HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/08/10 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 10, 1994
Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher
ABSENT:
David Barker, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner;
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttre~l, Associate Planner;
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Item E had been withdrawn. He said
that staff had been informed that someone from the public might be in the
audience to speak about the matter and he suggested that such comments would
be appropriate under Public Comments because the item had been withdrawn from
the agenda.
Mr. Buller stated that the City Council had directed that a Route 30 Task
Force be formed and that the Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman
serve on the task force.
Mr. Buller commented that staff had received some plans for modification to
the conditional use permit for the Masi project and the applicant had
requested a workshop on those changes. He suggested that such a workshop be
scheduled for September 14.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
VACATION OF A PORTION OF RAMONA AVENUE BETWEEN FERON BOULEVARD AND THE
A. T. & S. F. RAILROAD AND VARIOUS DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON
THE PARCEL TO THE EAST IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-04 -
APN: 209-085-20.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-2 with Barker and
Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VARIANCE 94-04 - CAMPOS - A request to reduce the required number of
parking spaces, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 0
feet, and to reduce the required side yard landscape setback from 5 feet
to 0 feet in conjunction with the development of 5 parcels 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, 09, 10, ll, and 23.
Vice Chairman McNiel stated that there would be a joint hearing of the
Historic Preservation Commission with regard to Landmark Designation 94-02 and
the Planning Commission with regard to Variance 94-04.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for
Variance 94-04. He commented that the site would be deficient 14 parking
spaces if the cafe size is increased to 1,996 square feet. He stated that the
applicant had also submitted an alternate proposal for a cafe just under 1,700
square feet.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a way the designation might be granted
conditionally upon the successful completion of the project. He observed the
four houses are in a state of disrepair.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that a Landmark Designation is a tool used
to ensure that the buildings stay historically true. He said staff believes
the structures can be rehabilitated and match the photographs in the staff
report.
Mr. Murphy suggested that the project could be conditioned so that the
exterior of the buildings would be refurbished to the standards depicted in
the photographs in the staff report. He said that would not preclude the
applicant from making interior changes but exterior changes beyond what is
indicated in the photographs would require a landmark alteration permit.
Commissioner Melcher asked what the City would gain by designation.
Mr. Murphy responded that the City gains because the structures are not
destroyed. He said the applicant has indicated a willingness to rehabilitate
the structures. Me noted the advantages to the applicant are the ability to
use the historic building code and potential tax credits.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked what type of separation would be provided between
the project and the residences to the north if the variance were granted to
allow the elimination of the 15-foot rear yard setback.
Mr. Murphy replied that there is currently a mixture of fences along the
property line. It stated it was staff's intention to require a wall in
conjunction with the development review application.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 10, 1994
Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Patrick Mora, stated he is the architect for the owner and they had been
working on the project for the last year. He said Ms. Campos had initially
planned to demolish the houses but she has since agreed to seek a landmark
designation and retain the houses even though it meant parking consequences.
He said she has also provided access to the rear of the site to provide for
future development of the area. He stated she had complied with all of the
requirements from CalTrans and the Engineering and Planning Divisions. He
commented they had made all the revisions that had been requested to the
drawings. He said the landmark buildings will be refurbished to appear as
they had previously looked and updated to meet disability access
requirements. He reported the cafe was originally planned to seat only 26
patrons but following consultations with the potential cafe manager, they
determined that a 26-seat cafe would not be economically feasible. He said he
then prepared two other options, one being 1,698 square feet which would seat
36 people and another of almost 2,000 square feet which would seat 40
people. He stated the larger cafe would result in a deficiency of 14 spaces
and the 1,698 size would mean a deficit of 11 spaces. He felt the area would
gain because of the improvement of the buildings and the existence of the
cafe. He thought there may be less dependence on automobiles in the future
with more people walking or bicycling. He said thei~ engineer had recently
sent a report to state that all problems had been worked out with CalTrans.
He commented the larger building would only stretch the building 10 feet to
the side and 2 feet to the front.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if tenants are lined up for any of the other
buildings.
Ana Campos, 5711 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher noted that Exhibit D depicted what was shown as an
ultimate drive location which would require removal of House No. 3.
Mr. Murphy replied that the site plan was prepared as an example of what was
originally requested by the Engineering Division and agreed to by CalTrans.
He said that the driveway would not be relocated to this location until the
site is redeveloped or expanded.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the plan be further developed prior to
granting approval of the cafe. He felt it would be silly to grant approval of
a cafe building that would not serve the purpose. He said he had initially
raised the question at Design Review of whether a 26-seat cafe would be
economically feasible. He noted that in the Landmark Designation staff
report, House No. 3 was indicated as having been surveyed, but of undetermined
significance, meaning that it would have the least value of the four houses.
He thought it might be good to initially require the removal of the house
because it would diminish the parking required for the office uses.
Mr. Murphy stated that the house which would be removed in order to
accommodate the driveway shown on Exhibit D would actually be House No. 2,
which was reviewed and found to be a potential local landmark.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 10, 1994
Commissioner Melcher felt that given the need for a larger cafe and the
possibility that the house would be removed eventually it may perhaps still be
best to remove the house at this time.
Mr. Buller stated the item had come before the Planning Commission in a pre-
application review, at which time the driveway issue was discussed. He
thought the Commission had indicated the four homes together gave a better
context than to place a driveway where Engineering has indicated.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that had happened but he noted that was a
different Planning Commission than the one now seated. He also pointed out
that was prior to a request from the applicant to increase the size of the
cafe in order to make the project viable.
Mr. Buller said th~ applicant had proceeded in the direction they felt the
Commission had indicated. He observed that the property owner of the gas
station to the east has inquired about the potential possibilities for
development and staff has encouraged the two property owners to coordinate and
cooperate in a solution. He felt that if there is a willingness between the
two property owners, the larger restaurant could occur and possibly the
conversion and restoration of the old gas station. He said if the master plan
for the block is expanded, then property to the eas~ would provide another
alternative for addressing the parking deficiency.
Commissioner Melcher stated he understood. He said he realized the applicant
had pursued the direction from the pre-application meeting; however, he noted
the applicant is now requesting a larger restaurant. He thought that before
the project is cast in stone, perhaps moving the driveway now is an alternate
possibility that should be considered. He said that if the applicant wants
the Commission to proceed as submitted, then the Commission should act on the
applicant's request.
Mr. Murphy stated that the driveway location depicted on Exhibit D is the
ultimate desired by the Engineering Division, but in the interim it would pose
problems 'until the Foothill Boulevard median is constructed. He said an
interim driveway further to the east was selected to avoid problems with
traffic entering and exiting McDonald's across the street.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant would be conditioned to construct
the median.
Mr. Murphy replied they would be required to pay a fee toward the
construction.
Mr. James added that CalTrans may also require them to restripe Foothill
Boulevard to eliminate left-turn movements.
Mr. Murphy said the project would not be conditioned to construct a raised
median because there is not sufficient right-of-way or pavement width to
construct it to its ultimate configuration.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 10, 1994
Commissioner Melcher asked the difference between the requirements for this
project and the night club further east on Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Murphy responded that at this location the plan calls for dual left-turn
lanes from Foothill Boulevard turning onto Archibald which requires more
pavement width. He said there are also properties on the corner that the
applicant does not have control over from which additional dedication would be
needed.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the Commission was being asked to recommend
landmark status for the houses and to approve a variance and the staff's
recommendation was to give the applicant something different from what the
applicant feels is necessary on the basis of recent information so far as size
and number of seats in the restaurant. He thought perhaps it would be better
to take another look to see whether the area could be better planned to
provide the size restaurant needed while avoiding the large discrepancy in the
parking.
Mr. Murphy noted that the applicant's request is based upon operating expenses
for the cafe. He thought the Commission may wish to ask if the applicant has
considered the overall economic feasibility of the pFoject with the larger
cafe or if are they looking at eliminating any of the houses.
Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the master plan proposed by Commissioner
Melcher should be pursued.
Mr. Murphy stated that from staff's perspective, Exhibit C-2 with the driveway
immediately adjacent to the cafe is the preferred location until the median is
installed.
Commissioner Lumpp commented that it would not make sense to approve the cafe
with the size limitation recommended by staff. He questioned if it would not
be best to ask the applicant to reevaluate the overall master plan and put in
a driveway where House No. 3 is located even though it would not be consistent
with the median.
Mr. Murphy noted that even with the removal of one of the houses, the project
would only provide 22 parking spaces. He was not sure the parking situation
would be improved by eliminating the one house and expanding the care.
Mr. Mora said Ms. Campos is not willing to remove the house in order to place
a driveway there. He felt that moving the driveway that far away from the
restaurant would not work. He thought the increase in the cafe would be
practically insignificant, an increase of only 4 more spaces. He felt the
project as proposed is an efficient way to use the site without removing any
houses as the houses form a complex with an historical value. Mr. Mora
requested approval of the mid-size 1,698 square foot restaurant.
Peter Ferrero, stated he is the owner of 9627 Estacia Court, Rancho
Cucamonga. He said there is a wall on the south side of his property which is
not on his property. He stated that drainage is a critical problem along the
street and water backs up on his property whenever someone plugs up the
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 10, 1994
drainage holes in the wall. He felt that if anyone backs into the wall, it
will fall over. He asked that the drainage problems be considered and that a
block wall be constructed between the project and the residences to the north.
Vice Chairman McNiel observed that the question of separation between the
development and the properties to the north had been discussed earlier and
staff had suggested that a block wall be constructed. He asked if staff had
looked at the drainage issue.
Mr. James said Building and Safety would look at drainage in connection with
on-site grading and he would bring Mr. Ferrero's comments to the attention of
Building and Safety personnel.
Mr. Buller said the wall may need to be moved closer to the property line
because of the critical dimensions on-site.
Mr. Mora stated that other cities have compact parking spaces. He suggested
that if the City reduces parking stall size in the future, they could redesign
the parking layout and should be able to add 6 to 8 more spaces.
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that some years ago the ~ity had incorporated a
35 percent ratio of compact parking because it appeared that the trend was
moving toward smaller cars. However, people started going back to larger cars
and the City changed standards to a mid-range parking size which seems to be
working.
Mr. Ferrero stated that parking seems to be a problem on the entire block. He
did not feel there was any reason to succumb to anything less than the normal
requirements just because someone has a development plan.
Vice Chairman McNiel stated that the objective of a variance within the law is
to allow for unique situations and this might fall under that unique situation
category because it is a long and narrow parcel. Hearing no further comments,
he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed that if a cafe is built, a minimum 6-foot high wall
is needed to separate it from the residences to the north. He supported the
1,698 square foot cafe because he did not favor approving a smaller cafe that
would fail. He felt the variance is justified in order to retain the four
houses.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was not unsympathetic with saving the houses,
but he felt the degree the Commission was being asked to bend over to make it
happen exceeds good judgment. He felt that any place else in the City, a
developer would be required to obtain property to put in a proper driveway
before being allowed to proceed. He questioned the wisdom of rushing into the
approval in an effort to save the four houses which he did not feel have that
much history taken by themselves. He observed that in 1990 the Historic
Preservation Commission had considered the possibility of an overlay district
to include Estacia Court as well as these houses on Foothill Boulevard, but an
overlay district had not been pursued. He recognized this proposal as a good
faith effort to save the houses absent an overall plan, but he felt it was
Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 10, 1994
pushing too hard. Me said that although he would like to see the houses
saved, he could not support the project.
Vice Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher that extreme measures
were being considered, but he saw the project as an opportunity to save some
of the little remaining history of the community. He supported the proposal
for the 1,698 square foot restaurant along with salvage of the houses. He
noted comments had been made about plans to return the exteriors of the houses
to their original state. He felt they need to be cleaned up so they do not
look abandoned. He agreed that a wall is necessary to separate the commercial
venture from the residences to the north.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that the resolution for the
variance be modified to indicate that approval would be contingent upon
approval of Landmark Designation 94-02.
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of Landmark Designation 94-02.
Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification of why a landmark designation is
preferred over a point of interest designation. He did not feel the buildings
are in the same classification as the St. Clare of Assi'si site.
Mr. Murphy stated it comes down to the context of the area. He observed that
the staff report stated that although none of the houses individually
represent a significant architectural contribution, it is the context and
setting which is characteristic of an era that is rapidly disappearing along
Foothill Boulevard. He said the project was viewed as an opportunity to
retain a fairly intact block from a disappearing era.
Commissioner Melcher felt strongly that landmarking the houses is excessive.
He said he would support a motion to create a point of interest. He felt that
if the entire block develops as a whole setting, then perhaps the entirety
would be worthy of landmark designation.
Mr. Murphy noted that two Commissioners had expressed desires to rehabilitate
the structures to bring them back to the era they were constructed. He asked
if it would be their intent to include that as a condition of the landmark
designation.
Commissioner Lumpp and Chairman McNiel agreed that was their intent.
Commissioner Melcher did not believe that would make them worthy of landmark
status absent the rest of the block.
The motion was revised to include a modification to restore/rehabilitate the
houses consistent with the architectural style and details of the era of
construction to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LUMPP, MCNIEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, TOLSTOY
-carried
Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 10, 1994
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving
Variance 94-04 with modifications to require a minimum 6-foot decorative block
wall on the commercial side along the north property line and to make approval
contingent upon approval of Landmark Designation 94-02. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LUMPP, MCNIEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, TOLSTOY
-carried
Commissioner Melcher stated he did not believe appropriate findings could be
made.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-12 - KAUFMAN - A request to establish an indoor
roller hockey skating rink in a leased space of 50,000 square feet within
an existing industrial park on 13.8 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 207-211-13.
Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the st&ff report. She stated
that staff had received correspondence from two property owners with
businesses in the area. She said both property owners expressed concerns
about security after normal business hours and requested that private security
guards patrol the area in the evenings because they worried that the influx of
youths could lead to instances of graffiti or vandalism. She stated that
staff had formulated potential language if the Commission concurred.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the Commission had just reviewed a project
which required a variance for approximately a dozen parking spaces and he
observed that this project falls about 250 spaces short of complying with the
Development Code. He asked why a variance or a change in the Development Code
was not necessary in order to approve the project.
Ms. Luttrell replied that the parking requirements were based on studies which
were provided for the ice/roller skating rink on the Masi project. She said
that parking analysis indicated that each facility should be considered on an
individual basis because of the variety in programs they offer. She said
staff also surveyed other cities and their parking requirements with respect
to this type of use and they all felt our code requirements were too stringent
and did not take into account any unique aspects.
Commissioner Melcher said he was not questioning the recommendations, only the
mechanics.
Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that the question on parking had come up
before in connection with a rink at Foothill and Rochester and again with the
Indoor Soccer Facility and another ice rink within the City. He said the
Development Code has a section regarding shared parking which can be used when
an applicant can demonstrate that their use or hours of operation are
unique. He said it was under those provisions that the analysis was written.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 10, 1994
Commissioner Melcher
requirements.
said he was quite satisfied with the parking
Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Bill Kaufman, 8300 Utica Avenue, Suite 191, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he
represented Recreation 2000, the operators. He said the facility would
realize approximately 90 percent of their business from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
and on weekends. He reported they had secured an additional 250 parking
spaces during that period which would bring the effective parking up to 561
and would qualify under the code of one space per 100 square feet during those
hours. He said the activity during the day is generally women's skating
leagues and "Mommy and Me" skating, and would probably only utilize about 50
to 60 spaces based upon their surveys of other roller hockey rinks. He stated
they had studied one rink with 1,200 league participants and its peak parking
is during Saturday and Sunday games and tournaments and is generally 85 to 95
cars. He said they would also have open skating with pick-up games so that
youngsters would have a place to go.
Commissioner Melcher said he was not worried about whether there is sufficient
parking.
¶
Mr. Kaufman stated he had talked to both gentlemen who sent letters expressing
concerns about security and he felt that there would be less vandalism because
they would be providing a lot of lighting to the area and there would be a lot
of activity. He said he had assured the gentlemen that if there any any
instances of vandalism, they would provide security.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the previous tenants of the building had
complained that patrons had difficulty in locating the building and they had
approached the Commission to extensively change the sign ordinance in order to
permit off-site signs. He asked if they anticipated such a problem.
Mr. Kaufman said they will be placing a sign on the building with the name of
the rink.' He felt the demand for this type of facility would fill the rinks
and they would not need to advertise. He anticipated they would bring in an
existing Fontana league which would take up approximately 50 percent of their
available times. He said they would not look for additional signage within
the City.
Commissioner Lumpp questioned if they would be adding additional light
fixtures in the parking lot.
Mr. Kaufman stated they would be utilizing all the lighting that currently
exists and they may add some lighting at the front entrance. He felt
approximately 60 percent of their parking would be behind the building.
Commissioner Lumpp felt the rear parking lot is rather dark.
Mr. Kaufman replied there is lighting on the building which he did not believe
is being utilized. He observed that the resolution limits special events to
Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. He said they anticipate minor league hockey
Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 10, 1994
teams giving exhibitions and those events may take place during the week in
the evenings. He asked that they be permitted to have special events in the
evenings.
Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lumpp stated he was quite concerned about potential vandalism and
he felt that prevention is better than waiting until a problem occurs. He
thought a condition should be added to require a uniformed security guard be
stationed outside the building during evening hours.
Ms. Luttrell suggested language requiring at least one uniformed security
guard to patrol the parking area from 6:00 p.m. until the parking lot is
cleared after the close of business and also requiring the manager to address
any security problems within 30 days at the request of the City Planner.
Commissioner Melcher felt that the letter from O'Donnell Property Services,
Inc., was well stated and he agreed security should be provided.
Mr. Buller stated that on a recent project, security was required after
6:00 p.m., but he noted that it does not get dark until 8:00 p.m. during the
summer. He said that applicant had questioned the ne&d for a security guard
during daylight hours.
Commissioner Lumpp suggested dusk to closing could be used.
Vice Chairman McNiel felt that if the crowds are coming in at 6:00 p.m., it
would be a good idea to have security in plain view even if it is not dark.
He thought it is important to establish an attitude that the place is secure.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed that was a good point. He requested that Ms.
Luttrell read the suggested language again. After she read it, he asked if it
was anticipated that one security guard may not be sufficient.
Ms. Luttrell said that may be true.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed that was a good idea.
Vice Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Kaufman commented that the cost of the licensed, uniformed guards is
extremely high. Me proposed that they be permitted to hire their own
personnel who are not uniformed, similar to what they do at the Golf Learning
Center. Me thought if they encounter problems, they could then hire licensed,
uniformed guards.
Commissioner Melcher felt there would be a significant difference in the size
of crowds.
Mr. Kaufman thought there should not be a lot of activity in the parking lot.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the guard at the golf course wears a uniform.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 10, 1994
Mr. Kaufman replied that he does not.
picks up golf balls.
He said he stays there all night and
Vice Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He said he understood
Mr. Kaufman's dilemma, but he also felt there are two different kinds of
clientele and he thought there is a need to establish a presence of security.
Commissioners Lumpp and Melcher agreed.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 94-12 with modifications to permit special
events after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays; to require a licensed, uniformed security
guard; and to require the manager of the facility to address any security
problems which occur with the City Planner. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NONE
BARKER, TOLSTOY
-carried
D. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-02 - OAS - A request to
amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan by adding Commercial Recreation
as a conditionally permitted use in the Specialty Commercial District in
Subareas 1 and 2.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and stated that a
letter had been received from a nearby resident objecting to the establishment
of a billiard parlor in the Thomas Winery center.
Commissioner Melcher questioned why staff was recommending that the use be
permitted instead of conditionally permitted.
Ms. Fong responded that Commercial Recreation had been changed to a permitted
use in other subareas along Foothill Boulevard during the streamlining
amendments and it was felt this amendment would be consistent. She observed
that the serving of beer and wine or any alcohol in such an establishment
would trigger the need for a conditional use permit.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that indoor recreational uses have been well
received in the community and noted that concerns the Commission had
previously raised regarding these uses were primarily with the serving of
alcohol in conjunction with such uses, which would still require the
application of a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Lumpp asked the location of the resident who had sent the letter
of objection.
Ms. Fong replied that she thought it is the complex south of In-N-Out Burger.
Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 10, 1994
Bill Walls, 941 Clear Creek Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, stated he is the
proposed tenant for the billiard and sports club and he was available to
answer any questions. He presented pictures of the type of club he planned to
open. He said they plan to cater to clientele 18 and over.
Ms. Fong stated the applicant has submitted a conditional use permit
application because they plan to serve beer and wine and that application
would be considered by the Commission on August 24, 1994.
Commissioner Lumpp thought that if an upscale environment is maintained, it
would be a good use.
Bill Berry, project manager, stated that he represented the owner of the
Thomas Winery center. He said they are also concerned that the use be an
upgraded establishment. He noted that the food serving area is a focal point
of the establishment. He said there would also be large screen TVs for
viewing of sporting events. He felt the ambiance would be different from the
old concept of musty, smokey pool halls. He believed this use would be a good
compliment for the fitness center in the opposite corner of the center. He
said they had done market studies and studies of comparable uses at other
centers and were favorably impressed. He felt the main use would be after
6:00 p.m., so there should be no parking problems. H~ thought it would be an
asset to the center.
Commissioner Lumpp stated that when the Commission had previously reviewed
another billiard hall, that applicant had requested hours of operation until
3:00 a.m.
Mr. Walls stated they intend to close at 2:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays
and either 1:00 or 1:30 a.m. during the rest of the week.
Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the item had originally been listed to add the
use as a conditionally permitted use rather than a permitted use.
Mr. Buller responded that when the item was originally advertised, it had been
to make the use conditionally permitted, but the streamlining amendments
before the City Council had made such a use permitted in other subareas. He
said it would be legally permissible to recommend approval as a permitted use.
Commissioner Melcher felt that if the use becomes permitted, the City loses
its ability to police it other than through the Police Department. He was not
sure that was a wise choice. He commented that he had talked to the owner of
a combination book store and coffee house and the owner indicated he had
relocated to another center after a billiard club moved into the original
center because he did not like the kind of people that were being attracted by
the billiard club. He was concerned about the possibility to revoke the use
if there are recurring problems. He asked if staff concurred with his
concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 10, 1994
Mr. Bullet stated that staff believed the issue with billiard halls has a lot
to do with the serving of alcohol in conjunction with the use and that
billiards itself is merely another category of indoor recreational use. He
commented that if the Commission felt billiards should require a conditional
use permit, it could take action to recommend approval of the amendment as a
conditionally permitted use and he would then suggest that another amendment
be initiated to change the use to a conditionally permitted use in the other
subareas.
Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission should move forward in the direction
suggested by staff in their report to the Commission.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 94-02.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NONE
BARKER, TOLSTOY
-carried
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 94-02 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Review of a Development Agreement to re-use a portion of the
Regina Winery property for a retail store with wine tasting, banquet
facilities, and the bottling and storage of wine in the High Residential
District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at 12467 Base Line Road
- APN: 227-161-24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Vice Chairman McNiel reiterated that Item E had been withdrawn. Me stated
that if anyone would like to make any comments on the project, they could do
so under the Public Comment portion of the agenda.
VARIANCE 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request to increase the sign area for
the Project Identification Monument Sign from 24 to 49 square feet;
increase the sign area for the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from
24 to 49 square feet; and increase the maximum number of tenant names on
the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from three to five per face,
for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenues - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related
File: Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 88.
OLD BUSINESS
AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 88 - OAS PARTNERSHIP -A request to
amend the Sign Program to allow a Project Identification Monument Sign,
internally illuminated Tenant Identification Monument Signs, and various
changes to the sign criteria for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the
northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related file: Variance 93-05.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 10, 1994
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that both items were recommended to be
continued to September 14, 1994, at the request of the applicant. He stated
that the public hearing was still open.
There were no public comments.
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to continue Variance 93-05 and
Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 88 to September 14, 1994. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, TOLSTOY
-carried
NEW BUSINESS
AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 119 - MICHAELS STORES - A request to
amend the sign criteria to allow 6-foot individual channel letters for the
tenant name and four sets of 24-inch letters for secondary signs for
Michaels, a 17,000 square foot tenant within a 62Lacre commercial/retail
center in the Regional 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: 229-031-33.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Clodomiro Gaona, Sign Methods, 5300 Orange Avenue, Suite 114, Cypress, stated
he represented Michaels. He said the national program for Michaels includes
even bigger letters and they are manufacturing and installing signs for all of
the south coast. He remarked that Price Club and Wal-Mart have 4 foot 6 inch
and 4 foot high letters and their signs can be visible from anywhere. He
observed that the staff report indicated 36 inch letters can be seen from a
distance of 1,500 feet. He said that because Michaels uses upper and lower
case letters, only the M would be visible from Foothill Boulevard because the
store is 1,500 feet from Foothill Boulevard. He commented that Price Club and
Wall Mart have super bold letters. He said there are companies named Michaels
Medical Group, Michaels Cafe, and Michaels Hamburgers and they all have the
same letter style. He therefore asked if they could add secondary copy to
identify products within the store. He acknowledged that Michaels already had
been established in the Kmart shopping center, but said they feel it is
necessary to use the secondary copy because of the other businesses with the
Michaels name.
There were no additional public comments.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the sign program for the center takes
precedence over any tenant's national sign program. He suggested that
Michaels could change their letter style. He did not support either request.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 10, 1994
Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher and felt the request was
ridiculous.
Vice Chairman McNiel agreed.
Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to deny the applicant's request for
Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 119. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, TOLSTOY
-carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
I. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 WORK PROGRAM
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that Scott Murphy had been teassigned to
another department and the effect on the work program would be dramatic. He
felt it would be a waste to go through the Work Program.
Commissioner Melcher stated the Work Program had been drafted in February
which was prior to the departure of Anthea Hartig and Steve Ross. He thought
that with the current staffing in Current Planning, virtually nothing can be
accomplished except attending to the normal flow of projects. He said that
means there is no time left for planning in the City. He commented that in
the Mayor's recent address to the Chamber of Commerce, he cited the benefits
which the community has derived from its planning. He agreed with the Mayor's
assertion but he stated planning is an ongoing process, not something which is
done once and then forgotten. He felt the arranging of the work should be
left to the City Planner and the Commission should concern itself with what it
can do as a Commission in impressing upon the Council the need for ongoing
planning and the need to strengthen the present staffing levels in order to do
that.
Commissioner Lumpp felt there should be a quick reprioritization of what
projects the City Planner feels are important where the Commissioners can
assist Planning in moving things through the system.
Commissioner Melcher agreed.
Vice Chairman McNiel agreed but he cautioned that the Commissioners must be
careful they do not become an encumbrance on the efficiency of staff. He said
there are some things the Commissioners can do and some things they should not
Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 10, 1994
interfere with. He thought there may be other ways the Commission can
assist. He noted the Planning Division has suffered a severe loss of staff
and he felt that had to have an effect on the morale of those remaining. He
thought it would serve the City well to recognize that and show appreciation.
Commissioner Lumpp stated that the City Council is in the process of hiring a
consultant for a Commercial Land Use Market Fiscal Analysis. He suggested
that the Commission assist staff in reviewing the Request for Proposal and
assist in administering the work.
Vice Chairman McNiel felt that was a greater possibility of the Commission
being able to assist staff at this time because the Commission has some
expertise which may apply. He felt the City Planner should make the final
determination on what services the Commission can offer.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission directed a memorandum through
the Chairman to the City Manager indicating the concerns of the Commission
related to commercial land inventory and where the City is headed. He said
the Chairman and City Manager have met and there has been concurrence to move
forward. He observed he had prepared a preliminary scope of services and is
looking at an estimate of the cost to have a consultant do the work that the
in-house staff would not be capable of; i.e., ~iscal economic market
analysis. He felt staff can do the land use analysis and planning uses
section. He said the potential scope of services will be reviewed by the
Chairman and the full Commission to be sure it fully addresses what the
Commission requested. He reported the City Manager has made a commitment to
try to find the money to conduct the study.
Commissioner Melcher hoped that the Commissioners have an opportunity to
review the results as they are received from the consultant prior to the final
report.
Commissioner Lumpp announced that he would not be at the Planning Commission
meeting on August 24, 1994.
Vice Chairman McNiel announced that he may not be able to attend that meeting
or that he may be late for that meeting.
Vice Chairman McNiel noted that the City Council had requested that the
Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman serve on a Route 30 Task
Force. He commented that Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy currently serve on
a Route 30 Committee which he felt has served the Commission well and he
thought they should be the delegates to the Task Force.
Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that the City Council had directed that
the Chairman and Vice Chairman be delegates to the Task Force. He suggested
the matter could be placed on the August 24 agenda so the Commission could
respond to Vice Chairman McNiel's comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 10, 1994
Commissioner Melcher said he thought the new group is in response to a citizen
action group and would be highly involved with that specific group looking at
issues which are specific to the City and the residents who live along the
freeway corridor. He said the role of the current Route 30 Planning
Commission Committee has been to monitor the Route 30 forum process which
involves all of the cities in the corridor except for San Bernardino and San
Bernardino County. He understood that at the next meeting which will be held
in September it was expected that the Joint Powers Agreement would be
finalized and the City will be an ongoing participant. He said the Planning
Commission Committee has been monitoring those meetings in order to report to
the full Commission regarding more regional matters. He reported a
landscaping design concept has been submitted which appears to be "doable" and
truck traffic and aesthetics are still being debated. He thought elevations
are more a city-by-city matter. He hoped the Chairman and Vice Chairman would
be members of the new Task Force and that he and Commissioner Tolstoy could
remain on the Route' 30 Committee. He felt there are two separate activities
with one being very locally focused and the other being of a more regional
nature. He noted that once the Joint Powers Agreement is in effect, the City
will be on an equal footing with the other cities and he hoped the Route 30
Committee (Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy) could continue to monitor those
meetings.
There was a discussion of the landscaping concepts along the freeway.
Brad Buller, City Planner, disclosed that an appeal had been received from
Citation Homes regarding the St. Clare of Assisi conditional use permit
approval granted at the July 27, 1994, Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: .Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to adjourn.
9:55 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 10, 1994