Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/01/11 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 11, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROT.T. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAr. ASSESSMENT AND D~VET.OPMmNT REVIEW 93-15 - CAMPOS - A request to construct a 1,600 square foot cafe and convert 4 single family residences to commercial uses in the Specialty Commercial designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues - APN: 208-153-08 through 11 and 23. Associated with the application is Tree Removal Permit 94-11. Related file: Landmark Alteration Permit 94-04. Chairman Barker announced that Item A from the Historic Preservation Commission agenda, Landmark Alteration Permit 94-04, would be heard concurrently with Development Review 93-15. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the combined staff report. Commissioner Lumpp questioned what impact the recommended 73-foot right-of-way dedication will have on the existing gas station to the east. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the 73-foot dedication will put the gas canopy within the street right-of-way with the canopy being about 2 feet back from the curb face. Commissioner Lumpp said his only concern was that the right-of-way dedication not require removal of the canopy. Mr. James observed that Engineering Condition No. 2 specifically calls for preservation of the canopy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how preservation of the canopy will affect pedestrian flow. Mr. Murphy stated the walkway would go under the canopy. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Carl Kobbins, CTK, Inc., 8880 Benson, #100, Montclair, stated he is the engineer for the project and that Mrs. Campos was present in the audience. He said he had clarified a few items with the Engineering Division and had no objections to any of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Lumpp noted that following the Design Review Committee meeting he had again looked at the project and he asked if the applicant would object to providing a chimney on House No. 1 as on Houses No. 3 and 4. He felt fireplaces help to create an ambiance. Mr. Kobbins did not object. Bob Saunders, The Ink Company, 1181 Nicole Court, Glendora, stated that he owns the two properties ix~nediately west of the subject property. He questioned why the application was for an historic landmark alteration permit rather than just a development review. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the applicant had previously initiated a request to have the property designated as historic and the City had deemed it was historic; therefore, any changes require a landmark alteration permit. Mr. Saunders felt the project will improve the area because the homes have been vacant. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked if there had been any consideration as to how the project will be phased or if the entire project is planned together. He did not want the restaurant to be built and the houses allowed to continue to deteriorate. He noted that Condition No. i of the Landmark Alteration Permit requires that the access ramp use materials consistent with the building design but the elevation shown with the staff report seems to depict a concrete ramp with pipe handrails. He recalled that when reviewing an earlier application at another location for the addition of a second floor staircase to an old residence, the Commission had been informed that most preservationists feel additions should contrast and be visually distinguished from the original structure. He thought the elevation would be more in keeping with what staff had indicated on the previous application than the language of the condition. Mr. Murphy responded that it is staff's intent that the project be developed at one time. He noted that a condition calls for consolidation of the five parcels into one. Mr. Bullet said that the applicant would have to apply for a modification to the approval if a phasing plan is proposed. He said all of the conditions will need to be met prior to occupancy. He recalled that there is a difference of opinion in historic preservation circles as to appropriate ways to add onto historic structures. He felt the historical significance of the structure should be considered. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated additions should not have such a contrast that they detract from the original architecture. He felt it would not be appropriate to use siding similar to the house along the ramp because a ramp would not have been on the house when it was built. He felt a simple metal Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 11, 1995 railing painted to blend with the house would be more appropriate. He thought other effects could be also used that would be compatible and not detract from the house. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the simple ramp depicted on the elevation does not detract from the architecture and would be appropriate. Commissioner Melcher agreed the design as presented is appropriate. Commissioner McNiel remarked that handicap ramps existed but were not required at the time the house was built. He felt that few of them would have been built with pipe rails. He preferred that the ramps be more consistent with the houses, but he felt that the pipe railings as proposed are acceptable if painted in appropriate colors. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Landmark Alteration Permit 94-04 with modification to require a chimney on House No. 1. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried Mr. Buller observed that the minutes would reflect that the Commission found the pipe railing is appropriate. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review 93-15. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried , , , , ANNOUNCRMRNTS There were no announcements. , , , , APPROV~n OF MINUTF. S Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of December 28, 1994. , , , , CONSmNT C~t.ENDAR Ae DRVET.OPM~NT R~VI~W 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVRI.OPM~NT - The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 20 lots within Tract 10210, a recorded tract map of 33 lots in the Hillside Residential District, located on the north side of Almond Street at Crestview Place - APN: 200-441-39, 41 through 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56 through 60, 62, 64, and 65. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 11, 1995 Commissioner Melcher requested that Item A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. He expressed opposition to the exterior design for Plan 2. He remarked that he had registered such opposition at the Design Review Committee meeting, at which time he was overruled on a 2-1 vote. He said ne was not opposed to the pro3ect. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 94-20. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried , · , , PUBT.IC HR~RINGS Be ~NVIRONM~NTAn ASSeSSMeNT AND GENERA;. PT.AN AMeNDMeNT 94-02A - 1994 HOUSING ELRM~.NT UPDATR. - In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2004. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from December 28, 1994) Chairman Barker commented that a notice was run in the newspaper on Sunday, January 8 at the request of the Planning Commission. He noted the public hearing had been opened at the December 28 meeting and was still open. He asked how many people were in the audience regarding the matter. Seeing no one, Chairman Barker said the Commission would dispense with a staff report, as one had been presented at the December 28 meeting. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission regarding the item. No one responded and Chairman Barker then closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he had concluded that absent a new, large, and unexpected source of funds, it is unlikely that the City can actually fulfill the number of units which it is obligated to deliver in the way of affordable housing. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, responded that would be a fair conclusion in the absence of funds or a change in ordinance. Commissioner Lumpp observed that Policy 1.A references encouraging "...a mix of housing types, including conventional, mobile home, and apartments..." and he questioned if the City is promoting mobile homes as a product in the City. Ms. Bratt responded that mobile homes exist in the City and the document is seeking to protect those existing mobile homes. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the City is monitoring affordable housing production in Tetra Vista. Ms. Bratt replied that periodically the developer reports on how many products have been completed and their affordability at the time they are first offered for sale or rent. Commissioner Melcher recalled two kinds of affordable housing products in Tetra Vista; some apartment units which were built with bond financing and an arrangement whereby the developer earned a density bonus by producing a certain Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 11, 1995 number of affordable units. He believed the density bonus had been earned a number of years ago and he questioned if the developer still has an obligation to continue to report to the City. Ms. Bratt replied the developer has continued to report to the City as a courtesy so that the City can include the information in its housing element. Commissioner Lumpp asked what agencies the City contacts regarding addressing homeless population needs. Ms. Bratt responded that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program works with and funds some service providers in the area. She said CDBG staff meets with several homeless providers in the area, including the County of San Bernardino. Commissioner Lumpp commented there is a San Bernardino Homeless Shelter program. He said he had been involved with that program in the past. He suggested adding the Police Department as a responsible agency. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated City staff consults with the Police Department as a resource to verify information. He remarked that the Police Department does not keep records whereas the homeless providere keep records and conduct annual surveys. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the City assists with resolution of landlord/tenant disputes. Mr. Henderson replied the City has a contract with Inland Mediation, a non-profit corporation to provide that service. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that Policy 5.D be expanded to clarify the term "sound quality housing." He referenced Objective 7 requiring energy efficiency in residential developments. He stated that the City currently has ordinances regarding house orientation, etc. He asked if the City has are any other solar requirements or energy efficiency programs. Ms. Bratt responded that the Xeriscape Ordinance is in place to reduce water consumption, thereby reducing energy use. She also noted that in multi-family housing the ability to install solar piping is required. Mr. Bullet commented that the Development Code has a large section identifying energy efficiency as a goal to be achieved with standards. He noted the building industry has come up with products to make housing more energy efficient without regards to solar access easements and rights. Commissioner Tolstoy commended Ms. Bratt for her work on the Housing Element. Ms. Bratt commented that she had incorporated work done by Associate Planners Cindy Norris and Alan Warren. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 94-02A. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 11, 1995 CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - A request to add Extensive Impact Utility Facilities as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 17 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the Flood Control basin is part of Subarea 17. Mr. Coleman responded that it is not. Con~nissioner Tolstoy asked for affirmation that any future use of the basin for other than flood control would require a teevaluation of the land use by the City. Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively and etated it would take a General Plan Amendment and zone change. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Tom Sholenberger, Cucamonga County Water District, 9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Jim Cline, the Director of Engineering for Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD); Tim Mim Mack, Associated Engineers; and Max Willjams, Willjams and Associates, the design architect were present. Max Wiliams, Willjams and Associates, 276 North Second Avenue, Upland, requested approval of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment and observed that the City still maintains control over how the property will develop in the future. He felt the use will provide a good transition from the high intensity uses to the east to the lower intensity uses to the west. He remarked they had also submitted a conditional use permit application which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future meeting. He said they propose using the easterly portion of the site for a consolidated facility. He noted they had held a neighborhood meeting at which they received input regarding concerns with increased traffic on Center Avenue, pedestrian safety, and circulation and increased traffic within the residential neighborhood. He said they had contracted with Associated Engineers to conduct a traffic study and address those issues. He believed CCWD is an excellent neighbor and noted their current facility is surrounded by residences. He felt they have more control over traffic and circulation than a typical industrial development would have because CCWD is managed by a single general manager and would be there for a long period of time. He thought that if the general manager instructed his staff not to drive through a residential area, the staff would follow those instructions. Tim Mim Mack, Senior Project Manager, Associated Engineers, stated he is in charge of the traffic study. He stated that although the traffic study is not complete, preliminary traffic generation analysis indicates that the site would probably generate 900 to 1,200 trips per day with the currently zoned uses and 1,000 to 1,200 trips per day with their proposal. He noted that the traffic study is not complete and will indicate mitigation measures which may include street widening and traffic signals. He observed that CCWD has a flex 9/80 work week with employees starting at 6:30, 7:00, and 7:30 a.m. and getting off at 3:30, 4:00, and 4:30 p.m. He noted that visitor traffic would be spread throughout the day. Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 11, 1995 · Commissioner McNiel asked how many trips per day would be by large CCWD trucks. Mr. Mim Mack replied that CCWD has provided projections to the year 2010. He said they currently have three of the vactor trucks and 50 automobiles and pick-up trucks. Commissioner McNiel asked how many of the trips would be visitor trips. Mr. Mim Mack responded they anticipate a maximum of 170 day time visitors. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there is information regarding current traffic counts in terms of distribution as to whether people predominantly go north to Church, south to Foothill, or toward Hermosa. Mr. MimMack replied that they have yet to perform the traffic warrants and those will show the predominant travel patterns. James Carter, 7740 Center Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had not received notice of a neighborhood meeting but had received a notice from the City regarding tonight's meeting. He commented that in 1986 CCWD was going to purchase the property where the reservoir is located. He said that there is a lot of traffic currently on Center Street from people trying to avoid Foothill and Haven and he objected to additional traffic. He said he was opposed to the project because he had not received notice of the neighborhood meeting. Chairman Barker thought that CCWD would be glad to talk to Mr. Carter. He said the matter before the Commission was an Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit will be processed separately and Mr. Carter could contact staff for information on that application. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Carter's perception about the current traffic situation. Mr. Carter replied that traffic is currently heavy in the early morning and late afternoons. He said that when the intersection was widened at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, many people started cutting through to bypass the intersection reconstruction and traffic still remains heavy. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher suggested additional verbiage to further clarify that the proposed use is limited to only this portion of Subarea 17. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 94-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried , , , , Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 11, 1995 D. CONDITIONAT. USm PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS - The development of an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18 and 19; a multi-screen theater in Building 27; revisions to previously approved Building 1; new elevations for Buildings 25 and 26; and a parking study addressing required parking for the ice/roller rink, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (the site of previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. Chairman Barker observed that at the December 28 workshop, the Planning Commission had agreed to allot 30 minutes to the matter so that the applicant could present plans reflective of direction given at the workshop. Brad Bullet, City Planner, noted that at the December 28 workshop, the applicant had indicated they would bring back revisions to the plans to address the issues raised at the workshop. He reported the plans had been received by the City on January 10 and had been delivered to the Commissioners that evening. He said staff had not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the plans. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. John De Frenza, 20301 S.W. Birch St., Suite 101, Newport Beach, stated he had not artended the December 28 workshop and had made his best effort to translate the meeting notes. He reported he had been told by his client and Mr. Bullet that the drawings submitted were not in concurrence with the general consensus of the Commission. He said he had two other revisions for review tonight if the Commission wished to view them. He said Mr. Scandiffio felt the two new revisions are more in line with the comments from the December 28 workshop. Chairman Barker felt the front elevation depicted on the plane presented the day before was not what had been requested. Mr. De Frenza suggested the revised elevations be reviewed in a workshop setting. Chairman Barker asked if the Commissioners would prefer to move to a workshop setting. Commissioner Melcher objected to being asked to make a snap judgement, particularly on this project which had been before the Commission many times in many forms. He felt it was unfair on the part of the applicant to make such a request. Chairman Barker asked to see the revised elevations and Mr. De Frenza rolled them out. Commissioner Lumpp stated his understanding was that the project had been scheduled to be heard on this evening's agenda, but because the applicant was not prepared the Commission agreed to look at plans submitted and give further direction based on conversations at the December 28 workshop, with action to be taken at the January 25 meeting. He said that was to allow the applicant to make further revisions if necessary. He did not think the Commission had agreed to approve the plans tonight. Chairman Barker said it was his understanding that the applicant would provide revised drawings for tonight's meeting to try to reflect what had been discussed at the workshop and the applicant would have 30 minutes to make a presentation if they so desired so that the Commission could provide direction without an additional workshop so the applicant could move forward. Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 11, 1995 Commissioner McNiel commented that staff was supposed to have had time to review the plans. Me asked if staff had an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. ~uiier replied that they arrived yesterUay right DeEore being delivered to the Commissioners and staff had not had an opportunity to properly review them. He said it was staff's understanding that the Commission would look at the plans this evening and offer suggestions on conditions of approval that might be applied to the project so that a resolution could be prepared for the January 25 meeting. Chairman Barker asked if staff had seen the plans presented this evening by Mr. De Frenza. Mr. Bullet replied staff had not. Mr. De Frenza stated he had just finished the revised elevations this afternoon and no one had seen them as yet. Chairman Barker felt the revised plans were closer to the direction that the Commission had given on December 28. Commissioner Melcher felt such a conclusion could not be drawn because the new exhibits were not supported by plan views. Mr. De Frenza said he had a plan view available, but he had not rolled it out. Commissioner McNiel felt the plans should be reviewed in a workshop setting so the Commission could suggest conditions so that staff could move forward. Chairman Barker noted the Commission had allotted 30 minutes which should have been enough to move forward. He asked if the remainder of the Commissioners wished to continue the matter until after tonight's meeting and scheduled workshop. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project has been dragging along for some time and each time a new user presents itself, the City scrambles to make changes and approve new concepts. He agreed the plans would better be looked at in a workshop setting where they could be all laid out. He did not feel the applicant had presented enough information. He asked if a materials board was available. Mr. De Frenza said no. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the applicant was prepared. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to continue the matter to the end of the agenda after the scheduled workshop. , , , , Ee MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAT, USE PERMIT 93-49 - WESTERM T.AND PROPERTIES - A modification to the development of an integrated shopping center, Town Center Square, consisting of 13 buildings totaling 225,316 square feet on 25 acres of land 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: 1077-421-58 and 63. Related file: Development Review 94-19. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 11, 1995 DRVET.OPM~NT RRVIEW 94-19 - WESTERN T.AND PROPERTIES - The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Building 8, Pet Metro, within the Town Cente~ S~ua~e ~h~ppi~ cenLe~ in the Community Commercial Dis~ric~ of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 1077-421-58. Related file: Modification to Conditional Use Permit 93-49. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that the applicant had requested that their name be changed to Western Development Co. on the resolutions. Commissioner McNiel asked if there was any enhanced paving for identification of the pedestrian areas exiting from the front of the major tenants to the parking area. He commented that on the Best Buy site, the Commission had not requested such identification and he wanted to be sure it was not missed in front of the other stores. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that Exhibit D reflected what had been agreed to at the last workshop. Commissioner Melcher stated that the north elevations seem to reflect a high degree of color change. He asked is staff was satisfied that the color change will be more subtle, similar to Tetra Vista Town Center. Ms. Fong replied that the colors are consistent with to Terra Vista Town Center. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Pet Metro sign approved by the Design Review Committee was reflected on the elevation. Ms. Fong replied affirmatively. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Chuck Beecher, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated he had discussed with staff the condition requiring additional architectural treatment for the north side of the west elevation of Building 1, and it was his understanding that staff was looking for additional molding or medallions, not additional trellises or recessed arches. He said that would be acceptable. Co~nissioner Melcher asked if staff was looking for more treatment than what is shown on the elevation. Ms. Fong indicated the additional treatment was for the end of the building wall. Commissioner McNiel felt that was reasonable. Commissioner Melcher felt additional treatment was unnecessary as it is a small element on the back of the building. He thought adding one medallion would create spacing problems and adding two would draw more attention to that portion of the wall. Commissioners Tolstoy and Lumpp agreed with Commissioner McNiel. Mr. Beechef confirmed that the Pet Metro sign depicted on the elevations was what had been agreed to at the last workshop. He said it is 23 feet, which is a lot smaller than what had originally been proposed. He reported they are sponsoring an art competition and the art pieces should be ready to put in place in November Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 11, 1995 1995. He requested that Planning Condition 5e be changed to reflect that the works of art will be placed at the completion of the plazas so that occupancy of the buildings would not be held up. He said they intend to have the art in place prior to the end of the year. Mr. Beechef observed that Planning Condition 6 calls for the lower central plaza to be completed prior to release of occupancy for Buildings 7 and 4 and he requested that completion be delayed until they have a design and begin working on construction of Buildings 10 and 11 because the landscaping may be destroyed during construction. Ms. Fong observed that design review of Buildings 10 and 11 has not been submitted. She said the main entry off Foothill Boulevard will be landscaped on both sides except the building pads. She said the building pads will be grass for an unknown period of time. Mr. Beecher said it should not be too long before they are ready to submit for Buildings 10 and 11. Commissioner Lumpp felt the uses of Buildings 10 and 11 may dictate specific landscape materials or plaza design. However, he thought a backbone landscape concept and design should be installed because it is the main entry to the project. He suggested that the applicant work with staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there is a possibility that Buildings 10 and 11 may not be built for several years. He agreed that some landscaping needs to be installed with Buildings 7 and 4. Commissioner Lumpp said the landscape installed at this time should establish the theme and the viewshed corridor but he did not think all of the landscaping should be required at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the walkway and the major trees should be installed now. Commissioner McNiel asked if the parking lot will be phased. Mr. Beecher replied they hope to start construction of Buildings 1, 2, and 8 in April with completion of the buildings by August and completion of the full parking lot in time for fall openings. Commissioner Melcher recalled that when the former tenant for the site now occupied by Service Merchandise fell out, the applicant defined the storefront area with a temporary fence that was painted in a design consistent with the shopping center. He stated this approach is the spine and a major feature of this project and he thought it would not be excessive to require something similar on the south and east sides of what will be the building pad with the plaza now being developed as completely as possible. He thought the applicant's argument that landscaping would be destroyed during construction of Buildings 10 and 11 was weak because the same applicant had just inserted two buildings on the pad at the northeast corner of Haven and Foothill without destroying adjacent landscaping and hardscape. He said the schedule could later be. adjusted if necessary. Commissioner McNiel felt grass would be sufficient for the pads and a facade would not be necessary. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 11, 1995 Regarding Condition 8b, Mr. Beecher said they anticipate submitting Buildings 3 and 4 quickly, but he requested they be permitted to paint the blocks of Building 2 until Buildings 3 and 4 are underway, similar to what they did at Best Buy. Commissioners McNiel and Melcher felt that was acceptable. Debra West, Noble Signs, stated she represents Home Express. She said they would like "Home Express, Bed, Bath, Housewares, and Furnishings" on their front sign because that is the name they go by. She showed several exampies of where such signs have been used in other locations. She asked if they could add the additional verbiage on the building at a place of the Commission's choosing. Chairman Barker asked staff to comment. Ms. Fong stated that according to the Sign Ordinance, the additional verbiage is termed extraneous information. Commissioner Lumpp stated that he appreciated Ms. West's comments, but he noted that the Commission had made it clear to a representative from Home Express at the last Design Review Committee meeting that extraneous information is not permitted. Ms. West stated she had received that feedback from Ms. Fong but Home Express was hoping that they could incorporate their full name instead of just using Home Express. She noted that Pet Metro is being permitted to have more copy than Pet Metro. Chairman Barker stated that the Commission would later be discussing the problem of users extending their names to be long enough to "wrap around the building." He felt such names and logos are no longer names and logos, but advertising and that is a major concern of the Commission and the City. He said the intention of signage is identification, not advertising. Commissioner Melcher remarked that Michaels had also put forth a similar request and had been turned down. Commissioner McNiel noted that some grocery stores have come in with requests for "bakery, beer and wine, etc." He said that Ross had indicated that "Ross Best for Less" is their name and they were permitted to have that signage. He felt that companies have started to expand names to include advertising information. Commissioner Lumpp felt there was a major difference between what Home Express is requesting and what was permitted for Pet Metro, in that the Pet Metro sign states "Pet Metro, The Ultimate Pet Metropolis" and will not list products. Commissioner Melcher commented that the other tenants in the center have only one sign facing Foothill Boulevard and he questioned why this building should be permitted a sign on the west elevation facing Town Center Drive. Mr. Bullet observed that the Commission had discussed the sign on the west elevation the last time they addressed signs at this center, and the Commission had agreed that this sign was acceptable at the reduced size now proposed. The Commissioners stated they did not recall agreeing to the sign. Commissioner McNiel asked what color the sign will be. Ms. Fong replied that it will be red. Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 11, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp noted that the center will have signage in the two most visible colors, red and yellow. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher that there is no need for the sign. Chairman Barker said he only recalled discussing the additional verbiage. Commissioner McNiel recalled that when the secondary sign was discussed for Best Buy, the Commission decided it was unnecessary because it would only face the office/industrial and the apartments across the street. He felt this situation was similar and he did not feel the sign serves a valid purpose. It was the consensus of the Commission to delete the secondary sign for Home Express. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the definition of "significant" with regard to the works of art mentioned in Planning Condition 5e. He preferred that the language be changed to provide that the works of art be similar in size to the art at the corner of Haven and Foothill. He said he did not mean the same shape. Chairman Barker felt the developer has a track record with providing appropriate art. Cor~nissioner Melcher felt that Commissioner Lumpp was attempting to guard against an art piece similar to the rams head located in the project south of City Hall. He felt Co~mnissioner Lumpp was asking that the piece be of appropriate scale to the space. Rick Mager, Western Develo~ent Co., 1156 North Mountain, Upland, provided a copy of the art cor~petition announcement. He stated that a five-member jury has been selected to pick the works of art from an art contest they are sponsoring. He remarked they have allocated budgets of $40,000 and $30,000 for the sculptures. He said the five jurors include Mayor Alexander, Randall Lewis, two artists, and someone from the Wighall Museum. He said they intend to select two pieces of art which are complementary to the spaces. He felt the jury will have the best interests of what will fit in the spaces at heart. He requested that the selections not be confined by definitions. Commissioner McNiel felt the art contest to be an excellent approach but he doubted most of the jurors will take into account the spaces where the pieces will be displayed. He felt there should be some defining guidelines or a definition of the purpose so they will consider the spaces. Mr. Mager said the five-~ember jury could be increased to six with the addition of a Planning Commissioner if the Commission felt that was necessary. Chairman Barker felt the Planning Commission had expressed its concerns to the applicant and the applicant's track record should be sufficient. Co~w~issioner Melcher thought the materials provided to interested artists would include drawings and other data describing the spaces in which the works of art will be set. Mr. Mager responded affirmatively and stated there will also be an orientation meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 11, 1995 The Commission felt that would be sufficient. Mr. Bullet suggested dropping the word "significant" from Planning Condition 5e. He commended the appiicann for the art contesz and noned nhan nhe appiican= had requested that the release of occupancy not be tied to the installation of the art pieces. Chairman Barker noted the applicant had also requested delaying the construction of the lower central plaza. Commissioner Melcher felt the plazas should go in and the art can be put in place at a later time. Chairman Barker thought the timing of the placement of the art should correspond with the contest. Commissioner McNiel asked if the pedestrian area in front of the stores could be widened from 8 feet to 12 - 15 feet. Mr. Mager said that would be satisfactory. Mr. Beecher said the crosswalks are located at the handicap area and they had felt there should not be a checkerboard effect of a number of crossings across to the parking area. Commissioner McNiel asked if they could be wider than 8 feet. Me also asked the material. Mr. Beecher said it will be textured concrete. Commissioner Melcher asked why Commissioner McNiel wanted them wider. Commissioner McNiel responded that because parking is not located in front of the building, when people exit the stores they immediately cross to the parking area. He said most store entrances are rather wide and he felt wider pedestrian crossings would identify to drivers that people will be exiting the stores in those areas and crossing to the parking lot. He did not feel an 8-foot wide strip is significant enough to identify the crossings and get drivers to slow down. He said his concern is for the safety of people exiting the stores. Commissioner Tolstoy felt 12 feet would also be better scale for the buildings. Commissioner Melcher felt it is important to understand where the crosswalks are located, as he said they are not at the store entrances, but rather at the handicap parking spaces. Mr. Beechef said the public crossing walk in similar situations is a 10-foot width and in areas of enhanced paving they are required to place a stop sign. He felt 10 feet would be a reasonable width. He reiterated they do not match up to the building entrances, but rather to the handicap parking spaces. He said the stop signs are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Commissioners McNiel and Tolstoy felt the pedestrian crossings should tie in with the building entrances. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving modification to Conditional Use Permit 93-49 and Development Review 94-19 with modifications to change the applicant's name to Planning Commission Minutes 14 January 11, 1995 Western Development Co., provide that the works of art be placed upon completion of the plazas, and delete the Home Express sign on the west elevation. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission should not have required additional architectural treatment for the north side of the west elevation of Building 1 because it will make the west elevation appear different from the south elevation and they will both be viewed at the same time. Commissioner Lumpp stated the condition allows staff to work with the applicant to come up with a design that will work well and look good. , , , , , PUBT.IC COMMmNTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 9:34 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. for a workshop on Pre-Application Review 94-05. , , , , , D. CONDITIONAT. US~ P~RMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS Brad Bullet, City Planner, gave a brief description of the December 28, 1994, Planning Co~Inission Workshop. He indicated that the drop off was to be relocated 100 feet to the east per the Engineering Division, a walkway arcade was required from the east side of the building to the front door to create an entry statement, and wrought iron was to be provided in locations at the front of the elevation to discourage jay walking. He commented that the material and color sample board had not been submitted and that the floor plan and elevations still have some inconsistencies. He noted that the parking layout adjacent to Rochester Avenue will require a variance, because it is less than 30 feet from the face of the curb. John De Frenza, 20301 S.W. Birch St., Suite 101, Newport Beach, presented the revised elevations. He noted that they could lose 5 feet in the building to make up for the lack of parking setback along Rochester. Michael Scandiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, questioned whether or not they could get a variance. Commissioner Melcher commented there was no justification since the Sports Complex provided a 30-foot setback. Mr. De Frenza indicated he could clear up the discrepancies in the floor plan since he had received the necessary information from the ice rink management company. He noted that he had tried to address the concerns the Commission expressed at the December 28 workshop regarding the entry at the northeast corner, but it was difficult because he had not been at the meeting. He said he Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 11, 1995 had simply forgotten to move the entry drop off as requested by the Engineering Division. M~. Bullet indicated that originally the Engineering Division required that the drop-off area be extended 100 feet, but now there is a question as to why there would be a drop-off area where patrons cannot get into the building. He thought the drop-off area should be relocated to relate to the entry and the applicant should work with the Engineering Division as to the length of the drop off. Commissioner Melcher noted that the building had changed and he felt the front of the building now resembles a box. Mr. De Frenza presented new drawings to the Commission. The first alternative had an arcade in front of the building with wrought iron fencing in front. An arcade structure was reintroduced and a small entry was provided with additional glass. The second alternative had additional windows with two entries, one on either side of the colonnade. This provided more visibility into the front of the facility with additional glass. Mr. De Frenza noted that the distance from the front curb face to the fence is 21 feet. He noted that there is 10 feet 6 inches from the edge of the drop off to the building face. Following a discussion regarding the depth of the drop off required by the Engineering Division, Commissioner Melcher said he felt a dictate from the Engineering Division was spoiling an opportunity to create a plaza space at the front of the building. Commissioner McNiel noted that he was afraid the uses proposed in the center would all peak at the same time and he thought the parking areas should be separated as much as possible. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the Engineering Division opposes providing a crosswalk from the north side of the street to the ice facility. Commissioner Melcher noted that the i inch = 40 foot scale was hard to visualize. He thought the applicant should make a comprehensive attempt to solve the problem at a workable scale. Mr. De Frenza agreed and said that, given more time, he would do that. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the space between the building and the curb be blown up and a section provided so that the City could see what is actually proposed. He requested an integrated design, so that the foot print, site plan, floor plan, and elevations all fit together and are consistent. He said the bus bay, curb face, and related parking should be shown in an understandable way. Commissioner Lumpp felt the building massing was getting there, but that the materials were all wrong. He felt the applicant was just trying to embellish a metal box. He noted the need for an integrated entry. Mr. De Frenza said that the box shape was a function of economics. He noted that the building was set back 25 feet from the curb. Mr. Bullet noted that a variance would be required if an arch or colonnade is less than 25 feet from the face of the curb, even if the arch or colonnade is not attached to the building. He felt that a variety of alternatives could be used to make the project work. Me said there was the possibility of a fence at the right-of-way line, with an area of landscaping between the curb and the fence, and a plaza area behind that. Planning Commission Minutes 16 January 11, 1995 The Commission commented that they need a firm design concept and the working drawings could come at a later date. They also wanted to see a cross section of what could be seen in terms of roof mounted equipment from the Sports Complex. Mr. Scandiffio stated that he needs approval by January 25 and that they were very anxious to get started. He said he would work out all the details later. Chairman Barker noted that the footprints for the Jiffy Lube and the theater had changed from what was originally reviewed. Mr. Scandiffio stated that the theater entrance had merely been flipped and said he hoped to receive approval for this over the counter. The Commissioners all observed that this was a major change which could not be simply worked out over the counter. Mr. De Frenza said that the change resulted from recent information received from the theater consultant who expressed concerns that having the entry too close to the driveway would not be desirable. He felt that this alternative also worked better with the site, pedestrian flow, and floor plan. He also stated that a retail shop with glass would be added at the rear of the building at the corner, replacing the originally reviewed blank wall. Mr. Buller noted that the theater did not meet the required 25-foot setback. He said it would either have to meet the setback or the applicant could apply for a variance. After much discussion, the Planning Co~nission agreed to approve the uses subject to the architecture, parking, landscape, and site plan changes being reviewed and approved at a full Planning Commission workshop prior to the issuance of building permits. They etated a color and materials sample board must also be provided. Commissioner McNiel noted that he did not believe in prefab buildings. Mr. De Frenza noted that it was not a prefab building but rather metal with polystyrene and stucco over all. Commissioner McNiel commented he still had a concern with the material and he expressed a desire to see it in person. The applicant noted that the theater has more square footage and has been increased to 1300 seats and a restaurant has been deleted. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS H. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ITEMS Chairman Barker noted that no suggestions had been turned in as of yet. , , , , , It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item to January 25, 1995. , , · , , Planning Commission Minutes 17 January 11, 1995 ~DJOURNMRNT The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:08 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 18 January 11, 1995