Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/03/22 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 22, 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. ROT.T. C~T,T. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCRMRNTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the action agenda from the March 21 City Planner Hearing was in front of the Commissioners. He observed that Conditional Use Permit 94-31, a request to house more dogs than permitted without a conditional use permit, had been continued to a special meeting on March 28 so that staff could prepare a resolution of denial. He reported that their had been neighborhood controversy regarding the item. Mr. Buller also observed that Jeanenne Spikes, an Office Specialist II in Planning, had been named Employee of the Month for March. , , , , , APPROV~T. OF MINUTRS Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 22, 1995, regarding Planning Commission Issues 1995-96. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 22, 1995, regarding Conditional Use Permit 94-26, as amended. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of March 8, 1995. , , , , , CONSRNT C~f,ENDAR DESIGN P~VIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14116 - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved residential subdivision consisting of 18 lots on 3.7 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located on the south side of Highland Avenue, west of the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 1076-611-03. B. VACATION OF INUNDATION AREAS FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES RECORDED WITH PARCEL MAP 12959-1 OVER PARCRT.S 10 AND 11 AS R~T.ATED TO DEVEr.OPMENT R~VIEW 94-08 - CAPEr.T.INO - APN: 209-461-03. C. DESIGN RRVIEW FOR TRACT 14139 - CENTEX - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tract 14139, a residential subdivision of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082-01. Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that staff had been informed that some members of the audience may wish to comment with regard to Item A. Chairman Barker pulled Item A from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to adopt Items B and C of the Consent Calendar. A. DESIGN R~VIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14116 - SHRFFIELD HOMES Brad Buller, City Planner, believed residents may wish to go on record with statements which may not be related to the Planning Commission decision, but rather on issues related to construction and phasing of the project. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented a brief staff report. He stated that at the February 27, 1995, neighborhood meeting, residents expressed concerns with construction noise, phasing of the project, and construction traffic access through the existing streets. Commissioner Lumpp asked staff's impression of the applicant's receptiveness to the comments. Mr. Hayes responded that the applicant appeared receptive to do what could be done to mitigate the neighbors' concerns where possible. Chairman Barker invited public comments. John Abel, Sheffield Homes, 3400 Central Avenue #325, Riverside, stated there had inadvertently been a typographical error on the notice for the neighborhood meeting and the notices had indicated the construction was to the east of Deer Creek Channel, instead of to the west. He said they have been very open in meeting with adjacent property owners. He acknowledged that construction traffic and noise is a problem whenever an in-fill site is being developed. He said they are more than willing to take any safety precautions and traffic steps that can be taken. He observed that the site is boxed in and would be nearly impossible to access off Highland because Highland does not have a deceleration lane. He said they will access the property as long as possible off the Deer Creek Channel, but that access will be cut off once the perimeter fence is installed to secure the site. He commented they would then have to access the project from the adjacent local streets. He said it is their intention to perform the Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 22, 1995 construction staging on the lots as much as possible. He stated they also are concerned with public safety. He observed that the Building and Safety Division requires them to meet with adjacent impacted homeowners to work out individual construction priorities with regard to removing and building walls prior to grading. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the grading on the construction site will affect adjacent properties. Mr. Abel responded they will be lowering the grade on their project approximately 4 - 5 feet, so the new houses will be at a more equal level with the adjacent properties. He said the revised grade will allow them to remove a retaining wall. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that will cause any drainage problems. Mr. Abel replied that all the lots will drain to the new streets they are constructing. Commissioner Lumpp asked if they plan to phase the project. Mr. Abel stated they have experienced very good sales on their Canterbury project and they anticipate pre-selling these 18 lots and constructing them at one time with their goal being to complete construction by the end of October. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the worst case scenario would be by the end of the year. Mr. Abel replied that their projection is to be done before then. He noted their construction financing is set up to build all 18 at once. Commissioner Lumpp asked if they intend to gain access through the Deer Creek Channel from Highland Avenue for as long as possible. Mr. Abel responded they will be placing a 6-foot wall adjacent to Deer Creek Channel that will secure the property. He said they hope to gain access through the Channel until that wall is constructed. He said he would like to get the wall in as quickly as possible for security reasons. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that an interim gate be put in the wall. Mr. Abel replied they would be more than willing to check into that. He said they do not really desire to drive through existing residential streets. He acknowledged there will be a lot of clean up. The following people spoke regarding the project: Annie Nightlinger, 10949 San Mateo Place, Rancho Cucamonga Carrie Zabroski, 10950 San Mateo Place, Rancho Cucamonga Kathy Eason, 10932 San Mateo Place, Rancho Cucamonga Jarado Blue, 10960 San Mateo Place, Rancho Cucamonga Kathleen Blue, 10960 San Mateo Place, Rancho Cucamonga Jerry Jacobson, 10935 Santa Barbara Place, Rancho Cucamonga They presented a petition with 38 signatures and a letter from one resident who could not attend tonight's meeting. The residents expressed opposition to permitting construction traffic on San Mateo Place because of concerns regarding construction noise, dirt, safety of children who play in the street, safety of Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 22, 1995 pets, and potential damage to existing streets because of the heavy construction traffic. The residents stated that 20 elementary school children live on San Mateo Place and they play on the street because the homes have small back yards. One resident said she had contacted a friend who works for the School District and had been told that the school bus stop would probably be moved from San Mateo Place to Santa Clara Court. They expressed fears that construction equipment and private vehicles of construction workers will be parked on San Mateo Place, a large number of construction vehicles will line up on San Mateo Place to enter the construction site, and young girls would be in harassed by construction workers. One resident questioned what precautions would be taken to be sure that construction workers remain on the construction site. One resident was opposed to the construction because her son has asthma and she feared the construction dust would make him and other children ill. Some residents stated they had not been aware that the wall at the end of their street would be torn down even though they had been aware the tract was approved by the City Council several years ago following original discussions of connecting the street through to Highland Avenue. One resident observed that when he moved into his tract, he had signed a form acknowledging he had been told homes would be built in the area and also that the freeway would be built in the future. Other residents also acknowledged that they had been advised when they moved in that homes would eventually be built. One resident requested that the tract layout be changed so that the street will not connect to San Mateo Place and the wall could remain in place to allow the children to continue to play on the street. She was also opposed to additional traffic that the new homes would generate and requested that a traffic signal be installed at Highland. Several residents stated they had not attended the February 27 meeting because the notice had indicated the construction would be east of Deer Creek Channel and they did not think it would affect them. The residents indicated they felt the developer did not care about their feelings. The residents requested that construction traffic enter from Highland Avenue via a temporary access road and felt Highland would be more accessible by large trucks. One resident said her husband had been told the developer did not want to enter the site from Highland because they would have to hire a flagman. Residents asked that the wall be left up until the homes are built so children could play on the street during the summer and to protect them from dust. One resident expressed concerns that the used homes in their tract will not sell if new homes are built in the same price range. One resident asked who would be liable in case of an accident. Referencing the possible move of the school bus stop from San Mateo Place to Santa Clara Court, Co~nissioner McNiel questioned where children living on Santa Clara Court currently catch the school bus. Ms. Nightlinger replied that they must now come to San Mateo Place. Brad Buller, City Planner noted that school bus stop locations are set by the School District in coordination with the Traffic Engineering Division. In response to the liability question, Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if an accident occurs on private property, the private property owner is liable. He said that if an accident occurs on a public street, the motor vehicle involved has the primary liability, but the City could be involved if a dangerous conditions exists. Commissioner Melcher requested that staff discuss their impression of the February 27 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 22, 1995 Mr. Hayes responded the February 27 meeting had been set up as a courtesy to inform the neighbors that the proposal for the construction of the homes had been submitted. He said the issue of alternate access had been discussed, and it was his understanding that the main problem with securing access from Highland would be the grade difference from Highland Avenue created by the grading on the property. He noted there will be an approximate 10-foot grade drop from Highland Avenue to the new tract. He said he had encouraged the developer to look at possible options for gaining alternate access. He noted that it would require approval of the Flood Control Agency and Caltrans. He said he had encouraged residents to talk to their neighbors and to attend tonight's meeting if they had concerns. He 'noted the residents had not spoken out in opposition to the project, only with how construction would occur. Commissioner McNiel questioned if the 10-foot grade differential off Highland would run the full length of the project. Mr. Hayes responded it will. He said the whole site is being dropped to minimize the effect on the adjacent homes to the west and reduce the height requirement for the sound attenuation wall which will be placed along Highland Avenue. Commissioner Melcher noted that the development will have three houses at the end of Santa Clara Court which will have to be built from Santa Clara Court because of the layout. Mr. Abel stated there is a dramatic grade difference between Highland Avenue and the proposed finished lot and there will be a 6-foot wall placed at the Highland street level and a 2- to 4-foot high retaining wall placed at the bottom of the slope. He did not feel it would be rational to take access from Highland because of the grade difference and the fact that Highland Avenue is a busy street with no deceleration lane for people turning into the project. He said he therefore tried to compromise by accessing as long as possible off Deer Creek Channel. He indicated that once framing begins on the homes, they would not be able to access from the Channel. He commented that their intent is to have construction vehicles on-site, not parked throughout the neighborhood. Chairman Barker asked how much could be finished coming from Deer Creek Channel. Mr. Abel said that security is also a big concern. He felt they could complete grading, undergrounding, on-site street work, pouring of slabs, and dropping of some lumber. He stated that once the framing is begun, all access would have to be over the new street. He said he understood the concerns regarding children in the neighborhood and the potential moving of the bus stop, but he could not solve those problems. Chairman Barker suggested that Mr. Abel discuss dust control. Mr. Abel responded that dust control has to be provided with any project in the City. He said they would be using water trucks on site to water the site and frequently wash the on-site and adjacent streets. Chairman Barker noted that the developer had been accused of rejecting the idea of taking access from Highland because it would require hiring a flagman. Mr. Abel replied he did not recall ever saying that but he had never considered access from Highland Avenue to be a reasonable approach to the project. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 22, 1995 Chairman Barker requested that Mr. Abel outline procedures for using the existing streets when that becomes necessary. Mr. Abel stated they would work with Engineering and establish a construction zone with appropriate speed limits and any unsafe situations which might arise would be barricaded. He noted that City Inspectors would be making sure that procedures are followed and unsafe conditions are addressed. Co~enissioner Melcher commented that because Highland Avenue is a state highway, any use for construction access would be subject to approval by Caltrans. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, affirmed that was correct. He also noted that a permit would be required from the Flood Control District in order to use the Deer Creek Channel access road. Commissioner Melcher asked if such permits are available in such circumstances. Mr. James replied that access for construction traffic across existing curb has occurred, generally by placing a pipe along the edge of gutter with an asphalt berm over it. He said such a permit would be issued only after traffic and safety issues are considered. Commissioner Melcher noted that one of the residents had expressed concerns that construction traffic vehicles would be parked on existing streets. He asked if the City would permit the developer to post "No construction parking" signs or if the City would permit the developer to post time limit parking signs which would have to be obeyed by construction workers and residents for the duration of construction. Mr. James felt that could be worked out. Commissioner Melcher asked how the City deals with construction related damage to existing streets. Mr. James replied that the City Inspectors are normally cognizant of such damage and the City can hold up occupancy of houses until such damage has been repaired. Commissioner Melcher thought the fire hydrants would have to be connected in the new street prior to the dropping of lumber on site. Mr. Abel replied that was correct. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Abel thought they could complete the off-sites, grading, underground work, and slabs prior to needing to access the project from the existing streets. Mr. Abel stated that was correct. He noted they will have to rebuild the wall along the existing homes prior to completion of the street and tie-in to the water lines. Commissioner Melcher conceded the wall would have to be removed at the street locations to make the connections, but he felt the entire wall would not have to be torn down in order to make the street connections. Mr. Abel felt it would realistically be better for everyone to go ahead and remove the existing wall and replace it with the new 6-foot freestanding wall. He said it is their intent to tear down and replace the wall in sections so that Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 22, 1995 the reconstruction would closely follow the demolition. construction could be accomplished from the project side. He said the wall Commissioner Melcher felt there is a lot of thinking about the sequencing that could be done. He questioned if the Commission would have the right to add such requirements to this Design Review application. He suggested the applicant prepare a construction sequence of operations showing accomplishment of everything possible prior to removing any part of the wall and all that would be possible from Highland Avenue. He thought that would keep most of the large, heavy trucks off the existing adjacent streets. He noted that large trucks would probably be used for delivery of roofing, fixtures, and cabinets; and those items would be delivered after framing. Mr. Buller stated that whatever happens on a public street is of concern to the City. He observed that when the tentative tract map was approved, no condition was placed on the map regarding phasing. He stated the lots could have been graded and the streets installed without further review by the Planning Commission. He observed that a courtesy neighborhood meeting was held as a result of the Commission's interest in making sure the public is aware and to give the applicant an opportunity to meet the neighbors to work out issues prior to coming to public hearing. He stated the Commission could add a condition tonight related to construction access, phasing, and timing. He noted that the City cannot guarantee that Caltrans will approve the temporary access from Highland, as it is already a busy street with a fairly narrow bridge in the area. He suggested the Commission may wish to add a condition directing the developer to submit a construction access plan and schedule for approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. He thought the neighbors may be willing to restrict even their own parking during certain hours, to minimize the dangers of having children dart into the street from behind parked cars. He suggested the plan could include public notice requirements, special posting of the streets, a telephone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. Chairman Barker asked that Mr. Buller comment on the scope of the decision before the Planning Commission and the status of the project based on the previous City Council approval. .- Mr. Buller stated the project has an approved map with an exact number of lots and street pattern established, along with a conceptual grading plan. He said the application tonight is simply to approve the design of the units and the fine grading for the lots, not the subdivision itself. Chairman Barker felt the concerns voiced tonight should have been addressed in a community meeting. He thought the neighbors' comments deserved answers and assurances. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the width of the access road on Deer Creek Channel. Mr. Buller replied it is approximately 20 feet. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that would provide sufficient navigation room for trucks and equipment when considering the grade differential from Highland. Mr. James noted the Flood Control District uses large equipment on the road at times. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 22, 1995 Commissioner Melcher felt dirt could be left on the back of Lots 5 and 6 for a temporary ramp if necessary. Commissioner McNiel asked the grade differential between the access road on the Channel and the ultimate lay of the lots. Mr. Murphy pointed out where the proposed grade will meet the existing grade. Mr. Abel felt comfortable with the idea of being able to work things out with staff. He reiterated that he had a concern with obtaining access from Highland Avenue. He noted that there are unique circumstances applicable to each individual house; i.e., sprinkler lines, landscaping relocation, etc. He said they will be addressing those issues individually with each impacted homeowner. He thought they could work toward a solution on the traffic situation. Commissioner Melcher commented he had not heard Mr. Abel say he would make an aggressive attempt to obtain access from Highland Avenue via the Flood Control District. Mr. Abel said he could not commit to obtaining that access because he did not know if Caltrans will approve. He said he would work with staff to pursue such access but he did not want his project held up for two years waiting for Caltrans. Commissioner Melcher felt that with enough pressure, such access could be arranged. Mr. Jacobson asked if Santa Barbara Place would also be used for ingress and egress to the construction site. Chairman Barker remarked that possibility exists because it is part of the ultimate loop street. Mr. Jacobson asked what recourse residents would have if parking violations occur. Mr. Buller responded the City would encourage residents to contact the developer in a spirit of cooperation. He suggested residents might first contact the on- site superintendent to see if the offending vehicle belongs to a construction worker or contractor. He noted staff would ask the developer to provide a telephone listing as part of the construction access plan. He thought some staff telephone numbers may also be provided with the telephone list in case the residents could not reach a level of satisfaction with the developer. He said staff could then either contact the developer or perhaps the Police Department to secure compliance. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel supported attempting to work with the developer and Caltrans to secure access along the Flood Control Channel. He felt there were a number of issues the Commission should not be dealing with at this point. He observed that when the tracts the residents currently live in were developed, there was no question that the balance of the area would be built out. He noted that when residents bought their homes, they signed documents acknowledging that this area would be developed. He observed that one resident had opposed construction because of fears it would exacerbate her son's asthma condition. He stated that this year will be a bad year for asthma sufferers because of the increased pollen Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 22, 1995 caused by the heavy rainfalls and he felt she should not blame an asthma condition on construction dust. He disclosed that he had been on the Planning Commission almost 13 years and said there had been only about 40,000 residents when he first started and the City has now grown to over 100,000. He stated that streets were never built to be parks. He said that residents had made personal decisions to purchase their homes even though they had small back yards. He stated the Con~nission makes its decisions in the best interest of the community in terms of what development is proposed. He noted he had been offended that a resident should feel someone else should assume responsibility if something should happen to a child when the child is playing in the street. He felt the responsibility for children lies with the parents. He thought the proposal to use the Flood Control Channel should help alleviate the majority of the problems. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner McNiel. He noted that San Mateo Place is a public street and everyone has a right to use and park on a public street so long as it is within the parking restriction laws. He noted that ultimately there will be 18 homes added to that neighborhood and those residents would be neighbors. He thought the plans for a phasing and construction plan may be moot if Caltrans denies access via Highland Avenue and the Flood Control Channel. Mr. Buller felt that the plan could still address other concerns. Commissioner Lumpp supported the suggestion of requiring the construction and phasing plan and thought the residents should be provided a copy of the plan. He hoped everyone could work together. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the requirement of a phasing and construction plan. He hoped that Highland Avenue and the Flood Control Channel access could be used for part of the construction period. He said he is always horrified when he is in a public meeting and parents indicate public streets are being used as a play area. He felt public streets should not be used as a play area and a street cannot make up for the lack of a large back yard. Chairman Barker noted the tract had been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1993 and the Commission ~as only to review minor issues such as elevations and size of porches, etc. He felt many of the concerns of the residents were valid and should have been addressed in a community meeting. He requested that the public be noticed regarding start of construction. He requested that an aggressive push be made to utilize the Flood Control Channel for access. He felt the street could be posted to restrict parking and that posting could be enforced. He thought the dust control will be enforced and any problems could be handled through the telephone listing to be given to the residents. He remarked that construction workers are human and that many are family men and they should not be treated as a stereotype. He noted that damage to the street is already addressed. He asked that phasing of the demolition and reconstruction of the wall be worked out to provide security. He noted that Highland Avenue has a lot of traffic and stated he did not know the long term plans for signalization or stop signs but felt it should be considered. He affirmed that the School District is a separate governmental agency and the City cannot dictate where the bus stop will be located. He suggested the residents voice their concerns regarding the bus stop to the School District. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 14116 with modification to require the developer to submit a construction access plan and schedule for approval by the City Planner and City Engineer to include public notice requirements, special Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 22, 1995 street posting, telephone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried Commissioner Melcher observed that when the Planning Commission approved the tract, the Commission had tried to develop a cul-de-sac street scheme but had been precluded from doing so because one of the cul-de-sac streets would have exceeded the maximum 600-foot length under Fire Department policy. He thought that as the Con%mission deals with future in-fill projects, a standard condition should be added to the tract approval to address the concerns raised tonight if later phases will develop over streets already in place. Mr. Bullet stated staff would include similar language in the standard conditions. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:54 p.m. to 9:05 p.m. PUBnIC HEARINGS D. VARIANC~ 95-02 - BHP STEE;, U.S.A., INC. - A request to exceed the maximum number of wall signs allowed for a manufacturing building in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 11200 Arrow Route - APN: 208-961-26. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Peter Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, #105, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was representing BHP Corporation. He requested the Planning Commission review the Sign Ordinance to see if it could interpret the Ordinance in a way which would allow his client to have the requested signs or direct staff to work with them on a compromise. He conceded that there are no grounds for a variance from a technical standpoint, but he thought the ordinance could be more widely interpreted. He showed slides of the original drawings which the Commission had seen in April 1994 and some of the facility as it currently exists. He noted the facility is under construction and should be completed in June. He stated that staff had classified the use as a single-parcel, single-tenant facility as described in the Sign Ordinance under industrial uses. He said two separate companies operate out of the facility, one operating a paint line and the other operating a zincalume line. He observed they are independent corporations with different management and employees, but having the same parent company. Me said they had remarked to staff that if the property line between the two former buildings had not been removed, they would be entitled to four wall signs. He thought the signs should be considered business identification multi-tenant sites. He said BHP has chosen not to identify the two companies individually, but rather to identify the parent corporation. He thought the Sign Ordinance does not dictate that the signs must identify the individual corporations rather than the parent company. He felt the signs are consistent Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 22, 1995 with the design of the building. He said they would be willing to agree to a continuance if the Commission felt the matter could be worked out or to withdraw their variance application if the Commission agreed with their interpretation of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner McNiel asked if the two entities process the same material; i.e., did the zincalume coated coils go to the other entity to be painted. Gary Scharnagle, BHP Steel, 11200 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, replied that the zincalume coated coils are sometimes sold to the other entity in order to be painted. Commissioner Lumpp observed that Mr. Pitassi had requested an interpretation of the Sign Ordinance and a willingness to withdraw the variance application. He asked if the applicant would file for an amendment to the Sign Ordinance in order to process the request. Mr. Pitassi did not feel an amendment would be necessary, but rather the Commission could interpret their facility is a multi-tenant industrial building which would permit two signs per business. He said that such an interpretation would void the need for a variance. He thought the Sign Ordinance should leave room for staff to make value judgement. He felt the industrial category in the Sign Ordinance was set up for distribution buildings and multi-tenant industrial parks, not manufacturing buildings. Commissioner Melcher asked the maximum number of signs that could be seen from any one vantage point in the City if all three signs were permitted on the building. Mr. Pitassi replied a maximum of two would be visible from any one location. Commissioner McNiel asked how significant the logo is to BHP Steel. Mr. Pitassi replied that it is very significant because it is the symbol that is consistent among all the products and services they provide and recognized in the industry. Mr. Murphy stated that staff had no problems with the size of the proposed sign. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated this was a problem the City has been grappling with for quite a while. He thought the City needs to revisit the Sign Ordinance because he felt similar requests will be forthcoming from locations with two to three tenants per building, each requesting their own signs. He noted the Commission would be considering an amendment to a sign program later in the agenda for a similar situation within a commercial project. He agreed with Mr. Pitassi that the sign would not be detrimental to the project in terms of cluttering up the building, but he felt it would set a dangerous precedent if there is no position in place in the Ordinance. He noted that markets such as Smiths have several sub-tenants and such requests will soon be multiplying. He thought the Commission needs to deal with the issue by laying ground rules of when such signage would be appropriate. He did not support the variance request even though he felt the sign would complement the building. Commissioner Tolstoy felt this is a problem that will continue to grow within the commercial area whenever there is one large user who subleases space to other Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 22, 1995 commercial entities as each sub-tenant will ask for their own identification. He stated that in the industrial area, there will be large corporations who will sell various products from different companies under one roof. He observed that a monument sign identifies the property from the south and he felt a sign on the east elevation and another on the west would be sufficient when'combined with the monument sign. He did not support the request. Chairman Barker noted that in this case, the applicant was stating there is more than one company in the building, but they want to use only one corporate logo. He noted that if the applicant had wanted to name each company separately, they would have been entitled to four signs. He observed the applicant is requesting fewer signs than the two separate companies would be entitled to. Commissioner McNiel asked what there would be to preclude someone from manufacturing three separate elements and creating three separate corporations. He said he knows individuals who are incorporated under three separate names. He stated that Barton Development Company would have been entitled to numerous signs if that criteria were used. Commissioner Melcher noted that BHP Steel brought a major new investment to the City, constructed an extremely handsome industrial building, and brought the entire complex under a single color scheme. He thought that when the Sign Ordinance was written, it was not anticipated that buildings would be of this scale or there would be a tower that is half again as tall as any of its plan dimensions. He also felt there had been no anticipation of companies wishing to use a corporate identity. He thought the sign is handsome and an important design element on the tower. He suggested that staff and the applicant work together to develop provisions to enable the sign. Commissioner Lumpp felt staff had considered all of the issues and had tried to make it work, but had been faced with no recourse other than to suggest a variance. He noted that the applicant had affirmed that the findings can not be made to support the variance request. He suggested the Commission take action and then work with staff to modify the Sign Ordinance. He said that if the Commission wants to permit such signage, it will be necessary to redefine the definitions or create a special provision for this type of situation. He remarked that if the Sign Ordinance is subsequently modified to permit such a sign, the applicant could then install the sign. Chairman Barker felt the Commission has previously been placed in situations where it believes itself forced to approve things that are not attractive but that this was just the opposite. He concurred with staff's conclusion that the findings cannot be found to support the variance. He agreed the Commission should revisit the ordinance to determine if such situations had been considered at the time the ordinance was written. He noted that the applicant was proposing fewer signs than what may be requested in other situations. He suggested the applicant withdraw the application and the Commission form a subcommittee to revisit the ordinance. Commissioner McNiel noted that if the request for the variance is continued to the point when the Sign Ordinance is revisited, there may no longer be a need for a variance. Mr. Murphy stated that if the variance request was continued and the Sign Ordinance is revised so that a third sign would be permitted, then the variance would not be needed and the applicant could then withdraw the variance without returning to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 22, 1995 Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated staff had attempted to find a way to permit the third sign without setting a precedent. He noted there are many companies who identify themselves under different corporate name. He said staff could try to develop a measure within the Sign Ordinance that would allow more than the standard number of signs when certain conditions exist. He noted that the Commission's policy has been that signs are to identify, not to advertise. Chairman Barker agreed that the Commission was not saying that it would like seven or eight companies identified on a building. Mr. Buller said that although the Commission finds the BHP logo to be attractive, the company could change it in the future to a different color or a different logo. He suggested the matter be continued for a long enough time to consider the ramifications. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pitassi stated it seems unfortunate that ordinances are created that tie staff's hands. He felt there should be room for value judgements to be made. He thought it is impossible to legislate good design and he did not think everything can be reduced to a rule. He felt an interpretation could be made that this is a multi-tenant site because that term is not defined in the ordinance. Chairman Barker felt the rules should be modified to avoid problems in the future. Mr. Pitassi said they would be willing to continue the matter with the hope of ultimately withdrawing the variance application. He thought the revision of the ordinance would take some time, as it would ultimately need to be approved by the City Council. Commissioner McNiel recalled that past considerations of the Sign Ordinance had involved input from many sources and he hoped those other sign issues would not need to be revisited at this time. Mr. Buller observed the Commission had previously made commitments to the Chamber of Commerce to address other pending issues. He thought the question will come up as to why this issue should be addressed without addressing those previous concerns. Co~nissioner Lumpp asked what the benefit would be to the applicant to agree to a continuance. Mr. Pitassi said they want to cooperate with the City in looking for a solution. He said he heard the Commission's comments that the applicant's situation is justification for taking another look at the ordinance. Commissioner McNiel stated the object of revisiting the Sign Ordinance is to correct the problem of this request as well as to address requests the Commission is receiving from some of the retail establishments with multiple subleases. He thought that to give the additional sign to BHP Steel as a discretionary action would open the door for the Commission to fight the same battle in the commercial area. He agreed that the sign would be an asset to the building and felt the Commission wanted to do what is best for the building. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 22, 1995 Mr. Pitassi stated he realized the design review process does not address signs and that is made clear to applicants as they go through the process. However, he felt it would be helpful to have staff make comments regarding signs that are submitted on preliminary designs, so that architects would know concerns up front. Mr. Buller suggested the matter not be continued to a specific date but rather have staff readvertise the matter. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to continue Variance 95-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: LUMPP ABSENT: NONE BARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried Commissioner Lumpp stated he voted no because he felt action should be taken on the variance request and the Commission should direct staff to work on an amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Murphy observed that sign permits have already been issued for the east and west building faces.' Mr. Buller asked if the applicant was willing to waive statutory time limits on taking action on the variance. He said State law dictates that action must be taken within six months of the time the application is deemed complete, unless the applicant waives those time limits. Chairman Barker and Commissioner McNiel felt the matter could be addressed before the six months had passed. Mr. Pitassi replied they would not waive that time limit. OT.D BUSINESS AMRNDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM #119 - DBS - A request to amend the Foothill Marketplace Uniform Sign Program to allow two secondary signs for anchor tenants within a 550,000 square foot commercial/retail center in the Regionally Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-27 through 44. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked who was the applicant. Mr. Murphy replied that the applicant is the sign company with the authorization of the property owner, Foothill Marketplace Partners. Commissioner Lumpp asked the proposed location of the sign. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Stan Janocha, Superior Electric Advertising, 1700 West Anaheim Street, Long Beach, stated that McDonald's started leasing space within WalMart stores on a Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 22, 1995 nationwide basis several years ago. He said his sign company designed the signs from the beginning of program. He commented that they realized that some localities would resist having a second sign on the same elevation, so they decided to only use 48-inch logos, which results in a sign about 18 square feet. He indicated the sign would go on the west tower where the temporary banner is currently located. He thought the logo gives a subtle appearance because it does not have a red background like the banner. He said that McDonald's needs identification on the outside of the building because there are two other fast food restaurants on separate pads within the center. He stated E1 Pollo Loco and Foster Freeze have both signs incorporated on the same building, so this sign would not set a precedent. He noted the Commission had voiced concerns about retaining control because supermarkets often sublease space to other tenants. He remarked that applicants have to appear before the Commission if they propose signs that do not fit within their Uniform Sign Programs and he felt the Commission would retain control because they would have the right to turn down such requests. He said that when this McDonald's opened, they did not draw the amount of business that they anticipated because they did not have a sign on the outside of the building. He noted that there was an improvement in sales after the temporary banner was installed. Con~nissioner Melcher asked if there are any other WalMart locations where there is also a free-standing McDonald's units on the same property. Mr. Janocha replied there are probably about six across the United States. Commissioner Melcher asked how that signage is handled. Mr. Janocha replied that the free-standing McDonald's have their own signage and the logo is placed on the WalMart stores. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission should deny the application at this time but consider the situation along with the consideration of a Sign Ordinance amendment that the last item on the agenda had raised. Commissioner TolStoy stated he opposes installation of signs for each vendor within big box buildings. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher that this request is an extension of the previous problem and he felt the Commission should revisit the Sign Ordinance with relation to this type of situation. He did not favor approval of this application because he felt it would set a precedent. Commissioner Lumpp agreed there is a need to revisit the Sign Ordinance and felt it would make sense to have the applicant agree to a continuance until the Commission reviewed the ordinance. Chairman Barker felt the logo would probably be the only subtle sign within the center. Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to deny the application without prejudice with the understanding that the issue would be studied by staff during the revisiting of the ordinance. However, he suspected the previous application had a fair chance of succeeding and being incorporated into the ordinance, while this application would ultimately fail. He therefore thought it would be misleading to suggest a continuance to this applicant. Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 22, 1995 Commissioner McNiel agreed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher to deny Amendment to Uniform Sign Program 119 without prejudice. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: LUMPP ABSENT: NONE BARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried Commissioner Lumpp felt the application should have been continued because he felt there is potential for that type of sign to be approved following consideration of revisions to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Janocha asked if the time period for the temporary banner could be extended while staff studies the Sign Ordinance. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that the Sign Ordinance gives specific time frames for posting temporary banners. He said staff could work with the applicant to determine how the applicant could gain the most exposure. He commented the Commission cannot grant a variance to the time limits. , , , , NEW BUSINESS Fe DEVRT,OPMENT REVIEW 95-05 - WESTERN DEVET.OPMENT CO. - The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Building 7 (Barnes & Noble) totaling 29,878 square feet within the Town Center Square in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 077-421-58 and 63. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if revisions had already been made to the areas designated on Exhibit D. Ms. Fong replied that the revisions had been conditioned and the applicant had not yet submitted revised plans. She stated she would forward a copy of the revised plans when they are submitted. Chairman Barker'invited public comments. Chuck Beecher, Western Development Co., 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated it was his recollection that the pre-cast concrete or plaster molding to be added to frame the recessed square within the metal grill work was around the wall seat. Commissioner Melcher thought that was correct. Mr. Beecher asked that they be able to work with staff to be sure that the trees they are adding to the upper plaza area allow the signs to be seen through the trees. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy to approve the resolution approving Development Review 95-05. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 22, 1995 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried , , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Tolstoy commented that a tree had been previously cut down within the Perry's Market center in front of the billboard. He said the tree was replaced at the direction of City staff, but the terminal bud of the replacement tree has been clipped so the tree will never grow any higher. He felt the City should require a new tree whose terminal bud is not clipped. Commissioner McNiel suggested that staff be directed to proceed with studying the Sign Ordinance as soon as possible. Commissioner Lumpp felt it would be beneficial to meet socially with Planning Commissioners from adjacent cities. Commissioner McNiel stated the Commission used to get flyers from APA announcing monthly dinners. Mr. Buller commented that the dinners are on Wednesday evenings. Commissioner McNiel observed that about two years ago, Bill Ruh, a Montclair Planning Commissioner, attempted to set up a West Valley Planning Commissioners group to meet and discuss topics of mutual interest. He said that attempt was not successful. Commissioner Melcher stated a San Bernardino County Commissioners group met periodically but that group had not met recently. He also noted that Bill Ruh's attempt had failed after one meeting when only he and Bill attended. He agreed with Commissioner Lumpp that it is worth trying. Chairman Barker asked if there was a problem that the Commissions could address together. Commissioner McNiel noted the Commissions could study regionalism. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Route 30 would be a good topic. Mr. Buller supported the idea of networking with staff, Commissioners, and Council Members. He thought it is sometimes more successful to visit the other localities on their turf. He suggested the Commissioners may want to sit in on Planning Commission meetings in adjacent communities. He thought that may make other Commissioners more receptive to the idea of attending joint meetings. Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 22, 1995 Commissioner McNiel agreed that might work, but he noted that would mean a lot of nights out. Mr. Bullet commented that Council Members, rather than Planning Commissioners, have been attending meetings on regional issues, such as SANBAG, SCAG, and Route 30. ~DJOURNMRNT Mr. Bullet requested that the Commission adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on April 12 for a Pre-Application review on McDonald's. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 10:31 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on April 12, 1995, for a meeting regarding Pre-Application Review 95-01. Respect fu 1 ly submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 22, 1995