Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/06/14 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 14, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CAI.L COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that BHP Steel U.S.A., Inc. had invited the Planning Commissioners to take a tour of their facility. He said suggested dates were June 27, June 28, or July 6. Mr. Buller observed that the first Design Review Committee meeting date in July falls on July 4, a holiday. He asked if the Committee members could meet on another date in lieu of July 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to approve the minutes of April 26, 1995. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to approve the minutes of May 10, 1995. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-1-1 with Tolstoy absent and Barker abstaining, to approve the minutes of May 24, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONM~NT~T. ASSESSMR~NT AND CONDITIONBL USE PERMIT 95-01 - KENT - A request to construct an 8,166 square foot day care facility within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Highland Avenue - APN: 201-271-92. (Continued from May 24, 1995) Chairman Barker stated that the applicant had requested that the item be continued to June 28, 1995. He stated the public hearing remained open from May 24, 1995, and asked if there was anyone present who could not attend on June 28 and would like to address the Commission. There were no public comments at this time. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 95-01 to June 28, 1995. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried B. STPRET NAMR CHANGE 95-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the street name of 24th Street to Wilson Avenue in the Etiwanda community. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, he closed the hearing. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Street Name Change 95-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried NEW BUSINESS AMENDM~.NT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 35 - CAPRI PROPERTIES - A request to amend the Uniform Sign Program to allow a fourth sign color for minor tenants within an existing shopping center (Country Village), located at the northeast corner of Baseline Road and Carnelian Street - APN: 202-381-24 through 26, 28 through 33, 35, and 36. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp recalled that in the past, the Commission had made allowances for logos and registered signs. He asked if Subway is a registered sign. Mr. Murphy thought Subway is a registered trademark. He said that the Commission had made a differentiation for logos, not trademarks. He noted that some applicants have argued that their name is their logo, but the Commission had always held firm that names conform to the sign criteria and a separate graphic logo could be placed adjacent to the name of the business with virtually no restrictions on the colors of the logo. He stated that the standard logo of the brown background with white and yellow lettering could potentially be placed next to the word "Subway" in white. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 14, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp asked if the existing white and yellow sign was installed without proper approvals. Mr. Murphy replied that a sign company representing Subway came into City Hall with plans for a white and yellow sign and the plans were approved with a modification indicating that all the letters would be white. However, following the approval, the sign was installed in white and yellow contrary to the sign program and the approved plans. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Charles Benedickt, 8586 Laurel, Fontana, stated he is the Subway franchisee. He said he had the sign installed in white and yellow because he thought they could go ahead and use the yellow so long as the property owner filed an application for an amendment to the Uniform Sign Program. He commented he would not have put up the white and yellow sign if he had realized the application required a public hearing before the Planning Commission. He thought that Subway could not be called a minor tenant because it is a major business with over 10,000 stores. He stated that Subway uses the corporate colors of white and yellow in national advertising campaigns and the franchisees are charged for the advertising. He thought he would not get the full benefit of that advertising if he did not use the white and yellow corporate colors. He felt business has been hurt at the other Subway stores which do not have the white and yellow signs because customers do not think they are part of the chain. He requested that he be allowed to use the white and yellow sign and stated he feared his franchise may be pulled if he is not allowed to use the corporate colors because he would be in violation of his franchise agreement. Commissioner Lumpp asked Mr. Benedickt if he was saying that if the sign is not white and yellow, his franchise might be pulled and he would lose his business. Mr. Benedickt replied that he would technically be in default because he would not be using that which is supplied by the franchisor. Commissioner Lumpp noted there are three other Subways in the City who do not have white and yellow signs. He asked if Mr. Benedickt had specifically asked the franchisor if he would lose his franchise if he did not have a white and yellow sign. Mr. Benedickt acknowledged he had not discussed that particular point. Commissioner Lumpp asked if anyone had told Mr. 8enedickt that he could use the white and yellow sign because an application to amend the uniform sign program had been submitted. Mr. Benedickt stated he took full responsibility for installing the sign. He said he thought submitting the application and paying the fee would get him the colors he wanted. He thought the other stores who do not have the white and yellow sign have lost business. He acknowledged that Subway is a well known name but he thought the white and yellow colors are similar to McDonald's golden arches. Commissioner Lumpp stated that there is a sign program and if the Commission decides the request is valid, it would leave it open for someone else to come along and ask for pink and someone else to request another color, etc. and Rancho Cucamonga would no longer appear that it had any positive design philosophies. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 14, 1995 Mr. Benedickt responded they are not a mom and pop store, but a national franchisee. He said he paid good money for everything he bought from Subway, including the colors. He said he had also been told there are other signs in Rancho Cucamonga which include four colors. Chairman Barker stated he owns a franchise and understands the advantages of corporate identity. He said he heard the applicant to state that he thought he had done everything right and he felt there is a correlation between the color and the amount of money he is making because of corporate identity and he feels he is in danger of losing his franchise if he does not use the colors. He said the Commission has to focus on the issues which relate specifically to this request and the City as a whole. Carol Baker, Development Agent, Subway, 14059 Pierson Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Mr. Baker would not lose his franchise if he did not use the white and yellow sign. However, she stated she was the original owner of two of the Subway stores in town that do not have the white and yellow signs, and she felt her sales had been impacted because she did not have the corporate colors. She said that people would ask if the store was "the Subway" or a "clone." She asked if the issue was that the City does not want to allow a fourth color. She noted she had visited other centers and found four colors in existence and asked if those stores were not complying with the wishes of Rancho Cucamonga or if they were grandfathered in. She said she particularly noticed that Domino's and Baskin Robbins use four colors. Susan LemarqUe, Property Manager, Capri Properties, stated she understood the City's concern over too many colors and appearing as a hodgepodge, but she felt that Subway is a national tenant and she thought national tenants should be allowed to have their logos. She said that for about two years she saw a decline in businesses in Rancho Cucamonga and a surge in leasing has only begun within the last six months. She felt rules should be bent to help ensure success of the business. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that colors which are not included in a sign program are allowed if the colors are part of a logo. He noted that Baskin Robbins is the name of the business, but their logo is "31." He said additional colors would be permitted for the "31." He said the same would hold true for Domino's where the name would be in an approved color, but the logo, which looks like a domino, could be additional colors. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, added that some of the locations referenced are in shopping centers which were in existence prior to City incorporation, so sign program approvals were granted under County standards. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the item should have been listed on the agenda as an appeal rather than an amendment to the sign program. Mr. Buller responded an amendment to the uniform sign program is necessary to add the fourth color. Commissioner Melcher felt the colors are Subway's corporate trade style and allowing the combination of colors is appropriate. He thought the City has more serious sign problems to worry about such as the many paper and painted signs on windows and banner signs which hang on buildings for months at a time. He felt Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 14, 1995 the City's enforcement efforts should be directed at those types of signs rather than a two-tone Subway sign. He supported the request for two colors. Commissioner McNiel stated the Sign Ordinance was originally generated because there were centers where the multiplicity of colors created a hodgepodge and the center was lost within the color scape. He reasoned that if someone were to clone Subway and use the name "Subway," legal steps would immediately be taken by Subway management to protect their name, regardless of the color of sign. He thought the Sign Ordinance has been weakened every time the ordinance is considered. He did not support the application. Commissioner Lumpp asked how many colors are approved for Haven Village and Terra Vista Town Center. Mr. Murphy responded that two colors are approved for Haven Village while Terra Vista Town Center has three. Commissioner Lumpp felt approving the white and yellow sign would establish a precedence for the center for someone else to come in with a chartreuse sign and say it is their nationally recognized color. He thought approving this application could potentially cause appeals and amendments to sign programs throughout the City. He feared that approving the colors for this Subway would prompt the other Subways to request the white and yellow signs. He acknowledged that this request seems minuscule in terms of the overall process, but he felt the objective is to maintain the precedence of the sign program for the center. He did not support the application. Chairman Barker asked if there is another color around the existing sign other than the white and yellow. Mr. Murphy replied that it is white and yellow with black returns on the individual channel letters. Chairman Barker did not believe allowing the white and yellow sign would have a major negative effect on the center in its present condition. He felt the franchisee had probably relied on the sign company to handle the matter and was empathetic about the cost to the franchisee but also expressed concerns about the growing mishmash of colors and wanted to be consistent. He said he felt the application should not be approved even though he was not happy about denying it. He thought the request is minor. Commissioner McNiel agreed the request is virtually inconsequential except that granting it could lead to a parade of property managers requesting changes to sign programs leading to a kaleidoscope of colors that he did not want to be a part of. Chairman Barker affirmed that the vote was 3-1-1 (Melcher no and Tolstoy absent) to deny the request. He advised the applicant of the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Buller interjected that the Planning Commission has had a workshop with the Chamber of Commerce and other merchants regarding signs including number of colors. He said the City has agreed to address the issue in the future as to how many colors are appropriate and what the criteria are for adding colors. He said staff would contact the center so that it could be a part of future discussions. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 14, 1995 The Planning Commission recessed from 7:50 p.m. to 7:58 p.m. DIRRCTOR' S RRPORTS D. CONSIDERATION TO AMEND SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING SERVICE CLUBS Chairman Barker observed that he is a member of a Rotary Club but not the Rotary Club which originated this request. Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Don Smith, President, R. C. Sunrize Rotary Club, felt the Sign Ordinance should not restrict non-profit service clubs like Kiwanis, Lions, and Rotary from placing their logo signs in front of the establishments where they meet. He thought placing the signs increases the opportunity for membership in the organizations and potentially increases business for the restaurants. He said he is the incoming president of his chapter of the Rotary Club and he is trying to increase community awareness. He noted that Socorro's has agreed to place a Rotary sign in front of the restaurant. Chairman Barker noted that the staff report included a picture of Socorro's with a suggested placement of such a sign as well as pictures of such signs in Upland and Ontario. He felt the attached sign in Ontario is not attractive. Mr. Smith felt there is less chance of vandalism if the sign is attached to a larger sign. Brad Buller stated that staff is in the process of surveying other cities to find out their regulations. He mentioned that he had met with Mr. Smith and discussed a range of options from temporary to permanent signs. He said Mr. Smith desires permanent identification. He reported that the City of Upland only allows temporary signs, yet they have not been enforcing their regulations and the signs are currently being left in place. He said that if the Commission agrees to initiate an amendment, staff would present the survey outcome and options for the Commission to consider. Chairman Barker noted that service clubs band together and purchase large entry signs in some c~ties. He said he would like to see the matter studied. Commissioner Lumpp asked if this proposed amendment would only be to allow identification at the locations where the service clubs meet. Mr. Buller responded that staff had placed the item on the agenda.on behalf of the Rotary Club and the Commission has the option of directing staff to initiate an amendment and evaluation or directing staff to process an amendment upon receipt of an application. He stated that staff recommends that an application and fees not be required since it is on behalf of non-profit service clubs. He suggested that staff look at a variety of options, not just what had been proposed by the Rotary Club. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 14, 1995 Chairman Barker suggested that since staff is already doing a survey on the issue, that all options be considered. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to go ahead and initiate an amendment without waiting for an application. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Barker suggested a workshop on the design review process and philosophy. He also suggested that the selection of Design Review Committee members be postponed until after the workshop discussion. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Design Review Committee had seen a revised roof plan and side and rear elevations for Kindercare. Commissioner McNiel responded that changes were made to the roof so that it now closely resembles the balance of the center. Commissioner Lumpp reported that the applicant only showed the front elevation to the Design Review Committee but indicated they would provide all the elevations and the roof plan for the June 28 meeting. Commissioner Lumpp recalled the Cucamonga County Water District had been conditioned to provide a traffic study to be reviewed by staff in conjunction with their proposed headquarters on Center Avenue. He hoped that staff would consider that the most logical path for traffic would be toward Foothill Boulevard to the south, rather than north to Church Street. It was determined that the Design Review Committee would meet on Wednesday, July 5 at 4:00 p.m. in lieu of meeting on July 4. Mr. Buller reported that Nancy Fong will be the new Design Review Committee staff member starting-in July. The Commissioners requested that a tour of the BHP Steel U.S.A., Inc. facility be tentatively scheduled for July 6 at 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 14, 1995 8:27 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. R~lly submi~ Dan Coleman Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 14, 1995