, at the request of the applicant. If the variance application is denied, the project site plan would have to be significantly modified. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The follo,.`.'ing broad design issues ,.viii be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The comer of FootNil Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the FBSP as an activity center. The intent of the activity center is to allow buildings to be pulled closer to the street to create a pedestrian friendly environment. The FBSP encourages public entrances to be oriented toward Foothill Boulevard. Also, buildings should be designed and sited to minimize pedestrians/vehicular conflicts and avoid locating driveways and ser~,ice areas wNch interfere with the flow of Foothill Boulevard pedestrian mox'ements. The design provided by the applicant introduces the drive-thru lane for Burger King in the middle of the activiD' center block. Not only is the access to Burger King oriented away from Foothill Boulevard, but the wall necessau' to screen the drive-thru lane inhibits pedestrian access across the frontage to specific points. -) The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The exterior of the house has been improved over the past few years and man5' improvements were made to the interior to accommodate commercial uses. As a local landmark, staff believes that the site should be designed to "show off' this local feature. The area west of the building has been maintained open to the drive aisle and, ultimately, to the street. A 40-foot landscaped setback is provided between the drive aisle and the structure. The applicant, however, has introduced a drive-thru lane and 4- foot high wall within 25 feet of the east side of the building. Also, the proposed Burger King is sited 15 feet closer to Foothill Boulevard than the existing house. The combination of the wall and the building location obscures visibilig' of the historic structure. The site should be redesigned to open up visibility of the Klusman House. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May14,1996 Page 2 The current drive-thru policies adopted by the Planning Commission require drive-thru lanes to be screened from public view. The drive-thru lane can be screened through building orientation, a combination of Low walls, and/or laridscaping, and trellis work. While the applicant is .proposing walls and a trellis, the drive-thru stac 'king area is located parallel to the street, resulting ~n the highest visibility. The drive-thru lane is also located adjacent to the activity center which is designed wSth hardscape and formal tree planting - little oppommity for landscaping exists. As suggested in the Pre-Application workshop, the drive-thru facility could be located to other areas of the site where the stacking lane could be screened by the building and/or more extensive landscaping. While the Design Review Committee does not review the Variance application, it is important to note the design implications of the reduced setbacks requested by the applicant. Along both Footh/I1 Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue the formal hardscape/landscape treatment required by the FBSP is interrupted. The double row of Crape Myrtle trees is reduced to a single row along the drive-thru lane and the restaurant building. The colonnade feeling of the double tree rows will be eliminated. The current drive-thru policy requires the drive-thru lane to be setback 45 feet from the face of curb. As proposed, the drive-thru lane is only'20 feet from the Foothill Boulevard curb. The plans should be revised to comply with the policy. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the follow-ing secondao.' design issues: The architecture proposed varies between the drive-thru faciliu' and the restaurant. The drive-thru facility is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails, vertical wood siding on the roof screen parapet, and a brown, fiat concrete tile. The restaurant is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails in some areas, clipped eaves in other areas, and a terra cota barrel tile roof. While, individually the styles may be acceptable, the building(s) should be redesigned to provide a consistent architectural theme for the center. Additional architectural treatment should be provided to the south elevation of the drive-thru faciliD' and the east elevation of the restaurant to break up fiat stucco walls. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the activity center to extend from Vineyard westerly to beyond the Klusman House. Logically, the activity center treatment would stop at the Foothill Boulevard drive approach. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape,rhardscape treatment of the activity center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house ento'. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) can be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Plamning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: I. A decorative cap should be provided on the 4-foot screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru facility. 2. Where river rock is proposed, manufactured stone). native stone should be used as the veneer (as opposed to DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, I996 Page 3 Recommendation' Staff recommends that revised plans be provided to address the concerns listed above. The plans should be resubmitted for additional Committee review. Attachment: Pre-Application Workshop Minutes dated October 25, 1995 Design Reviesv Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the Site Plan to address the following COrlCerns: The plotting of the Burger King building, as shogun on the proposed Site Plan, was not acceptable to the Committee as previously stated in the October 25, 1995 Pre-Application Workshop. The building should be relocated to another area of the property such as west of the Foothill Boulevard driveway access or along the Vineyard Avenue frontage, possibly "swapping" locations with the proposed Zendejas Restaurant. - Because it does not appear that the applicant has responded to the October 25, 1995 comments and because of time constraints other issues were not discussed by the Committee. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff to address this concern and revise the plans accordingly for further review of the Committee. The Committee agreed to hear this item again at the next regular Design Review Committee meeting if the applicant desired, however, the preference of the Committee was tbr the applicant to work ~Sth staff to address the Committee's concerns prior to further review of the Committee. 5:40 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Steve Hayes September 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENT:--X_L ASSESSMENT ANT) CONDITIONAL USE PERaMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot driVe-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-21 I-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on May 14, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King be relocated to another area on the prope~, away from the pedestrian Activity. Center area. Comments from the May 14th Design Review Committee meeting as well as the October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments ate intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The follo~ving broad design issues ~411 be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The Site Plan has been revised to position the Burger King and Zendejas at the minimum required setbacks. In doing so, the field of parking south and west of the restaurants has been modified to a more standard configuration, ~,,'ithout the pedestrian pathway that leads to the future Master Planned shopping center. The applicant has made these revisions in an attempt to address previous concerns of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee without significantly modi~'ing the Site Plan. However, it has been requested by members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee in the past to relocate the Burger King away from the Activity Center. Therefore, the Committee should determine if the setback modifications are significant enough to allow the applicant to move fo~vard with the Site Plan as modified. Staff feels that the setback modifications still do not adequately address previous Commission comments regarding the re-positioning of the Burger King to another area on the property nor the potential conflict of having a drive-thru facility in such close proximity to the pedestrian Activity Center. Now that the Burger King has been set back 25 feet further from Foothill Boulevard, the historic Klusman House is no longer as hidden from view for westbound traffic on FootNil Boulevard. A low retaining wall is proposed to be constructed for the Burger King project that is closer to the street than the Klusman House, but it should not detract from the viewing of the house. The drive-thru lane is still proposed to be within 24 feet of the east side of the house, which is significant enough to insure that the existing trees on the east side of the house witl not have to be removed. A majority of the east side of the house is already screened by existing landscaping. Therefore, staff feels that, with the combination of the Burger King DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 2 being moved southerly 25 feet and the existing landscaping on the east side of the building slated to remain in-place, that the view~l~ed to the Klusman House from westbound Foothill Boulevard should not be significantly altered. With the additional setback area between Foothill Boulevard and the drive-thru lane for Burger King, a better opportunity exists to provide additional screening of the lane, through the use of landscaping, berming, and low walls. The building and drive-thru lane have not been re- oriented, so that the stacking area is still the closest element to Foothill Boulevard and the Pedestrian Actiyity Center area. However, w/th the increased setback, staff feels that the concerns of having the drive-thru lane adjacent to the street and the Activity Center can be completely mitigated. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permirting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All of the required improvements within the Pedestrian Activity Center should be installed on- both street frontages, including the double row of Crape M~,mle trees and the appropriate width of decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. The Committee should consider if the contrasting D'pes of architecture between the Klusman House and the new buildings is acceptable. If the Committee finds the architectural st,de to be acceptable, then staff would recommend that the south elevation of the drive-thru f~cilitv and the east elevation of the restaurant be upgraded. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house ent~. Pedestrian amenities Ct~enches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy' and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: I. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project. Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the new Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee should recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. However, if the Committee still feels that the location of the two new buildings should be modified, then the Committee should recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Committee review. Attachments DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee did not recommend approval of the revised Site Plan concept for the following reasons: The plotting of Burger King restaurant drive-thru lane creates an island that impedes pedestrian circulation contrary to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan goal to create a pedestrian oriented "activity center." The use is automobile oriented which is contrary. to the intent to have "~iestination" land uses which generate pedestrian activity and a synergy bet~veen commercial tenants. No information was provided regarding the--future use of the pad bet~'een Burger King and the intersection. A Master Plan is needed to show the relationship between uses and buildings. The latest scheme deleted the strong diagonal pedestrian access from the intersection through the site to the future major anchor. ,t No information was provided regarding the impact of the latest site plan on overall parking of the entire shopping center. Calculations were only provided tBr Phase I. The Committee repeated their May 14, 1996 recommendation that ira drive-thru restaurant is to be located with/n titis project that consideration should be given to locating it either west of the project entry on Foothill Boulevard or south of the project entry on Vineyard Avenue. The Committee indicated they were willing to consider a third alternative which swapped the Burger King and Zendejas pads subject to suitable site plan analysis. The Committee requested site plan alternatives for their review. DESION REVIEW COMMENTS ............ 5:15 p.m. Steve Hayes December 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PEP, zMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Footnill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on September 3, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King restaurant be relocated to another area on the property away from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments from the September 3rd and May 14th Design Review Committee meetings as well as the October 25, t993 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine if it is in compliance ~5th past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Based on the comments that come out oftonight's meeting, the applicant will then formally address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan-and resubmit it along x~4th the building elevation for Phase 1 development for additional review and consideration of the Committee. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. &/aster Plan - The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan: The main entrance driveway from Footnill Boulevard should align with a focal point (i.e., tower element on Major Anchor, plaza, major landscape element, etc.). The Master Plan does not indicate that sufficient parking is being provided for Phase II at ultimate build out. The distribution of parking in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings will consume all of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of par1-dng to sen'e the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant. There is no loading area capability provided at the rear of the first future retail building west of Zendejas restaurant. Also, parking rows should be revised to eliminate dead-ends. Ten foot wide planters, at a minimum, should be provided along both sides of the main north-south drive aisle to Foothill Boulevard ent~. The new Site Plan layout shows two smaller buildings flanking a circular hardscape and activity area on-site that acts as an extension of the pedestrian Activity Center. Building 2 has a circular element on the side adjacent to the Activity Center. These buildings are proposed as part of a later phase of the Master Plan and ,,,,'ill not be developed at this time. Hence, the type of'tenants anticipated for these buildings is also not k.nown at this time. Staff feels that the concept of these buildings at the Activity Center could promote and stimulate pedestrian activity in this area but questions the realit.,,' of' gerting appropriate DRC COM*iENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 2 tenants and buildings oriented in this manner. The Commit-tee mav wish to consider options or conditions that would guarantee pedestrian oriented buildingk and tenants in this portion of the site. The original schemes showed a strong diagonal pedestrian connection from the Activity Center area at the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the major line of tenants. This pedestrian connection has been revised to a small sidewalk behind the Burger King trash enclosure and requires customers to cross the drive-thru lane twice. Staff feels that a stronger pedestrian connection between the Activity Center and the major tenants should be introduced back into the Site Plan. (The Committee directed the applicant to incorporate this element back into the Site plan at the last Design Review Committee meeting). 2. Burger King The Burger King restaurant has been relocated to be on the Vineyard Avenue frontage, consistent with past recommendations of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission. However, staff is concerned that the right turn into the drive-thru lane from the Vinevard Avenue entrance is too tight and the stacking area in the lane is limited such that the f~ow of traffic may be impeded entering the shopping center. An alternative drive- thru lane layout should be considered by the Committee. Adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings for quick service restaurants has been successful in many communities across the country. Attached for your consideration is an article that references several examples. The Committee may wish to consider and comment on whether the Klusman House may be a viable structure to house a quick ser,,'ice or sit do,an restaurant. bo The Burger King restaurant is oriented so that the elongated portion of the drive-thru lane is the closest element to the street. Screen walls and trellises are proposed to screen the drive-thru area. Given that the required setback is being provided along Vineyard Avenue, there should be ample opportuniu' to provide sufficient screening of the lane throu=h the use of dense landscaping and betming in addition to the elements already provided. Secondar,,' Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the follo~qng secondaN' design issues: All of the required improvements ~5thin the Pedest~an Activits' Center should be installed on both street frontages, including the double row of Craoe Myrtle trees and the appropriate width of decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City' Engineer. 2. Additional areas of special paving should be provided throughout the project. To accentuate the Kiusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house ento'. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area. The Burger King restaurant trash enclosure should be relocated to a place where it would not have as high of potential to interfere with vehicular circulation. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 3 Significant screening of the site should be provided along the southern propert>' line to screen the proposed parking lot, as well as an5' future loading and unloading areas from view of the residenttally zoned land to the south. The offset 4-way intersection on-site near the northernmost Vineyard Avenue vehicular access location to the project should be modified to that the offset is eliminated. The driveway throat for the southernmost vehicular access to Vineyard Avenue should be elongated to avoid blockage of parked vehicles related to stacking of cars leaving the site. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining wails throughout the project. 2. Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the next' Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee should recommend that the site plan, building elevations and all other required plans be resubmitted for formal review and consideration of the project as a whole by the Design Review Committee. However, if the Committee still feels that the location of the building(s) should be modified or if the adaptive reuse of the Klusman House has validity and should be pursued, then the Committee should recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Committee review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Also Present' Staff Planner: Larry, McNiel, Rich .Macias, Nancy Fong Councilmember Paul BSane Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended that the Site Plan be revised and the project return to the Committee as a full item, along with the building elevations and revised Grading and Landscape Planq consistent with the revised Site Plan. Requested revisions to the Site Plan are as follows: The Master Plan should be revised to reflect that the shopping center as a whole meets the minimum parking requirements of the City. The pedestrian connection from the ActMty Center to the major tenant in the Master Plan should be completed by providing a north/south walkway along the east side of the main vehicular entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Palms and decorative paving should be used to denote the main pedestrian routes throughout the project. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 4 The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building should be revised as follows: ao The drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King should be made for one-way travel only (southerly) and the southern end of the drive aisle should be enhanced to discourage any northbound traffic by necking down the width of its access by extending the planter south of the entrance to the drive-thru lane. b. Turf block and a rolled curb should be used in the planter extension area. .Special paving should be provided in a raised manner in the drive aisle between planters and m the two locations where the pedestrian spine crosses the drive-thru lane. The parking spaces should be angled accordingly on both sides of the drive aisle west of Burger King to promote the one-way traffic scheme. Signage should be strategicall.,,' used to denote proper vehicular circulation in the area of Burger King. Seating should be provided in the main on-site extension of the Activity Center area to promote the use of the Activiw Center for patrons of Burger King and other future users in the immediate vicinit>'. The north/south drive aisles west of Burger King and west of the restaurant should be aligned to form a 4-way intersection south and west of Burger King. o All other Secondary. and Policy design issues shall become recommended conditions ofapprovaI for the project. In addition to these comments, the applicant agreed to eliminate the southernmost vehicular access to Vineyard A``'enue to address concerns raised by the Engineering Division. This area ,,,,'ill no,.,,' be landscaped. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:50 p.m. Steve Hayes December 30, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERaMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-2 l 1-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) last reviewed the project on December 3, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the area around the Burger King be upgraded to include elements to provide safer vehicular and pedestrian circulation around the building. See attached minutes. The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Also, it is intended that the architecture be reviewed formally for the first time during the review process for th/s project. Based on the comments that come out oftonight's meeting, the applicant will then formally address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan and resubmit it along with the building elevation for Phase One development for additional review and consideration of the Committee. Staff Comments: The following comments are inten=ded to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: I. MASTER PLAN: The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan: The Design Review Committee specifically requested that the Master Plan be revised to meet the minimum parking requirements of the City. The Master Site Plan is still 60 spaces deficient, based on the required ratio of one parking space per 200 square feet of building area. Please note that the parking calculations shown on the Site Plan are incorrect: the project requires 452 spaces and 392 are provided. Do The distribution of par 'king in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings will consume most of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of parking to ser~'e the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant. The 4-way intersection on-site near the Vineyard Avenue vehicular access has been aligned, per the request of the Design Revie~v Committee. As a result of the alignment and the drive aisle west of Zendejas shifting westerly, the amount of hardscape on the west side of the building has been increased greatly. The Landscape Plan shows a majority of this area bei:ng landscaped, but the Site Plan shows it'as hardscape. Staff would recommend that the area be designed consistent with the Landscape Plan. do The north/south pedestrian link from the Activity Center to the Major Tenants has been incorporated into the Site Plan along the east side of the main driveway entrance off Foothill Boulevard, per the request of the Design Review Committee. The southerly driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue has been eliminated, per the request of the Engineering Division, and the area labeled "Not-a-Part", since it is a separate parcel under different ownership. It is anticipated that the applicant will attempt to purchase this parcel and develop it as part of the shopping center with development of the Major Tenants. As a result of this modification, a landscape planter should be provided at the very southeast comer of this phase of the project, west of the "Not-a-Part" parcel. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 2 The applicant desires to have all other applicable comments related to the Master Plan from the attached December 3, 1996 Design Review Comments placed as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. BURGER KING: The following issues should be discussed regarding the development around the proposed Burger King building: The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building has been revised consistent with the direction of the Design Review Committee, as follows: ao The drive aisle west of the Burger King has been made one-way and the width of the planter at the south end of this drive aisle increased to discourage northbound traffic. During peak times cars waiting to get into the drive-thru lane will obstruct the parking spaces adjoining the west side of Burger King. The Taco Bell at Milliken and Highland Avenues solved this problem by having parking only on one side (opposite the entry). Turf block and a rolled curb are being shown in the extended planter area Parking spaces have been angled on both sides of this drive aisle d. The location of all directional signage has been indicated on the Site Plan. However, staff would recommend that the parking spaces be placed at more of an angle and any "dead" space at the ends of rows of angled parking stalls be landscaped. Also, the requested raised special paving is not shown on the revised Site Plan. If acceptable to the Committee, staff will place this as a Condi;.ion of Approval and staff will work with the applicant on how the special paving application will occur. Finally, the seating situation in the main Activity Center area should be identified better so that staff can verify that adequate seating will exist to promote the use of the Activity Center to patrons of Burger King; this can also be placed as a Condition of Approval if acceptable to the Committee. 3. ARCHITECTURE: The following issues should be considered regarding the proposed architecture: ao Additional architectural treatment should be provided on the south elevation of the Burger King and the east elevation of the Zendejas restaurant to break up fiat stucco walls. Secondary and Policy Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary and policy design issues: Reduce height of the Zendejas wall sign on the east elevation, measures 48 inches. In situations like this, where building is at setback line, the Commission has limited signs to 18 inches. Further, the Commission has reserved 48 inch high letters for major anchor tenants. All applicable secondary design comments (comments 1-5 from the attached December 3, 1996 comments) and all applicable policy design issues are recommended to be placed as Conditions of Approval for the project. The applicant has agreed to this direction. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised Site Plan and building elevations acceptable, that the Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the project. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee recommended that the applicant revise plans to address the following design issues and submit for further Committee review: 1. Master Plan. Revise the total square footage for the major anchor to address the deficiency in the required parking spaces. -- b. The applicant agreed to modify the Site Plan to be consistent with the Landscape Plan. Increase the width to a minimum of 10 feet for the noah/south pedestrian link on both sides of the main drive~vay entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Increase the width of the landscape planters at each end of two pedestrian links. Provide tree wells with tree grates along the two pedestrian links. d. Revise Master Plan to address an), technical issues. 2. Burger King. Provide 45 degree parking stalls for the parking bay (double loaded parking spaces with a drive aisle) located west of Burger King building. Provide a double white or yellow line to show two Ianes for one way direction. One lane is to be signed for the drive-thru lane. The row of parking spaces immediately west of the building should be striped for handicap spaces and a loading zone. Provide landscaping to the "dead" space at the ends of rows of the angled parking spaces. Show location of direction signs for the drive-thru lane. Provide additional architectural treatment to the south and west elevations. Examples of architectural treatment are but not limited to recessed areas with metal trellis and vines, additional windows, surface treatment to the building plane, etc. Consider reducing the height of the parapet wall and the chimney, and design them to be more integrated with the building design. d. Reduce the size of the proposed signs. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ Page 4 Zendejas. a. The Committee recommended further discussion on mixing or maintaining a variety of architectural styles within a shopping center and providing a policy direction to staff and to the applicant on this subject. b. Reduce the size of the proposed signs. c. Provide additional architectural treatment to the east elevation. The applicant has agreed to address all applicable secondary design issues and policy issues of the December 3, 1996 Design review comments. DESIGN P~E,V~W CO~'EX'ENTS 6:10 p.m. Steve Hayes January 14, 1997 ENVIRON'M2ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-2I 1-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff.to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Comments from this most recent Design Review Committee meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: At the time of comment preparation, revised plans had yet to be received by sta~.. An oral update will be presented to the Committee at the meeting. Staff Recom mendntio n: Staff. recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations acceptable, that the Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project. Design Review Committee Action: .x.l~embers Present: Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The applicant was unable to submit revised plans for Committee review prior to the meeting. The plans the applicant brought to the meeting were incomplete in that a grading plan was not included as part of' the submittal package. Furthermore, the Burger King elevations have not yet been revised to reflect the currently proposed configuration of the building and outdoor eating areas on Vineyard Avenue. The item was continued to their next meeting on February 4, 1997 contingent upon submittal of complete sets of revised plans by January 23. DESIGN' KEVIE\V CO%'LMENTS 8:30 p.m. Steve Hayes February. 4, i997 ENVi'R. ON~ENTAL ASSESSN~NT .&N-D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. The item was then scheduled for the January 14, 1997 meeting with the understanding that the plans could be revised in a timely manner to allow staff' and the Committee ample opportunity to review the revised plans prior to the meeting. Given that the plans did not arrive until after an item on the meeting had already started, the Committee did not have time to review the plans and therefore; did not formally review the project on January 14th. Comments from these most recent Design Review Committee meetings have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: The revised plans should be reviewed to determine if the direction from the two most recent Design Review Committee meetings has been adequately followed by the applicant. Specific issues are as follows: Signage for the Burger King has been reduced in size to be consistent with the new Jack in the Box at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive, but the location of the sign should be removed from the proposed roof screen element: The roof screen on the Burger King has been changed from a wood sided to a stucco element to be more consistent with the building architecture; No information regarding the roof equipment and plan has been submitted to staff.at the time of preparation of these comments. A.n oral update regarding this issue will be discussed at the meeting; Street dimensions still require correction as deemed necessary by' the Engineering Division; and Revised gTading plans had not yet been submitted the time of' comment preparation, any oral comments regarding the grading plan will be discussed at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations consistent with the direction given to the applicant at the previous meetings, then start wouId recommend that the Design Reviev,, Committee recommend approvaI of'the project to the Planning Commission with Conditions. DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 4, 1997 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, ~ch Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Desi..m~ Review Committee directed the applicant to return to the Committee on February 18, 1997 with a specific roof plan that show all of the necessary roof mounted mechanical equipment and a more detailed solution for the roof screen parapet. The Committee also recommended that all other items included in the above comments as well as previously referenced comments from past design reviews that have not yet been resolved will be incorporated as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Brad Buller February. 18, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERaMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-21 I-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on February 4, 1997, xvhere the Committee directed the applicant to have a specific roof plan and possible architectural enhancements for the proposed roof parapet available for review at the next meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: At the time of comment preparation, the requested roof plan had not yet been received by staff. An oral presentation will be provided at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee for~vard the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration at the February 26, 1997 meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brad Bullet The applicant was unable to submit a Roof Plan for Burger King and did not submit revised elevations which accurately depicted the roof elements. Further, the applicant stated that the chimney element would probably be deleted. The Committee did not recommend approval of roof screen Alternatives A,B orC. The Committee did not recommend approval and requested the applicant to address the following, prior to the Planning Commission meeting: 1. Submit a Roof Plan for Burger King. 2. Submit revised elevations for Burger King which correct all inconsistencies. 3. Explain why the chimney, that ~vas previously indicated by the applicant as functional, is no longer necessary? DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 18, 1997 Page 2 Submit documentation that the four condensation units can fit onto the 5-foot x 5-foot platform indicated and meet manufacturer's specifications for proper air circulation around the units. 5. Verify the dimension of the 10 ton A/C units, particularly the height. The applicant ~vas also advised of the Grading Committee recommendation to not approve the Conceptual Grading Plan. The applicant was reminded to submit a complete set of colored plans, including the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and elevations, as well as, 8 ¢_ inch x 11-inch reductions of all sheets within the development package. I:\STEVE\CUP9525.ENV City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: CUP 95-25 2. Related Files: Pre-Application Review 95-04 3. Description of Project: Shopping center Phase I including 2,900 s.f. Burger King and 5,548 s.f. restaurant on 3.7 acres at SWC Foothill and Vineyard. o Project Sponsor's Name and Address: U.S. Properties 759 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 General Plan Designation: Commercial 6. Zoning: Community Commercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to the north, south and west. Service station and condominiums to the east. Existing single family residence at SEC of site (not a part). The project site includes the Klusman House a local historic landmark. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 o Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 10. ....... Control District Other agencies 'whose approval is required: Caltrans, San Bernardino County Flood Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, including "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (x) Geological Problems (x) Water (x) Air Quality (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (x) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Aesthetics (x) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed~ ,~ ~ Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. ISSUES and LAND a) b) c) d) Supoo~ting Information Sources: Potenl:ially Significant Impact Less Po[entiallyUnless Than Signiflcan[Mibgation S~gnifican~No Imoac~ Incon,oratedImpact Iml:)act USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) b) c) S~nificanl Would the proposal.' Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Issues and Su13porting Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Fault rupture? ( ) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) Seiche hazards? ( ) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) Subsidence of the land? ( ) Expansive soils? ( ) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) SignScant Potentially S~gn~cant Impac[ Less Unless M~tigation Significant ~ncorooratedlmoact NO Impact (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () () (x) (x) (x) Comments: a-c) The northwesterly portion of the project site is located within the City adopted Special Study Zone for the Red Hill fault. A geologic report was prepared for the project site (Rasmussen, January 29, 1996) and reviewed by the City's geologist (Reeder, December 5, 1996). The geologic report concludes that no faults cross the site, and further concludes that none of the following are expected: ground rupture, landsliding or other slope stability hazards, or liquefaction. The geologic report concludes that "severe seismic shaking of the site can be expected within the next 100 years from an earthquake along the Cucamonga fault." The report contains a number of recommended mitigation measures that will be included as recommended conditions of approval for the project. A revised geologic report was prepared in response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not available at the time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure should be included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic report by the City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation measures in the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to issuance of any permits. The geologic report concludes that "surficial materials on the site are considered to be moderately susceptible to erosion by water." The report contains a number of recommended mitigation measures that will be included as recommended conditions of approval for the project. A revised geologic report was prepared in response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not available at the time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure should be included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic report by the Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation measures in the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to issuance of any permits. Issues and Sup¢~o~ing Information Sources: WATER. Will the proposal result in.' a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? - e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than Significan[Mitigation Significant No () () (x) () () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Comments: a-b) The proposed project will result in changes to the absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff through increases in developed area, buildings, and paved areas. The project will result in a surface water runoff of Q~0o=18.0 cubic feet per second for the majority of the site, which is proposed to drain southwesterly. The project design includes a drainage system that will divert and collect surface water runoff into a pipe that will connect into existing Cucamonga Creek Channel. Permit required from San Bernardino County Flood Control District for all work within their property or easement area. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 The project will pave over 3 acres of land thereby reducing percolation into ground water. The project design includes a drainage system that will divert and collect surface water runoff into a pipe connected into existing Cucamonga Creek Channel, which ultimately drains into the Prado Basin spreading grounds where it can recharge the ground water. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially $ignr~c. an~ Impac~ Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gnrficantMitigation S~n~cant NO Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? _- ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: a) The project will generate vehicle trips, as well as car idling in the drive-thru lane, which will contribute air pollutants. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon air quality. b) The land to the south is planned for residential and the land to the east is developed with residential condominiums. There are no schools, hospitals or convalescent home facilities nearby. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic pollutants upon sensitive receptors. Impact considered less than significant. c) The project include development of buildings and paved areas which will act as a heat sink increasing temperatures at or near the site. The project design includes extensive landscaping, particularly shade trees around buildings and within parking areas, to reduce this heat sink effect to a less than significant level. d) Although the project includes parking areas and a drive-thru restaurant which will produce vehicle exhaust that may be objectionable, the level of emissions produced is not considered significant in comparison to that which will be produced by vehicles traveling on the two major streets fronting the site. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 P'otentially Significant Imoact TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in.' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) SignScant ImDac~ Less Unless Than Mitigabon Significant () (x) () () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) (x) Comments: a) The project includes 19,748 square feet of commercial space which will increase vehicle trips on both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, and impact the intersection thereof. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. The project design includes completion of both streets to their full width across the full frontage; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. The project design also includes a bus turnout on Vineyard Avenue to support the use of public transit. o Issues and Sup~cr:,~rc5 Information Sources: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Potentially Signr~cant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gnrt*cantM~t,gation S,gn~cant No () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) d) e) Significant Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? () Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) Potenlially Impact Less Unless Than Midgadon Signrficant No () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) Potentially Signrflcam ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the regior, and the residents of the State? ( ) Potenlially Sign~canl - ImpacI Less Unless Than Midgabon Significant () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) o Issues am~ Su~3port~ng Infonmabon Sources' c) d) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) No () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 issues and Sup~oding Information Sources: e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially Signr~cant Imoac~ Potentially Signr~cant Impact Less Unless Than Mibgalion Sicjnific~l nt I~co~ora~ed [moact lincact () () () (x) 10. Issues and Supp<3rting Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially SignScant Impact Potentially S~gnificant Impact Less Unless Than M,bgation Significant Incor,'JoratedImoact () () (x) () () () (x) () Comments: a) The project will generate vehicl~ trips which will increase existing noise levels, particularly for the existing residence at the southeast corner of site and the land to the south that is planned for residential. The project design includes a 6 foot high screen wall along the common property line with the existing residence to provide buffer and reduce noise to an acceptable level. b) The project includes buildings, outdoor dining areas and plazas near both street frontages which could expose people to traffic noise. The City's General Plan indicates future noise levels at build out of the community at greater than 70 L~., and acknowledges that the outdoor environment will seem noisy. The General Plan does not require sound attenuation mitigation measures for exterior areas. The General Plan does require a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and incorporation of needed noise insulation features in the project design; however, indicates that conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. An acoustical study should be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to address interior noise levels of all buildings within project prior to issuance of building permits. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 11. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fofiowing areas.' a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) Potentially S~gnificant Imoac: Potentially Sigmfican( Impact Less Unless Than M~tigation Signrfican[ Inc~r~ora:edImoac~ () () (x) () () (x) (~ () (x) () () (x) () () (x) 12. Issues and Suppor:ing Information Sources: : UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Polen:~ally S~gmficanl ) () () () () Sign~cant Irnpac~ Unless () () () () () () () Than SignrScant () () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? S~gnr~c.,ant () S~gn~cant Mlligation () Less Than SignScant fmpa~ () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Issues and Supper[inc Information Sources: b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: Signr~cant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignScant Mitigation S;gnificant NO () () () (x) () (x) () () c) The project will include parking lot lights and various lighting on and around buildings which could create light or glare on surrounding properties, in particular the existing single family residence at the southeast corner of site and the property to the south which is planned for residential. Light fixtures should be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, should be prepared prior to issuance of building permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining properties. 14. Issues end SupoofIJng information Sources: CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposaL' a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Comments: Potentially Signdlc. ant Impact Less Polent~allyUntess Than S~gnrficar~tM~t~gabon S,gnff~nt NO () () () (x) () () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () (x) c) The project site includes the Klusman House, a local historic landmark of considerable significance to the community. The project has been designed to preserve this landmark structure as a major focal point at the main entrance to the site from Foothill Boulevard. The nearest proposed structure lies 43 feet to the east. No alterations to this landmark are proposed with this application. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 15. Significanf RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) SignScant lincact Less Untess Than Mitigation SignScant NO Impact () () (x) () () (x) 16. Issues and Supl.~or~ing Infoinflation Sources: Potentially SignScent Imoact MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a-fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) . ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially $1gnificent Impact Less Unless Than Mitigabon Signiflcen! I~cer'ooratedImoa~ () ( () ( () (x No Imoact (x) (x) () () () (x) U. $.PRO~ERTIE$ ?149550950 SENT BY: R CUCAMONOA COM OEV; 2-t9-97 3:30P,LI; -~0g 477 2847 => 714.c850950j .-~14/14 Ini~iat Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 Comments: c) The project will generate traffic. vehicle emissions, noi~e and light. These effe~s were anatyzed by the City'~ General Plan E~R and Foothill Boulevard Specific Pla.q EIR and were found to be not significant or were found to be significant but irreversible and a etatement of overriding consideration was adopted. EARLIER ANALYSES Eartier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the liering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed i~ an earlier EIR or NagaUra Declarelion per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this prgject were wi(hin the scope of and adequately analyzed In the following eadfer document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. The following eadier analy~e$ were utilized in completing this lrfitial Study and are availab!e for review In the City o[ Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EtR (Certified April 6. 1981) IX) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH ~8020115, codified Januar,/4, t989) (X) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615. certified September t6. 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I cert;fy that I am the appl=,cant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Ir~',ial S(udy and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the pmjecl plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would oct'Jr. Post-it' Fax Note 7671 Co. Phc-r~ a Fax ~' 0 -'~: ........Z:_7_7:'- -- "' .... .... ~. ~ ~-'-'-~/~? ,~ ~-~--:_ .........i-.: -' t , i'~,,', ",',"'"~,~"' · '""~" ... ~...~,.~ ..... .. ~. £.. ~.:~,~,~' . ,.:, .. I;~ ill. .:.. . ... ...... , '} ......, ...:.,.>,. .... if! ,.' ,.~ : ........ ,.. '? .........~'7' '" "-" "' m 40' 0 ,10' SoMe: 1" = 40' 111)tll~d;ll y ~)l' I(;lll','ll~l ('IIC;tliitilii*.;I · Sl.:cial :;tudi,:,; (;c.h)gy I,y FFI I h af'tcd I)y I'chm:u'y I;.. 1)7 CITY OF RA=NCHO CUC~MONGA P~-~ANNING COmmiSSiON MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 14, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Me!cher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette A~SENT: None STAz-F PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 93-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of site plan for a proposed grocery store, existing historic structure, and related pads on approximately 10 acres at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-05, 12, 13, 14, 15, 38, and 40. An introduction to the project was provided by the applicant, Gil Rodriguez. He explained that the proposed grocery store would most likely not be built because of the approval of the Smith's Food and Drug Store on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He did state, however, that they still desired comments on the plan from the Commissioners in the event that another user expressed interest in the project site. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that at this point, they are anxious to utilize the Klusman House as an office building and want to proceed with this before going forward with the entire conditional use permit for the corner. He explained that they are interested in pursuing the 5,000 square foot proposed building fronting on Foothill Boulevard as part of Phase I. He indicated this building would be utilized as a delicatessen and specialty food store. Staff presented the main points regarding the site plan to the Commissioners, who then made their comments. Commissioner Melcher felt the site plan is beautiful, however, 'probably not workable because of the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard to the main tenant. He thought the K!usman House should have a more enhanced setting to the south which would create a more appealing sense of entry into the building. He also felt that the parking along the west side of the main building would be virtually worthless. Commissioner Va!lette stated that she would support moving the building back if it could make the proposed site plan more workable. She felt there are other options for the major tenant besides a market, such as a theater. Co~nissioner Tolstoy stated the designer did a nice job on the site plan but he was concerned with the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the site plan should be opened up to increase visibility. He fe!~ that relocating the free-standing building from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue might solve the problem. He also felt the parking along the rear could provide a buffer to the residential area to the south, but would probably not be used. He cited the example of the NuWest center at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue as a similar condition. Commissioner Chitiea said the project was very innovative, but she voiced concerns regarding the lack of view corridors into the center. She thought perhaps one of the buildings along Foothill Boulevard could be shifted to Vineyard Avenue to provide greater visibility. She liked the pedestrian connection from the corner to the main building. She felt a buffer of some sort is needed on the south side of the project. She thought the parking along the west side of the project site could be workable if additional connections to the front of the site are provided. Chairman McNiel stated that the front of the building is more oriented towards Vineyard Avenue and that he did no~ have a problem with visibility of the structure to Foothill Boulevard. He liked the innovative concept of the site plan and thought it might be able to work with another tenant rather ~han a grocery store. He thought the Klusman House needs a better setting along the south side. He indicated that he would support a reduction in parking spaces if it would provide additional area to upgrade the back of the house. Bob Schmidt, Historic Preservation Commissioner, indicated he was participating in this workshop as an observer and remarked that he was pleased with the project and agreed that the rear of the Klusman House would be addressed. Mr. Rodriguez concluded by indicating that he felt in the past, anchor tenants would drive retail sites, but that is not the case in today's market. He felt all tenants are of equal value and that high visibility of the anchor ~enant i~ not an absolute necessity. He observed that a traffic/view study was conducted from both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue indicati~q that visibility was not a problem. He felt that rear parking was acceptable since there is a connection to the front of the site. (Staff noted earlier in ~he presentation that the site is deficient in the number of parking stalls provided.) He indicated that employee parking is proposed for the rear of the site. ,Mr. Rodriguez was informed that he could proceed with the utilization of the Klusman House as an office building by processing a Minor Deve!op~ent Review. The Co~ission concluded that the concerns noted and the technical issues mentioned by staff need to be addressed. P C Workshop Minutes -2- April 14, 1993 ~ JO UPu~_ENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary P C Workshop Minutes -3- April 14, 1993 CiTY OF ~ANCHO CUC.~MONGA PL.~N'NiNG COMMiSSiON MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cuc~onga Planning Commission to order at 6:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cuc~onga California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: P.~SENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Pet~ Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bul!er, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan J~es, Senior Civil ~ ~==~- _rig ....... Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS PRE-APPLICAT!ON REvIEw 95-0~ - RODRIGUEZ - Revie~ of a proposed fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) and res:aurant pad in the Community Com~,ercia! designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Gi! Rodriguez, Jr., the applicant, gave a brief presentation of ~he project. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented ~he staff issues and concerns"=hich included the following: 1. Consistency ~ith the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a. Building setback b. Parking setback 2 Master Dian ~o ~ ~ · ._ requ___m_n=s 3 The Planning Commission drive-thru 0o!~v a. Drive-thru lane setback b. Distance from intersection c. -Screening of the drive-thru lane d. Potent~=~ revisions to the DolLcv co~=~ ~='=~ the .-arming --- _ . . ...... p--__~ by ~ Co~u~ission subcommittee reviewing the po!icy. 4 Relationship to the K!usman Vice-Chairman McNiel askod what was anticipated for the future Dad - . _de ....... d as multi-use. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the anchor tenant for the center will decide if a building will be permitted at all. He said that if no building is allowed, the pad would be used for s?ecial seasonal events such as pumpkin patches, Christmas tree lots, etc. Commissioner McNiel stated that rarely does fast food contribute to an activity center other than introducing cars to the area. He felt the fast food restaurant does nothing for the intersection. He acknowledged Burger King's desire to be at the corner but he did not feel that was the appropriate location because Burger King would dominate the corner. He suggested locating Burger King on the west side of the Foothill entry. Com~m. issioner McNiel liked the location of Zendejas restaurant and the future pad. Commissioner Melcher stated that no Master Plan is available at this time and the Master Plan should be the first item completed to market the project. He felt the architect had done a good job disguising the Burger King, however, Burger King does nothing to respect the K!usman House. He thought the proper setting is essential for the K!usman House and-the setback provided on the east side of the Klusman House should match the west s~do of the building He ~ ~~ - - · ~e~~ the diagonal pedestrian walk through the center is the boldest and most imaginative attempt presented to the City. He did not think the parking lot !ayou~ is workable because there are an excessive number of turning movements over 120 degrees that would be necessary to pull into the parking stalls. Commissioner Lumpp indicated that if Burger King feels it is essential to be a~ the intersection, the more appropriate location may be along the Vineyard frontage. He suggested the Burger King and Zendejas' locations could be reversed and such a switch would make the d. iv_ ~n_u less dominant. He thought the orientation might even allow some D_d_st_lan D!av off Burger King into the activity center area. He acknowledged Burger King probably wants to be on Foothill Boulevard because of the greater traffic volumes; however, he felt Burger King should not be located adjacent to the K!usman House. Co~nissioner Lumpp stated that if Burger King had ~o be located on Foothill Boulevard, the building should be on ~he west side of the Foothill entry, as suggested by Com.~issioner McNiel. He felt 5he architecture was acceptable, although he believed Burger King should be d_s_gn_c more consistent with the Klusman House. He noted some elements of the Burger K~n~ drive-thru design are consistent with the direction being taken by the Planning Co,~nission Subco~mittee studying the drive-thru policy; however, he ~ ~ ~=~ . . _e .... a~_~ his desire to see Burger King relocated to the Vineyard frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the site design approved for the Christmas House on Archibald Avenue results in a very hemmed in appearance. He felt the same situation will occur with this project if the site plan is approved as submitted by the applicant. He though~ Burger King should be relocated ~o ~he west side of the Foothill entry or closer to the activity center to share seating with the other restaurant. He noted the drive-thru lane is however in conflict with the activity center goal of pedestrian orientation. He agreed relocating Burger King to the Vineyard frontage may be a good alternative. He thought the angled parking arrangement provided by the applicant is not ~orkable. PC Adjourned Minutes Oc5ober 25, 1995 Chairman Barker indicated his appreciation of the major entry at the activiuy center and the link into the site. He had not given much thought to relocating Burger King to Vineyard Avenue but felt ~hat Burger King ;~- b= ;~-o~=--=' He suggested the Planning Commission should look a% the !9-foot setback proposed for Vineyard Avenue an~ provide direction to ~ applicant. He l_.,_d the a_cn_t_c_u_e proposed by the applicant. Chairman Barker stated %hat the Burger King on Base Line Road and Haven Avenue has a serious circulation problem with ~ -~' ~ lane obstructing the pedestr;an access to the building. ..e the d__ve ~n_u _ ~ indicated his support for another large, outdoor plaza/eating area. Mr. Rodriguez indicated he has been working with Burger King for the past six months on various design schemes. He observed the location on the west side of the Foothill entry is not desirable because the trees within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District block visibility of the site. He said he had reworked the site to make it economically feasible. He stated that the contrasting design between the Klusman House and the Burger King was intentional in order to set the two structures aparu rather than trying to blend them together. Chairman Barker asked the Com~issioners to address the setback deficiency questions. Commissioner Me!cher stated that when working with a large parcel such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice the minim=n standards. He observed that streets are being widened by developers throughout the City and in some cases, greater dedications and improvements are recuired than will be required of ~ ; . -_ ~h_s site. He stated that Woh! Properties had a willing tenan~ for their site on Foothill Boulevard but it is not the right site for that tenant. He said that Burger King may be proposed on this site but that does not mean it is right. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner He!chef. He felt sufficient !and is available to accommodate che design. Co,~issioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Burger King was shifced southerly. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Burger King should not be located adjacent ~o the Klusman House. Commissioner McNie! stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a 45-foot building ~' -" everywhere exceD~ %he activity centers ~'here the setback se~oa~. . . is reduced to 25 fee%. He thought the app!ican~ needs to adhere to. that criteria. He observed ~hat if the Planning Cor.~i$sion approves a variance for a reduced '' ' it would cleariv set ~ ~r_c_d_n_ for future actions He se~oac~, . _ . ~ ~ ~ - . not think shifting Burger King to the sou~h would be good for the Klusman House or for the activity center. He stated uhau Burger King is not a point of destination with the nature of the business being that D~oo]o get in and out of the facility quickly. Brad Bu!!er, City Planner, recapped the Co,..-rnission's discussions. He stated that Burger King was not acceptable next to the K!usman House and other options should be considered. He noted there was no support for a variance for building setbacks because of a shift in the streec centerline. PUBLIC CO?~ENT S PC Adjourned Einutes October 25, !995 There werm no public com~en~s. C@~iSSiON BUSINESS There was no Commission business at this Time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995 April 14, 1993 - August 29, 1995 - Sept. 21, 1995 - October 25, 1995 - November 30, 1995 - February13,1996- FebruaD'29,1996- March 12, 1996 - March 13, 1996 - Chronology of Rodriguez Project CUP 95-25 Pre-Application review presented to Planning Commission. Commission provides specific direction regarding major issues. Application formally submitted to City. First incompleteness letter mailed to applicant; suggested that another Pre- Application revie~v on ne~v site plan and elevations occur ~vith the Planning Commission to discuss major design issues relative to site plan. Pre-Application review ~vorkshop with Planning Commission. Commission provides specific direction on how to addresss site planning and architectural concerns. Applicant requests time extension to address completeness items raised by staff in 9/21/95 letter. Staff informs applicant via letter of acceptance of time extension on 12/7/95~ Applicant resubmits plans. Design issues, technical problems still not addressed as previously raised by staff via letter and by the Planning Commission at the Pre-Application Review. Second incompleteness letter sent out by staff with numerous second requests for identical intbrmation and or to address identical design issues identified in the first review 5 months earlier. Applicant submits Variance request for numerous setback reductions for proposed next phase development along Foothill Boulevard. Variance agendized for March 27, I996 Planning Commission meeting. One of the Completeness items, a Geologic study, submitted by applicant, which was originall>' requested on 9/21/95. Letters requesting a second review by registered Geologists mailed out by staff. March 27, 1996 - Variance reviewed by Planning Commission but continued to April 24, 1996 at the request of the applicant. March 28, 1996 - Staff selects geologist to conduct second review of plans and asks applicant to submit deposit (5350) to cover cost of review. April 24, 1996 - Variance again continued at request of applicant. April 30, 1996 - May 14,1996- Sept. 3, 1996 - Sept. 9, 1996- November 7, 1996 - December 3, 1996- December 5, 1996- December 30, 1996 - Application scheduled for courtesy review (application still incomplete) for Grading Committee, DRC and TRC on May 1, 1996. These items were continued for two weeks at the request of the applicant, who made his request on April 29, 1996. Application receives courtesy review by all three Committees (TRC on May 15, 1996). All three Committees provide specific direction regarding revisions to plans and any other issues and recommend that the applicant revise plans and have project return to Committees once deemed complete. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis by Grading and Design Review Committees. Previous direction regarding major site planning issues (first passed on at the 10/25/95 Pre-Application Review) still not addressed and DRC reinterated these concerns. Staff prepares third incompleteness letter to remind applicant of all outstanding completeness items and other technical and design related issues, including need for $350 deposit to have geology study reviewed, first requested on 3/28/96. Staff receives check to review Geology study. Geologist selected and information mailed to geologist on 11/24/96. Other incompleteness items from 9/9/96 letter still not addressed. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis (still incomplete) for third time by DRC. Major site planning issues starting to be selectively addressed by applicant, but embellishments necessary to Master Plan and area around proposed tenants which require further review of Committee. Staff receives comments from our Geologist and FAXes comments to applicant and original geologist same day. (As of 1/17/97, staff has yet to receive revisions from original geologist thereby making application still incomplete). Application reviewed on a courtesy basis again (Still incompleteness items) by DRC and Grading Committees (and TRC on I/2/97). Site plan, Master Plan reviewed again by DRC. Some specific issues from 12/3/96 DRC meeting still not addressed regarding Master Plan. Architecture reviewed for first time, minor revisions requested and information needed from applicant before a recommendation of approval could be forwarded. Grading Committee deems plans incomplete and requests additional information previously asked for on May 14, 1996. Applicant states that modifications to plans can be made in sufficent time to allow staff, Grading Committee and DRC members to review for 1/14/ January, 2, 1997 - January 7. 1997 - Januau,' 9, 1997 - January 13, 1997 - January14,1997- January15,1997- January 16, 1997 - January21,1997- January 22, 1997 - January23,1997- 97 meetings. TRC reviews plans and has repeat comments of information that should be shown on plans from previous 5/15/96 TRC meeting. Staff meets with applicant to go over DRC and Grading Committee action from 12/30/96 meeting. Reminds applicant of incompleteness of application and asks him to check on status of Geology study revisions. Staff gives applicant deadline of 1/9/97 to get revised plans to staff for review and distribution to Committees (one week less review time than usually requested for other projects). Applicant leaves voice mail message approximately 5:20 p.m. saying that revisions are being worked on. No plans reveived by end of day. Staffreveives one copy (eight sets requested on 1/7/97) of plans. Grading plan reviewed by Grading Commitee on January 14, 1997 and information specifically requested at staff/applicant meeting on 1/7/97 still missing. Scheduled for Grading Committee review' again on February 4, 1997. Applicant submits plans 45 minutes before item is to be reviewed on courtesy basis by DRC (application still incomplete). The DRC meeting has already started, as another item is being reviewed, so DRC members have no opportunity to review plans ahead to time. Due to this, DRC recommended that the item be scheduled for the next (February 4, 1997) meeting. Applicant sends FAX to clarify issues and submittal deadlines of plans for 2/4/97 meetings. Staff responds back via FAX immediately, adding several issues to applicant did not include. Applicant sends revised FAX incorpoating items staff included in original FAX previous day. FAX looked accepatable and accurate to staff. Called to verify submittal dealines for 2/4/DRC meeting with applicant. Talked to engineer and informed him of changes and submittal deadline (end of Day - 1/22) to remain on 2/4 Grading Committee. Site, landscape and architectural plans received by deadline given to applicant (end of work day). This deadline was established after 1/14 DRC meeting and ac 'knowledged by applicant in 1/15 and 1/16 FAX. However, revised grading plan not received by deadline. Left message for applicant early a.m. to check on status of grading plans. January 28, 1997 - Januao' 30, 1997 - February 4, 1997 - February 5, 1997 - February 12, 1997- February.' 13, 1997 - Febmars,' 18, 1997 - Applicant returned call and said that the grading plan would be here by tomorrow (1/29). Grading Plan finally received. Project reviewed by DRC and Grading Committee. Neither Committee recommends approval; addittional information previously requested by both Committees not yet received. Despite this, staff still keeps item pre- scheduled for February 26th Planning Commission hearing. Staff informs applicant of opportunity to review project at the February. 18th Grading Committee and DRC meeting. Staff gives applicant submittal deadline of February 12th for additional information. Staff writes DRC follow-up letter to the previous days meeting, which includes final submittal deadlines for additional information needed for Planning Commission meeting. Staff calls applicant regarding status 'of requested submittal information. Not received by end of day. Staff receives DRC information and revised Grading Plan in earl.',' afternoon. Final submittal requirements for Planning Commission not received, even though due on this date. Grading Committee and DRC again review project and do not recommend approval. However, Conditions of Approval incorporated into the Resolution of Approval to cover remaining issues. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAP RECEIVED C.U.P. 95-25 150.49 C~'v o~ Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 18' ,,-. t~'. z~ (~) t 0 ~ G McNiel stated the application is a straightforward zone change to reduce for purposes. He felt the proposed development fits well in the and supported cation. Motion: Moved by ;d by Tolstoy, to ado ~s recommending approval of Victoria Community Plan Tentative Tract 15796, recommending approval of Victoda Community Plan and approving Tentative Tract 15797 and issue negative declarations for Tent; and 15797. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES' ;~NT: NONE NONE MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY - carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and distributed copies of a revised roof plan and equipment specifications for roof-mounted equipment which had been provided by the applicant earlier in the week. He indicated staff. had determined the proposed parapet height and well depth should be sufficient to screen the roof equipment from view. He reported the applicant had also submitted revised grading plans the previous week and staff had determined that, with the conditions as written, the drainage should be handled satisfactorily. Chairman McNiel asked for further clarification of the drainage issues. Mr. Hayes replied that the issues had to do with the nature of the queuing of flows and the directing of overflows into the spillway. He noted that temporary measures will be taken with Phase One and the issues would be permanently addressed with Phase Two. He commented that Engineering staff felt the issues could be resolved pending approval of the Flood Control District. Commissioner McNiel remarked that temporaw measures are included with Phase One with permanent solutions waiting until Phase Two. He asked the soundness of the temporaw system, noting that Phase Two may not occur for possibly 6 to 12 years. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that with Phase One, there will be water flowing over raw land. He noted that staff felt the overflow concerns were addressed by the latest grading plans which had been recently submitted. Commissioner McNiel asked if staff felt it is a safe system. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if everything had been worked out or if it was still to be worked out. Mr. James replied that confirmation of acceptance had not yet been received from the Flood Control District. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if concrete drainage swales will be used. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 Mr. James replied they will be earthen swales with the overflows to be of gunite. He noted the grade of the spillway is lower than the natural property line. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gil Rodriguez, Jr., U.S. Properties, P.O. Box 281, Upland, thanked staff and the Planning Commissioners for working with him during the past year and a half. He agreed to all of the conditions with the exception of Engineering Condition No. 14, requiring the construction of the local storm drain in Foothill Boulevard to Cucamonga Creek. He felt the storm drain would only service the vacant property on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and did not think he should be responsible. Ray Allard, Ailard Engineering, 6101 Cherry Avenue, Fontana, stated that when the Thomas Winery project was built, a storm drain was constructed to drain to the south side of Foothill Boulevard where it bubbles out of the catch Basin and proceeds down the street. He said the pipe was stubbed out on the south side of Foothill Boulevard so that it could be connected to a drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard to drain over to Cucamonga Creek. He noted that the catch basin on the south side of Foothill is to be abandoned when the drain pipe connects to Cucamonga Creek. He proposed that the City consider placing the east-west pipe in Foothill Boulevard on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and have it placed in Foothill Boulevard when the property on the north side develops because the Rodriguez property cannot drain to the pipe. He said they will be participating in the master storm drain program by paying fees. Chairman Barker asked if staff had been approached regarding the proposal to move the pipe to the north side of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the applicant had made the request a year ago but the idea had not been pursued. He noted the storm drain in Foothill Boulevard is a local facility, and would not be eligible for master plan funding. He stated the City has always required that local facilities be completed as frontage improvements by the first developer. He said the property to the north had also been required to put in the storm drain when a project was approved; however, that project had not developed. Mr. Allard apologized for his misunderstanding that their drainage fees would pay for installation. He stated that if they could drain their property to the line, they would not question the requirement to install the pipe; however, he did not feel they should have to install the line since they will not be able to benefit as their drainage will be to the south. Mr. James said the local drainage systems are considered as part of normal frontage improvements. He observed the applicant's property has the right to drain to Vineyard, but does not because of grading. He indicated that typically, properties drain to the street and properties to the south have to build drainage systems to accommodate flow from properties to the north. He was not sure if there would be any complications with having the drain pipe along the north side of Foothill Boulevard to connect to Cucamonga Creek. Mr. Allard said they would like to have flexibility. He stated that Cucamonga Creek is very deep and swift moving at the site. He felt that if they drained their site to Vineyard Boulevard, it might cause problems on Vineyard. He indicated they therefore met with the Flood Control District and the District did not object to having the property drain directly to the creek. Commissioner McNiel asked how much of the drainage system is currently in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the Thomas Winery site drains to a catch basin on the southwest corner where it bubbles out. He said the catch basin will be removed when the storm drain is extended westerly to the channel. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 Commissioner McNiel asked if Phase Two areas will be hydro seeded. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked if the current policy is to require the first developer to bear the cost for local drainage systems. Mr. James confirmed that is the policy. Commissioner Macias asked if there is a precedent for this applicant to contest that exaction. Mr. James did not recall anything having gone up to the City Council for a decision. Mr. Allard thought that if Thomas Winery wasn't constructed, it would be simple to drain on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. He thought it had been an arbitrary decision to have Thomas Winery drain to the south side of the street. Commissioner McNiel felt that the City selected the lower side of the street because typically most properties drain to the street. Mr. Allard conceded that generally systems are placed on the lower ends of streets. Mary Byer, 8167 Vineyard Avenue, #112, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she lives in the Villa Poloma condominium project across the street from the project. She expressed concern about the traffic flow and stated it is already difficult to get into the condominiums because the area is so congested, possibly from the gas station on the east side of Vineyard. She feared those vehicles trying to enter or exit the condominium project will be caught between different traffic patterns. She asked what an activity center is and whether a grocery store is planned for the site. She questioned if there is a law requiring fast food restaurants to have self-circulating air systems installed in .order to prevent fumes from exhausting into the air and commented that the odors from In-N-Out Burger are powerful at times. Mr. Rodriguez, Sr., 1797 Melajo Way, Upland, stated they had filed the application for a fast food restaurant about two years ago. He said they originally sited Burger King on Foothill Boulevard but after spending thousands of dollars, the Commission suddenly indicated Burger King would have to be located on Vineyard Avenue. He thought the introduction of two new Commissioners had brought about the request to move Burger King and said he did not think it was fair. He said he had to renegotiate with Burger King because of the move to Vineyard Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff had included a chronology of the project with the staff report and said that the location of Burger King had been a matter of discussion when the project was first submitted and the location was not changed as the result of the addition of new Planning Commissioners. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant wished to have the Commission delay action until resubmission of the plans with Burger King located on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Rodriguez urged the Commission to approve the application as presently submitted with Burger King located on Vineyard Avenue. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller explained that an activity center refers to a hardscape plaza at the corner of the property; a people place, not a recreational facility. He said that Phase One will include Burger King and potentially a sit-down restaurant on Vineyard Avenue. He indicated no other buildings are planned Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 with the first phase. He stated that future phases are yet to be determined and were not being considered tonight. Mr. James stated that the project is conditioned to widen Vineyard Avenue and there will be dual left- turn lanes at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; He stated there will also be a right-turn lane into the project so that southbound traffic can get out of the regular flow of traffic when entering the property. Mr. Buller stated that staff feels the traffic circulation will be improved over current conditions. He indicated he was not aware of any requirements with regard to ventilation systems containing odors and said such a condition had not been placed on any other restaurants, either fast-food or sit-down. Commissioner McNiel noted that with Phase One, the Commission was looking at Burger King and a spec sit-down restaurant, parking, plaza and street frontage. Commissioner Bethel said that when he first saw the project at the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting, there was no roof plan and no idea of whether the screen would cover the equipment. He indicated the equipment was changed from a 5-ton unit to two 10-ton units but they were the same size. He said DRC asked that the parapet be high enough to screen the equipment and the applicant has complied. He noted that a chimney appears to be missing on one of the elevations and he hoped the chimney has not been eliminated. He felt the project is in an emergency mode and staff has been trying to save it and move it forward. He stated he had never seen a project with so many conditions. He felt conditions should be for clean-up of a project, not a rework; and he thought so many conditions would mean that the Commission is opting out of its responsibility. He said he could not support the project at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he liked the elevations but did not feel confident that was what would be built. He stated that Burger King was moved from Foothill Boulevard because it was first proposed to be located right next to the historic Klusman house on the site and the Commission felt there needs to be room around the house and a driveway should not be at the house. He thought that the parking area immediately south of the KJusman House should be eliminated. He stated that the Klusman House is an impodant historic structure and he did not want it to be emasculated by having parking or a building too close. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Burger King could possibly be located on Foothill Boulevard closer to the intersection. Mr. Buller observed that there had been a Pre-Application Review with the Burger King located near the intersection but it required a vadance because the plan violated minimum setbacks of the Foothill Specific Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the moving of Burger King to Vineyard Avenue was one of the first comments from the Commissioners and had nothing to do with the appointment of new Planning Commissioners. He reiterated that he liked the renderings but noted that many of the 48 separate conditions from the Planning Division require Planning Division review and approval, so he felt it was not really known what the City will get. He thought the issues should be resolved before the Commission approves the project. He did not feel it was fair for the applicant's engineer to make the statement that the Foothill Boulevard drain should be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard without calculations to show that the drain could be located on the north side. He did not think that question could be answered tonight. Commissioner McNiel concurred with the chronology of events with respect to moving Burger King from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue. He recalled that Burger King was not moved closer to the comer because it crowded the activity center. He acknowledged the project has been in process a long time but said that progress has been slow because there have always been loose ends. He agreed that the renderings are nice, but commented that the renderir~gs for the McDonalds located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street had been very nice and he was Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 unhappy with the constructed results. He expressed concerns about the drainage and the use of earthen berms, noting that it is unknown when, or if, Phase Two will occur. He stated he did not feel comfortable enough to approve the project. Commissioner Macias felt the City needs to do a better job of making sure applicants understand that DRC concentrates on design and approval by the Committee does not guarantee approval of a project. He noted that DRC approval does not preclude new issues. He observed he did not say he would support the project, merely that he liked the design and the way the comer looks. He felt the design of the building will be complimentary to the rest of the City. He expressed concern about Phase Two and thought a master plan for the entire site should be considered. He agreed with Commissioner McNiel regarding drainage. He noted there is a question of when Phase Two will be constructed and said he wished he could see Phase One in the total context of the site. He took exception to the notion that new Planning Commissioners changed the location of the Burger King. He observed that he had personally been involved in four to five meetings where the Commissioners requested information and the information was provided in a piecemeal fashion. He remarked that he had never seen an architect for the project. He agreed with Commissioner Bethel that staff had bent over backwards to expedite the project, but felt efforts have been unsuccessful. Chairman Barker asked if there had ever been any other project with this many conditions. Mr. Buller conceded that there is more being deferred on this project than on others. He remarked that pad buildings are generally not processed ahead of major tenants for a center. He said staff had tried to determine if there is adequate room for parking the square footage envisioned. He acknowledged that the biggest piece of the puzzle is not shown. Chairman Barker said he felt like he had seen t~e project forever. He admitted he was anxious to move the project forward because he liked the way the corner is shown. He thought all the deferred steps and conditions are proof that staff had gone out of its way to make the project work and he felt the effort was laudatory. He agreed with the other Commissioners that is not the most comfortable way of processing. He thought the drainage issue should have been worked out before the project reached the Commission and did not feel the Commission could comfortably make a decision to move the drain within Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller stated that the applicant's engineer had pointed out that the storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He thought the condition gives the City Engineer the ability to consider what the applicant had proposed. Chairman Barker summarized that Commissioner Bethel was concerned about the large number of unresolved issues, Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about what the project will look like because of the large number of conditions, Commissioner Macias questioned what Phase Two will be like and thought a master plan should be required, and Commissioner McNiel was troubled by the temporary earthen berms and the loose ends and endless series of questions. Commissioner McNiel remarked that most of the issues that were before the Commission had been discussed countless times and there were still questions and no resolution. He thought staff had gone way beyond what is normally done to move the project forward. He said that if the project were approved, he wanted to go on record that the conditions were etched in stone and not subject to negotiation or relaxation by staff. Commissioner Macias noted that many conditions were subject to City Planner or City Engineer discretion. He asked what would happen if the issues could not be resolved with the applicant. Mr. Bullet replied that the City Planner or City Engineer could forward the matter up to the Commission or the applicant could appeal any decision to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 Commissioner Macias asked if unresolved issues would always come back before the Commission. Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked what the applicant would gain if the project were approved at this time. Mr. Bullet indicated that normally the Commission would know the architectural and landscaping theme before approving a project. He noted that the Commission was being asked tonight to approve two very different buildings on a parcel that contains a third historic building. He said that on most projects, better guidelines are established so that they can guide future tenants with regard to design and direction. He noted that the applicant must resolve many issues prior to pulling the first building permit. Chairman Barker asked if it would be fair and accurate to say that the City would be entering into an agreement that the applicant can pull permits if he meets all the conditions. Mr. Buller observed that many of the conditions have milestones that prevent the applicant from progressing beyond a certain point without meeting the conditions. He said this provides safeguards. He confirmed the number of conditions was beyond what the Commission had accepted in the past. Commissioner Bethel felt the Commission was being asked to approve a process rather than a project. Mr. Bullet observed that the City would be getting=improvements to Foothill Boulevard consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and an activity center. He said those were features that will improve Foothill Boulevard. He acknowledged that normally pad buildings are deferred and not put in first. Commissioner Macias stated the process had not been the best but he acknowledged that Mr. Buller had made an excellent point about improvements that would be made to the corner. He thought approval may be a way of spoon-feeding the applicant to get what the City requires under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chairman Barker questioned if a condition should be added that the project would return to the Commission if agreements are not reached. He said he did not want to dump a bunch of problems on the City Council. Commissioner Bethel observed that the majority of the conditions call for City Planner approval and he felt the Commission was dumping its responsibility on staff and setting a precedent for future projects. He asked if the next project would have 49 Planning Division conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to get a consensus on the parking located south of the Klusman House. He preferred that a planter strip be placed in the area. Mr. Buller observed that there is more than ample parking for Phase One without including that strip of parking. He suggested requesting that the applicant landscape the area and forward a plan for how it will be designed in the future, subject to approval of DRC. Commissioner Macias stated he could not support the project because there were still too many outstanding issues. Commissioner McNiel observed that if the Commission approved the project at this time, it would be approving two buildings within Phase One of the project. He said the Commission still had not Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 seen the other buildings to be included with Phase One, but the applicant could pull grading permits and building permits for those two buildings. Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. He pointed out that Planning Condition 5 requires the applicant to submit a concept for the design of the other buildings and said it is to the applicant's benefit to provide such a design guideline supplement. He reported that Terra Vista has design guidelines for pad buildings and staff is able to turn around such buildings in four to six weeks. He noted that this project has different architecture on different buildings and felt it will be hard to write the design guidelines. He stated there is no unifying theme other than heritage architecture. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would be more comfortable having those design guidelines before approving the project. Chairman Barker remarked that Commissioner Bethel had said he would like to see most of the issues resolved before approving the project. He asked if Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with that approach. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he did. Commissioner Macias said he did not feel a lot of confidence with this project because there are too many unresolved matters. He observed numerous conditions deal with large issues. He felt uncomfortable with approving the project at this time. Commissioner McNiel wished the project were built. He stated he likes the Rodriguez family and said he wished he could approve the project fo_r them but he was concerned that the City is only ending up with a Burger King. He asked if Phase One would include the activity center, street improvements, and storm drains in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Bullet confirmed that it would. Commissioner McNiel said he saw those improvements as good for the city but he did not think the project is ready for approval. Chairman Barker said it appeared the Commission was heading toward denial. Mr. Buller stated that if the Commissioners did not feel there was enough evidence to support the project, staff would request the project be continued to the next meeting to allow time to prepare a resolution of denial. He suggested the resolution of approval could also return to the Commission at that same meeting in case the Commissioners felt there had been some progress in resolving the issues. Chairman Barker said he was hearing concern about a number of issues. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the hearing should be reopened and the matter continued to March 11, 1997. Chairman Barker reoper~ed the public headng and continued Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to March 11, 1997, to allow staff to prepare a resolution of denial. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 8:53 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 3.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 207-211-12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 26, and continued to March 11, and March 26, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 26, March 11, and March 26, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved with a historic residence and related landscape and parking lot improvements; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of vacant rand, the property to the east is a service station and apartments, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant rand; and c. The application contemplates development of Phase One of a two-Phased shopping center. The major tenants for the center are not part of the proposed Phase One development. Phase One includes a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land. The total land area of Phase One and Two is 8.9 acres; and d. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires compliance with community design guidelines and that streetscape and architectural palettes be sensitive to and attempt to create a "heritage" statement along Foothill Boulevard. This application does not give any indication that this statement will occur since Master Plan Design Guidelines for the majority of the two-phased shopping center, including all potential major tenants, as well as the buildings flanking the proposed on-site pedestrian activity center, have not been provided with the application; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 2 e. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan specifies that special landscape and architectural features should be provided at major intersection locations. Elements such as changes in paving materials, plant materials, lighting, and the siting of major structures within and around the pedestrian node area are recommended and encouraged to be used. While an area has been specified on the site plan to receive this type of treatment, this area has yet to be conceptually designed to the level that will give assurance that the specific proposal will comply with the goals and objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and f. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that a Conceptual Master Plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval, together with any development proposals and shall address all other parcels as they relate to the Master Plan. The "Conceptual Master Plan" submitted in conjunction with the "application" is, in fact, an illegible reproduced copy of the "Conceptual Landscape Plan" with only the title changed, and does not provide the comprehensive development scheme, in words and drawings, required by the Development Code. Specifically, the "Conceptual Master Plan" does not indicate, beyond Phase One, conceptual grading and drainage for future phases, areas to be used for landscaping and plazas, and does not include a statement of architectural intent and/or conceptual elevations indicating the architectural concepts including style, various product types, form, bulk, height, orientation, and materials. Further, the Uniform Application and Initial Study Part I, as submitted by the applicant, includes only those parcels affected by Phase One: APN 207-211-12 and 13; and does not include those four parcels in future phases: APN: 207-211-14, 15,38, and40;and - g. The project would be contrary to the City's goals for Historic Preservation specifically as it relates the existing Klusman House. The Klusman House was designated as a local histodc landmark because of its architectural significance as one of the more outstanding examples of high style architecture in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and as the foremost example of a domestic interpretation of the Spanish/Mediterranean style which has stood as a significant element to the Route 66/Foothill Boulevard streetscape since 1928. The house is a potential State Landmark and is eligible for the National Register. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that any buildings identified as architecturally significant should, where feasible and if necessary, be restored and integrated into the development. The project proposes to construct a row of parking spaces along the entire south elevation of the landmark structure; however, the area between the parking and the landmark has yet to be designed to assure a proper setting for the landmark, including, but not limited to, sufficient setback. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and c. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of March 199~, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 3.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 207-211-12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 26, and continued to March 11, and March 26, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter date. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 26, March 11, and March 26, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved with a historic residence and related landscape and parking lot improvements; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is a service station and apartments, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a portion of Phase One improvements, which includes a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru facility, a sit-down restaurant, and an on-site extension of the pedestrian activity center area near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; and d. The application contemplates the removal of the interim parking lot for the existing historic Klusman House as part of Phase One development; and e. The balance of the buildings shown in Phase One around the on-site pedestrian activity center area will not be constructed initially and will be required to be reviewed under a separate application through the City's development review process in the future; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 2 f. The application indicates Phase Two of the Conceptual Master Plan as being the balance of the 3.7 acre site and includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant, such as a supermarket, and approximately 13,750 square feet of shops space. This portion of the development will also be required to be processed through a separate development review application(s) in the future. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every Condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) Approval is for Phase One development only, as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. The remainder of the Master Plan is shown in concept only. A new Conditional Use Permit or Development Review application (as applicable) shall be submitted for review and approval PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 3 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) of the Planning Commission or City Planner (as applicable) for all buildings within future remaining phases. Temporary fencing with a green mesh or similar material shall be provided around Phase Two as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan, prior to occupancy of any buildings within Phase One. All construction activities and traffic for Phase One shall be within its parcel. A detailed construction activities plan showing the area for storage of earth materials, building materials, the staging of construction equipment such as skip loader, excavator, etc., the construction traffic route, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One, as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. All construction activities and traffic for Phase One shall not negatively impact any business activities at the Klusman House. A Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center, indicating provisions for major tenants, other in-line tenants and pad buildings, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. The standards shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style of the shopping center. The size of the sign copy shall be visually balanced and propodionate to the buildings and the architectural style. A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include integrated architectural and landscape themes and examples of architectural styles for the shopping center, including, but not limited to, major tenants, in-line shops, and freestanding pad buildings, shall be prepared for review and approval of the Design Review Committee, pdor to issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction, as shown on the Phasing Plan. In addition, a uniform hardscape and street furniture treatment, including trash receptacles, freestanding potted plants, trellises, special paving, bicycle racks, light bollards, benches, etc., shall be utilized for the shopping center and shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be included in the Design Guidelines supplement. Parking lot light standards shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other pedestrian level lighting used within the Activity Center area along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and shall be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet above finished grade. Details of the parking lot lighting shall be included on the on-site Photometric Lighting Plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Sheriff's Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction. There shall be provisions for the following design features in the trash enclosures to the satisfaction of the City Planner (the exact location for the trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits): a) Architecturally integrated into the design of this project; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 4 b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors; c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins; d) Trash bins-with counter weighted lids; e) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis; and Chain link fencing on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure. The screen shall be designed to be hidden from view. 8) The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size: a) Trees framing the main focal point; b) Entry access trees framing the main drive aisles throughout the project; and c) On-site Activity Center trees at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The final landscape and irrigation design of the 10-foot wide landscaped areas flanking both sides of the main entrance off Foothill Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. A pedestrian walkway incorporating the special paving scheme used throughout the project shall be provided on the east side of the drive aisle to provide a continuous pedestrian access route from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the front of the major and shops tenants, as shown on the conceptual Master Plan. 9) All slopes and any area disturbed in Phase Two, on the conceptual Master Plan, shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included within the Landscape and Irrigation Plans and shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One. 10) All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the architectural program established, as determined by the Planning Commission and City Planner (as applicable). 11) A Security Patrol Plan for the shopping center shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. 12) A bus shelter on Vineyard Avenue shall be installed with Phase One improvements. The final design and location shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. 13) Any modifications to the proposed Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 5 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 2o) 21) 22) 23) 24) No restaurant use (other than that proposed with Phase One) is proposed for the center. If over 15 percent of the gross leasable area is occupied by food service uses, one additional parking space per 100 square feet of gross leasable floor area used for food service shall be provided. Likewise, if a cinema or offices are proposed, then additional parking may be required. Truck loading and unloading zones shall be properly marked to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The pedestrian Activity Center shall be continued for a distance west along the Foothill Boulevard frontage to the first driveway and south along Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway. The final design of the on- site extension of the pedestrian Activity Center, including the art piece, pedestrian furniture, and focal elements such as a water feature, shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Planner, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown on the Phasing Plan. A portion of the amenities within the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be completed with Phase One development, including the plaza between Buildings 1 and 2. The final design of the Activity Center and the phasing of improvements shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown on the Phasing Plan. The final design of the enhanced storefronts and the focal point within the Phase Two Master Plan area shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee, prior to the issuance of building permits for any development within Phase Two, as shown on the Phasing Plan. An art piece at the Activity Center plaza shall be installed within 180 days after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for either building in Phase One, whichever occurs first. The final design of the sidewalk connections from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the pad buildings, where applicable, shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee as part of each Design Review application for the development of the pad buildings. The property owner and/or trustee shall be responsible to maintain the two art work focal elements for the life of this commercial center. Public telephones shall be placed inside the building. Placement of outside public telephones may be allowed and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to installation. Placement of newspaper racks and other street furniture may be allowed if consistent with the approved street furniture guidelines and subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to installation. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 6 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. No permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts shall be permitted, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The shopping carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designated place at the end of each work day. The entire site shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times, and in no event shall trash and debris remain on the site for more than 24 hours. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours. Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. only. The business shall be conducted to comply with the following standards: a) Noise Levels: All comme~ial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. b) Loading and Unloading: No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. Any outdoor displays of merchandise shall be limited to specific areas that will be considered as part of Phase Two development, as applicable. Berming, low walls, dense hedgerows of evergreen shrubs, or any combination thereof, shall be provided to sufficiently screen all parking areas, drive-thru lanes and any other vehicular activity areas from public view of perimeter streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plans shall indicate compliance with this requirement. The applicant shall resolve any Building Code compliance difficulties (with construction of canopies, property lines in relation to walls and other openings, and roof tile installation to withstand severe winds) with the Building and Safety Division, prior to the issuance of any building permits. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided on the property in accordance with current City regulations. Security racks shall be provided for each storage space and shall be located near the main building entrances in highly visible areas to minimize theft and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 7 vandalism. An aisle or other space shall be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the storage spaces with a minimum width of 5 feet to the front or the rear of a standard 6-foot bicycle parked in the space. 34) The final design, material use, and height of the parapet and chimney on the Burger King building shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 35) The Burger King building and drive-thru lane shall be shifted westerly 3 feet to comply with the minimum 45-foot setback from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue. Since this shift will cause a reduction in the amount of landscaped area on the west side of the building, the final landscape and irrigation design of this area shall be reviewed as part of the detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plan, and approved, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One development. 36) The parking spaces along the drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King building shall be angled at 45 degrees and painted arrows shall be used to identify the proper travel direction, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. : 37) Directional signage shall be used to properly direct vehicular traffic to the drive-thru lane and one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 38) Rolled curbing, turf block, and raised special paving consistent in design with that used throughout the shopping center, shall be used at the narrowed (south) end of the one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 39) The landscape palette along the southerly and east property lines shall be selected so as to provide a dense landscape buffer between the shopping center, the existing residence, and any future development on the vacant residentially zoned parcel to the south, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 40) Additional areas of special paving shall be used throughout the project, especially at all vehicular entrances to the site, key pedestrian routes across vehicular drive aisles and to demarcate primary pedestrian walkways and gathering areas within the shopping center, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. This shall include the circular "compass rose" pattern treatment where each entrance driveway intersects with the first interior drive aisles (see Exhibit "D" of Staff Report). 41) The formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center shall extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Amenities used within the Activity Center such as benches, a fountain, etc., could also be used in this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 42) A decorative cap shall be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 8 43) Native dyer cobble shall be used (as opposed to a manufactured rock veneer product) in all areas where rock is proposed on the building and wall elevations throughout the project. 44) The final design of the radius curve south and west of the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Fire District, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One development. 45) A uniform hardscape and street furniture including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed design shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, prior to issuance of building permit. 46) Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete or a combination of them. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permit. 47) All future building pads shall be ~eeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plan shall be included in the Landscape and Irrigation Plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 48) Revise southerly parking lot to provide a minimum two-way drive aisle width of 24 feet in all drive aisles. Enaineering Division 1) 2) 3) 4) The project as proposed will require the processing of a Lot Line Adjustment. Note: All conditions referencing project frontage or APN's are with respect to lot lines subsequent to the Lot Line Adjustment. Along Foothill Boulevard a total of 64 feet is required as measured between the street center line and ultimate curb face. Additional right- of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity Center) to include both rows of tree wells and pedestrian corridor. The right-of-way dimensions are subject to Caltrans approval during Technical Plan Review. Along Vineyard Avenue a total of 35 feet plus an additional 11 feet, to accommodate a bus bay right-turn lane is required for a total of 46 feet as measured between the approved survey line and ultimate curb face. Additional right-of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity Center) to include both rows of tree wells and pedestrian corridor. The Activity Center pedestrian corridor along Vineyard Avenue shall include two rows of tree wells, similar to the corridor as shown along PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 9 Foothill Boulevard to provide a colonnade feeling, pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 5) Pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a minimum spacing of 10 feet is required between center line of tree wells. In addition, a minimum distance of 6 feet is required from center line of tree well to curb face to allow for a 2-foot minimum planting area. 6) Easements will be required for the cross-lot drainage and any proposed on-site drainage facility. All on-site drainage facilities are subject to review by the Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions. 7) A separate set of Landscape and Irrigation Plans fQr the Foothill Boulevard median island, per Engineering Public Works Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits, and shall be constructed thereof. The developer may request a Reimbursement Agreement to recover one-half the cost from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. Said Reimbursement Agreement shall be submitted within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, or all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. However, if Caltrans does not allow the construction of a median island, and subsequent landscaping, then an in-lieu fee as contribution to one-half of the future cost of constructing and landscaping said median island shall be paid to the City, pdor to the issuance of building permits. The amount shall be as determined during Technical Plan review times the length of the project frontage to the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 8) Full frontage improvements shall be constructed across the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages. A right-turn lane shall be constructed for the Foothill Boulevard driveway. The driveway on Vineyard Avenue shall be constructed as a bus bay right-turn lane. Driveways shall be standard commercial type, per City standards, with no ramps or pavers. All right-of-way necessary to construct right-turn pockets, bus bays, driveways, and transitions on Foothill Boulevard and/or Vineyard Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed as a part of this project, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the north side of Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The amount shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the project's westerly boundary. 10) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding and/or previous undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the KV electrical) on the east side of Vineyard Avenue shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 10 Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to the project's southerly boundary and/or the reimbursable amount for the previous undergrounding improvements pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement, whichever is applicable, at the time of payment of the in- lieu fee. 11) A cash contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost of construction of special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits and shall be based on the calculated amount as determined for the project located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 12) The parkway Activity Center shall be constructed per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan fronting Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Planner, and Caltrans. 13) Modification and relocation, as necessary, of the traffic signal at the Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection shall be the responsibility of the developer. -The modification and relocation shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans. 14) Construct the local storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard from the existing connection at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue to Cucamonga Creek to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15) "No Parking/Stopping" signs shall be posted along the frontages of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 16) The proposed project is draining 70 to 80 percent of the site to the southwest corner and conveying the drainage flows directly into Cucamonga Creek Drainage Channel. San Bernardino County Flood Control District approval and permit is required, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The connections shall be sized to accommodate the drainage for the whole site in its ultimate condition. Since this is a sump condition, a secondary overflow is required. The sump condition shall pond a depth of water no greater than 18 inches. Building and Safety/Fire Protection District 1) Submit comprehensive foundation soils report, prior to issuance of grading permits, including recommendations for existing uncompacted fill. 2) Assembly-type occupancy uses within building will require additional and specific review and comments. Environmental Mitigation Measures 1) A final geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and accepted by the City's geologist, prior to issuance of any PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 11 permits. The applicant shall pay the cost of the review by the City's geologist by depositing funds for this purpose. 2) The recommendations of the final geologic report shall be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to the issuance of any permits. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following: a) No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the approximate restricted use zone as shown on Plate One unless a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds this portion of the site to be free of active faulting. The recommended restricted use zone applies to proposed structures only. The restricted use zone on the site can be used for purposes other than the placement of human occupancy structures, such as parking areas. b) c) The southeast boundary of the recommended restricted use zone shall be surveyed. This restricted area zone shall be shown on all site development plans, including Grading Plans. Positive drainage of the site should be provided, and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any cut or fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided, as the native soils are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water. d) The maximum inclination of all cut slopes shall be two horizontal to one vertical up to a maximum height of 10 feet. e) All cut slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to minimize erosion, as material on-site may be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. The final Grading Plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist, prior to any grading. g) The trench backfill was not compacted. The suitability of this material for future use shall be determined by the geotechnical engineer if any man-made use of this area is planned. 3) A detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, prior to issuance of building permits, to address interior noise levels of all buildings within the project. 4) Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed Lighting Plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits, to provide proper shielding of adjoining properties from light and glare. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 26, 1997 Page 12 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 BURGER KING AND 5,548 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT U.S. PROPERTIES SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD & VINEYARD AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time 1. Limits Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Completion Date / Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. SC - 10/~,6 Go Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. / / Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. / / A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. / / Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screene~Lthrough the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. / / 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. / / 12. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. Any fur[her modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. 13. Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter of APN: 207-211 - 05. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wait. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. Building Design All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screeniqg shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. SC - 10l~6 2 Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). / / / / / / All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. VVhere this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. Trip Reduction 1. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided. / / Landscaping / / A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planr;er review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. / / Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. / / Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. / / I / / / Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion SC - 10/9.6 3 Proiec: NO. CUP g5-25 Completion Da:e control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. · All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fe~ilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. / / The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. __ Special landscape features is required along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue per the Activity Center guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shal~ be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. A Uniform Sign Program for this devefopment shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate t,/pe and location of mail boxes. The final location of the mail boxes and their design shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / / / / / Project No. CUP ~5-25 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. / / Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. / / o Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. / / Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. <. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Please see Enqineerinq Division's Soecial Conditions in the Resolution. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 3. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided. SC - 10/96 P;oiec: No. CU~ ~5-25 Corn~ledon Da',e Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside ~h~ public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. / / Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to'provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. / / M. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / / Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail island Trail Foothill Blvd. v' b ,/ -/ ,/ / / e Vineyard Ave. b / ,/ / ¢' e Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Activity Center. _ Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City A~torney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Offqce in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffqc signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffqc signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. / / / / / / Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / / Street trees, a minimum of 15ogallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. / / A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Foothill Boulevard. N. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Foothill Boulevard ('see Special Conditions/. / / A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue (Acitivitv Center). O. Drainage and Flood Control A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the SC - 10/96 7 Project No. CUP 95.25 Com~31etion Date Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,000 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. / / Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. / I Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. / / 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / / Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed ope:ations. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire Iane standards, as noted: / / X Special provisions would be required for rolled curbs in FIRE LANES. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. SC - 10~75 Project No. CUP 95-25 Com131etion Date 9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 10. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $1,290.00 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. S. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations). b. Compressed gases (storage, handling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMEN~ (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire developmenL 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. U. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - ' 9/9.3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 26, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: REOUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE STREET SECTION FOR WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AND YOUNGS CANYON ROAD BACKGROUND: Wardman Bullock Road and Youngs Canyon Road are currently designated as "Special Design Streets" in both the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the General Plan. The section indicates 106' of right-of-way including: a raised landscaped median, a wide parkway on the north side and a community trail on the south side. These features have been designed to setw'e a dual purpose; to buffer the surrounding residentfal developments from the traffic of a secondary road utilized to capacity and to create a vivid entry statement for traffic from the freeway access originally planned to occur at Cherry Avenue. The Route 30 design plans have been revised significantly' since the planning stages. As a result, the access location to accommodate this area along Interstate I5, to be constructed as a part of the Route 30 improvements, will now be at Wilson Avenue. Staff is proposing to eliminate the landscaped median, which would result in a standard secondary street from curb to curb with enhanced parkways in keeping with the "special design" criteria. The capacity of the street will remain the same. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff, through minute action, to initiate an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment in accordance with the subject of this report. Respectfully_ submitted, Dan James c-- Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MEP ITEM C '(~ WARDMAN BULLOCKROAD (~) YOUNGSCANYON ROAD 24TH, STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINE!~ING DMSION ITEM: Vicinity Map TITLE: Wardman Bullock Youngs Canyon Section EXHIBIT: "C" FIG. 5-34 EXISTING Large Columnar Tree Type A~,~ ~ 41 Large Columnar Tree Type A 12' ,, YOUNGSCANYON ROAD Between San Sevaine Basins and Cherry Avenue FIG 5-34A PROPOSED NIE Large Columnar Tree Type A 7' 7' 32' ,J, 32' 102' ROW Tree Type A " / Trail *~~ Equestrian 20' / WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD I YOUNGS CANYON ROAD Between Wilson and San sevaine Basins FIG. 5-34 PROPOSED