The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005/10/26 - Agenda PacketCwt • • n L J THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA jZnNCeo cucnmtoNCn OCTOBER 26, 2005 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California ,,... ~OxvER ~ Is CALiTO = ` , , , , ,., ,:; ,, , Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Stewart _ Vice Chairman Macias _ Fletcher _ McPhail _ McNiel _ ;: , ,:.. II ANNOUNCEMENTS : - ,r __ ~, .. ., ~;~~ ,~ ~~ - III:'~~APPROVAL OF MINUTES "~"'~=wt~a~~=~s':~ 'u` ~ " ~x' " y « . ~ . rr,.~? 1 ~s September 28, 2005 i ^- ~: ~" s IV:~~~"DIRECTOR'S~REPORTS ~s ~r ~ 4 ~ ~ ";`' . ~_ . , x , . A. CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION DRC2005-00918 - A request to demolish the structure located at 8291 Foothill Boulevard at the San Bernardino Road intersection - APN: 0207-113-24. , r 4 ; ~ <PUBLIG.COMIVIENTS ,:>~: t ~ ~ <..`~ i ,` V: ~ . , . This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. ,.x;.~ "~ VI ~"~ COIVIMISSIOPi~BU$INESS a ~ ~_ Y' ~ , ~. ; HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - AGENDA jZnxceo OCTOBER 26, 2005 cvcnMONCn Page 2 .. ~, ` `. ~ VIL ~ . ADJOURNMENT`r . r,..:.. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary o(the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 20, 2005, at least 72 hours priorto the meeting perGovemment Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~zC If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ® ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. r1 U • Vicinity Map • Historic Preservation Commission October 26, 2005 ~~~~ * Meeting Location: Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • N City of Rancho Cucamonga T H E C I T Y O F 12 A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE: October 26, 2005 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission BY: Cathy Morris, Planning Specialist FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION DRC2005-00918 - A request to demolish the structure located at 8291 Foothill Boulevard at the San Bernardino Road intersection - APN: 0207-113-24. ABSTRACT: In July 2005, a demolition permit was issued for this, as well as the adjoining structure at 8269 Foothill Boulevard. After the removal of the building at 8269 Foothill Boulevard, demolition was • halted at 8291 Foothill Boulevard, pending review by the Historic Preservation Commission as to the historic and cultural significance of the structure. BACKGROUND: The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, adopted in September 1987, identifies this prominent structure as a key existing community design feature and states, "It is the intent of the Community Design Plan to identify these elements so that they may be preserved or enhanced (Section 17.32.050.0]." The Plan goes on to say that, "The following community and design features are notable structures and, at the property owner's option, can be incorporated into a future development proposal. Any such proposal must be required to upgrade these structures to current City development standards or may be relocated off-site [17.32.050.0.6. NOTABLE STRUCTURES]." The Plan describes this unusual building as showing signs of streamlined/art deco architecture. "The building is characterized by two streamline overhead drive-under canopies that appear symmetrical and is also characterized by metal elevation panels, a flat roof, and a large sign column (17.32.050.0.6.6.]." On July 7, 1988, staff presented a list of potentially historic structures, including 8291 Foothill Boulevard to the Historic Preservation Commission. The staff report noted that this structure looked like a 1950's era Route 66 roadside, fast food restaurant with a design meant to evoke a rocket or an airplane image. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) directed that consideration of this structure should occur in September 1988. Research of the HPC minutes between July 1988 and July 1989, indicates that this structure was never reviewed by the Commission. The current owner of the building would like to demolish the building in order to develop retail and office space. The owner has also purchased the adjoining property and intends to develop the entire site as a commercial retail center. The owner has had many meetings with City staff representing Planning, • Engineering, and Building 8 Safety in order to integrate the City's concerns into the project. The owner ITEM A HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2005-00918 October 26, 2005 • Page 2 now feels that he has received enough feedback from the City to develop a successful project and meet all City requirements. ANALYSIS: The property was not surveyed at the time the City's original Designated and Potential Historical Site List was prepared. In 2001, a historical, site survey was done for the City by Mitch Stone, San Buenaventura Research Associates, in conjunction with a study that Engineering prepared for the Foothill Railroad Overpass project. The survey describes the structure: "This former gas station building consists of a central, one-story pavilion with an asymmetrical, octagonal plan clad in smooth panels, probably metal. Projecting from the central pavilion are two canopies forming an oblique angle. The canopies are edged with scalloped metal panels. The building is topped with a tall sign pylon, absent a sign. The canopies are supported by two posts terminating in gas pump islands, which are no longer in service. Some alterations are apparent, including the replacement of original windows with aluminum and/or the introduction of new window and door openings. Less certain is the originality of the scalloped panels on the canopies." To this description staff would add that the metal panels which form the fascia of the two canopies may not be original, and most assuredly, the pavilion's sliding glass door and stone veneer along the base of the pavilion and applied to the planters (former pump islands) are not original. The report concluded that • the old gas station did not appear eligible for designation as a local landmark, The building is thought to have been built by the Standard Oil Company, probably in the mid to late thirties, possibly the early forties. Peter Tolstoy, a former Historic Preservation Commissioner, remembers that the structure was originally a Standard Station (the pre-cursor to Chevron). Attached is a rendering of a Standard Station in the 1940's that has the same major features as 8291 Foothill Boulevard: a central pavilion with a flying wing canopy. In more recent years, the building served as a restaurant and as a retail car stereo sales location. The building is currently vacant, but has become a familiar feature along Foothill Boulevard. Owners of this property have struggled over the years to find a use and a tenant that could utilize the building with all of the physical constraints such as, the small, triangular parcel shape, the need to widen both street frontages to their ultimate width, ADA requirements, lack of adequate parking, and ingress and egress of traffic onto San Bernardino Road and Foothill Boulevard. In light of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan's identification of this building as a notable structure, its high profile location along historic Route 66, and its proximity to other designated local landmarks such as the Magic Lamp and the Sycamore Inn, staff would like affirmation from the Historic Preservation Commission prior to granting permission to the current owner, Mr. Blake Miraglia, to proceed with the demolition of the building. If the Commission allows the demolition and new development occurs, the new development will have to comply with all current Development Code standards, including setback and parking requirements. r 1 LJ ~-a HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2005-00918 • October 26, 2005 Page 3 LANDMARK DESIGNATION REVIEW CRITERIA: "When designating a landmark, the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council shall consider the following criteria as a guide in making its determination" [RCMC Section 2.24.090]: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. Finding: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of a historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. FacUs: The structure is an interesting example of roadside architecture from the late 1930's or early 1940's along the famous and historic Route 66. 2. Findin The proposed landmark is a greater age than most of its kind. Facts: The exact age of the structure is uncertain, however, is approximately 65 to 75 years old. 3. Findin The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important dr a local personality. • FacUs: There is no record that the building was connected with anyone renowned or important or a local personality. 4. Findin The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use, which was once common but is now rare. FacUs: The original structure is believed to have been built as a Standard Oil gas station, and later converted into adrive-thru restaurant. There are numerous gas stations and fast food restaurants along historic Route 66 (Foothill Boulevard). B. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: 1. Findin The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. FacUs: The building has an unusual design in the streamlined/art deco architectural vernacular. The building is characterized by two angled streamline overhead drive-under canopies, and a large, central sign pylon (absent the sign). The overall design effect has been significantly diminished through a variety of obvious exterior alterations, including the addition of modern windows, a sliding glass door and flat stone veneer, as well as, less obvious, but likely, alterations including the scalloped metal panel canopy facade. C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: . 1. Findin The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. ~-3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2005-00918 October 26, 2005 . Page 4 Facts: The building is located within the historic Bear Gulch area that also contains the Sycamore Inn and Magic Lamp restaurants, both historic landmarks. 2. Findin The proposed landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. FacUs: The building is a well-known feature of Route 66, and is located within the historic Bear Gulch area that also contains the Sycamore Inn and Magic Lamp restaurants, both historic landmarks. Staff believes that the alterations made to this structure over many decades have destroyed its original architectural character and significance. PROPOSED DEMOLITION: If deemed to be a Historic Landmark, demolition would require that a Landmark Alteration Permit be granted by the Historic Preservation Committee if one of the following conditions is met, in accordance with Title 2.24.120 of Ordinance 70: The alteration will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of an historic nature. The alteration is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property. • The applicant has demonstrated denial of the application that will result in immediate or substantial hardship. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission determine that the structure does not meet the City's criteria for a local Landmark Designation and approve the demolition of the structure located at 8291 Foothill Boulevard. Res submitte , ~`~~ Dan Coleman Acting City Planner DC:cm/ge Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit D Site Location Map Photograph Primary Record Survey Form Correspondence Standard Station Rendering i g~ •~E SUBJECT PARCEL Exhibit A Richfield Service Station 8291 Foothill Boulvard APN: 207-113-24 Exhibit B ~~ • State of Calilomfa-The Resource: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND F PRIMARY RECORD Primary M HRI F Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6 Other Listings Review Code _ • Page 1 Of 2 Resource Name Or N: (ASSrgnea Dy recVruer/ ocor ~,wu,u, r.,amorm,. P7. Other Identifier: none P2. Location: ^ Not for Publication ®Unrestrlcted a. County SanBemardino and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS 7.5' Ouad Date T R 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec B.M. c. Address: 8291 Foethi//Boulevard City FanchoCucamonga 7rp 91730 d. UTM: (Give more than one /or large and/linear resources) mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data (Enter Parcel p, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropdate) Parcel No. P3. Description (Descnbe resource and its major elements. Indude design, materials, condition, alterations, s¢e, setting, and boundaries) This lormergas station bui/ding consists ofa cenba/, one-slorypavi/ion wr`Ih an asymmeMca/, xtagona/p/an c/ad in smoelh pane/s, probab/ymeta/. Projecting Iron the cenlia/pavi/ion a2 hvo canopies /orming an oblique ang/e. The canopies are edged with sca//ooed meta/pane/s. The bui/ding7s topped wirh a ta//sign py/on, absent a sign. The canopies are supponedby two pasts terminating in gas pump is/ands, which are no /ongerin service. Some a//era/ions are apparent, inc/uding the rep/acemenr of origina/windows with a/uminum and/or the introduction o/new window and door openings. Less certain is the odgina/ity o!!he sca//opedpane/s on the canopies. P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP8->,3sloryCommercia/Bui/ding P4. Resources Present ®Building ^ Structure ^ Object ^ Site ^ District ^ Element o/District ^ Other (Isolates, etc.) P56. Descdptbn al Photo: (View, date, aaession ~) a291 Feolhd/B/~d(uacJ(Vew toward west/. Phole Na' 1-11, 7?7/cGt71 P5. Data Constructed/Age and Sources: ^ Prehistoric ®Historic ^ Both 19COE P7. Owner and Address P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliatbn, and address) Mirah Slone, Sen Buenevenarra Aesearo5 Assoaates, r328Waed/endOG Sartre Paula CA Si.7A3J Pg. Date Recorded: 8/24/2001 P10. Survey Type: (Describe) /nlensue /eve/ • Aaaehments ^ NONE ^ Cormhuatbn Sheet ^ District Record ^ Rodr Art Record ^ Other. (List) ^ Locatan Map ®Building, Structure, end Object Remrd p Linear FeaNre Record ^ Artllact Aecord ^ Ske4ri Map p Mchaeobgigl Record ^ Milling Station Record ^ Photograph Record nPR 5214 (1 ~R~s d ~~ San auenavenW2 Resea,cn AsstGares P71. Report Citation:(Cite survey report one Omer sources, or enrer none/ Sfete olCaldomla-The AesounaesAA~perrwwyy _ - DEPAATMENLOFPARKSANDAE.CREATION=~',:. -~ - ~. BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD. ' HRI ~ ' Primary t'. Q Page 2 of 2 IVHnr' JlalYa l.vvv Resource Name or q: (Assigned by recorder) 8291 Foofhi//Bou/evard B1. Hisrodc Name: ~ unbawn B2 Convnon Name: unMmwn B3. Odginal Use: gas slalren H4. Present Use: vacant B5. Archltecturel Style: Madame 85. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) cosstructed circa 1940, later alterations BT. ~ Moved? ®No ^ Yes ^ Unknown Date BB. Related Features: Original Location: • 89a. Architect: unkrwwn b. Builder. unknown B10. Significance: Theme: RoadsideComrnerica/ Area Red Hi/bCcrarnonga Period o} Significance: Property Type: CorrNasrpa/: Applicable Criteria: (Disarss ynpwfancg H anrrrs olhlsbrlcel orertitNecNrel crontext as defined by theme, period end B~HrePhk ~. Also address inteprlry.) This bui/ding was constructed as a gasoline service station, probabty dudng the mid-Io-/ate >93os. /t is thought to have been constructed by Rich/ie/d, but th/s cbu/d not be veri/led. /n male recentears, it has served as a restaurant and !or caislemo sales. The bui/ding ie an interesting examp/e o/roadside architecture /rom the /ate 1930s or eady >94os, though its slate o/integrity /iom This pedod is /air. The architeclure/ design of This building is not suf/icien//y distinctive to qualily for NRHP or CRHR e/igibi/i!y under Critedon C (design) and it does not appear Io be associated with any known histonca/ theme or significant individua/. /I does rwt appear to be a/igib/e /or the NRHP or CRHR under criterion A orB. /I does not at this lime appear to be. e/igib/e !oi designation es a loco/City of Rancho Cucamonga /andmanF and is not included on the City's Historic Resources /nvenlory list. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attdbutes and codes) Bt2. Re}erencea: B13. Remarks: Mitch Stone 8/24/2001 HP8- >-3storyCommeroia/ B14. Evaluator: Date of Evaluation: (This space reserved for olfidel comments.) ova sz3e nor r.scn Oct 07 OS 01:25p ~ke Miraglia 76462-2151 P•2 • Blake Miraglia RC66 Plaza, LLC 50-855 Washington St. #C234 La Quints, CA 92253 October 6, 2005 Mr. Dan Coleman City Planner, Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: 8269 & 8291 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear lu1r. Coleman Though we have met previously to discuss possible development options for the building previously sitting on the lot located at 8269 Foothill Blvd, I would like to reintroduce myself ns the developer representing RC66 Plaza, LLC (RC66), who is the current owner of both parcels of land located at 8269 ~ 8291 Foothill Blvd. I understand you spoke with my partner, Jimmy Seale, • yesterday, and that you have added us to the agenda for the Preservation Committee on October 26, 2005. Thank you for your help. Please find the following specific information about our company and the parcels that may be helpful: RC66 Plaza, LLC Blake Miraglia, Manager 50-855 Washington St. #C234 La Quinta, CA 92253 760-771-2763 x100 760-462-2151 FAX bmiraalio@dc.rr.com 8269 Foothill Blvd. (A.P.N. 0207-113-23) 8291 Foothill Blvd. (A.P.N. 0207-113-24) Assessor's Map Book 207 Pnge Il Tax ID #: 20-2760798 Brief Background We acquired the property known as 8269 Foothill after a misunderstanding about our ability to update the building and lease it out. We learned that we couldn't simply update the building and lease it out because it had been vacant for more than six (6) months, and that we would have to bring it up to code. We worked on plans to bring it up to code including some other possible site utilizations. You may recall that we actually met with you to discuss some of those possibilities • Inst year. You expressed'your concerns with direct access from Foothill Blvd to San Bernardino Road and encouraged us to try to come up with a development plan that encompassed an overall 50-855 Washington St. #C234 • IA Quints, CA • 92253 • 760-771-2763 • Fax 760-462-2151 • bloke@wli.n¢t ~~~~~ ~ ~ Oct 07 OS 01:26p ~ke Miraglia 7462-2151 P•3 plan for both 8269 Foothill and 8291 Foothill. We did'not find the owners of 8291 receptive ton • master plan, so we listed 8269 for sale. We had an unbelievable response, but they all ended the same way when the prospect would realize he couldn't make the numbers work. Then, earlier this year, we found some middle ground on 8291 and we were able to acquire that property. After the purchase of 8291, we hired Santmm~ria Design (architecture firm) who completed a number of site utilization studies covering both pnrcels, which were shared with Brad Buller and others with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. After several meetings and numerous revisions, we finally appeared to be a right track in our lost meeting with Mr. Buller which also included City engineers and representatives from building and safety. Based on the response in that meeting and because we were anxious to get this project moving after two years of feeling stuck, we hired a contracting firm to demolish the two buildings located at 8269 6 8291 Foothill Blvd. We were simply seeking to prepare the site for a new building we hoped to be able to start in the near future. The contractor received permits from the City and then proceeded to go forward with the demolition and actually did demolish the building located nt 8269 Foothill before taking a break. After returning from their break, the workers were about to bulldoze the building located at 8291 Foothill Blvd. when They were stopped by Mike Diaz and others from the City while he sought to revoke the permit due to historical preservation concerns. I met with Mr. Diaz the following week nt the site to discuss the historical preservation issue and our options. • Since that day, I hove met with Mike again to further discuss the future of these two parcels. Our models that were last discussed with Brnd Buller and which were discussed with Mike in the last meeting include a building with approximately 15,000 to 17,000 square feet of leasable mix use (retail and office) space with two levels of subterranean parking. We've listened intently in all of the meetings with the City, and we hove recently finished some enhancements to the ingress/egress and the parking structure as well as further updating to the architectural look to help integrate the comments and direction we've received to meet the City's desires. We have been working very hard to create nn image the City would be proud of and that would give the City a project they would be proud to endorse. In fact, the current design is the result of our efforts to incorporate the comments and feedback we've received from the City. We appreciate that feedback and we're grateful for the assistance. I understand from Mike Diaz that the first step before being able to move forward on any project on these pnrcels, however, is to address the °historic significance" issue. We have contacted engineers, historians and Larry Henderson from within your staff to seek out opinions on the historical significance. During our latest meeting with Mike, he shared n report prepared for the City of Rancho Cucamonga that analyzed certain buildings along route 66 for their historical significance. Within the study, the writers commented that the building found at 8291 Foothill did not represent the architecture of the times and was not of any historical significance. We also met with n City . building code enforcement representative nt the building who, after inspection, acknowledged 50-855 Washington St. #6234 • La Quints, CA • 92253 • 760-771-2763 • Fax 760-462-2151 • blakeC~wli.net ~/D Oct 07 OS 01:26p ~ke Miraglia 7462-2151 p•4 • that the building was unsuitable for inhabitation and that it wasn't in condition to be restored. Even so, Mike explained that there was a process that needs to be followed before we can proceed. Consequently, I asked my business Partner, Jimmy Seale to contact the City Official who oversees such a process. From Jimmy's findings, he was connected to Larry Henderson within the planning department. After Jimmy explained the situation to Mr. Henderson, Larry indicated that we really have already gone through the correct process. Larry indicated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has deemed these buildings as not having any historical significance; therefore, the correct process would be to go through the permitting process. Accordingly, we've come back to planning and we now understand from you that the next step for us is a meeting before the Historic Preservation committee. Thank you for adding us to the agenda. Is there anything we should do in advance of the meeting or that we should prepare for the meeting? Please let me know if you don't mind. Next, if it's not too presumptions, then I would like to set up a meeting to show you and Mr. Diaz the changes we made since our last meeting with Mr. Diaz and see if we can keep the ball moving forward for the new development. We're anxious to get this project started and to build a development everyone in Rancho Cucamonga will be proud of. Please let me know when we can get . together to show you these new plans. Feel free to contact me on cellular telephone at any time (760) 272-5606. Sincerely, Blake Miraglia Manager • 50-885 Washington St. #0234 • La Quints, CA • 92253 • 760-771-2763 • Fax 760-462-2151 • bloke@wli.net -- ~t// ExKt~ff E Aia