Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/06/22 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 22, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:26 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: PRE SENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Matt Everling, Planning Intern; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez} Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the applicant had withdrawn Item I. Mr. Buller stated there would be a workshop regarding Town Center Square on July 13, 1994. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 13, 1994. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of May 25, 1994. , · , , , OLD BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-02 - CRHO ARCHITECTS, INC. - A request to construct an 8,540 square foot restaurant on a 2.2 acre parcel in the Office Park designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-58. Chairman Barker noted the applicant had submitted a letter of withdrawal. He invited public comment and there was none. He commented that no action was necessary other than accepting the letter of withdrawal. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - A request to amend the land use designation for a 25 acre piece of vacant land from Office Professional District to Community Commercial District bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Spruce Avenue on the west, Church Street on the north, and Elm Avenue on the east - APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 94-01A. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated he was accompanied by Dave Newsome, the project manager for Town Center Square, which he said is the reason for the amendment, and Elaine Carbrey of Gruin & Associates, who he said has the historical perspective on the community plan. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if supermarkets should be included in the Community Commercial district. He asked if they would be looking for such a use in the area. Mr. Luque agreed supermarkets would not be an appropriate use for the nature of their project. Commissioner Lumpp asked if it could be struck from the listing. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt Commissioner Lumpp had correctly identified a necessary deletion and he supported the amendment. Commissioners Tolstoy and McNiel concurred. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 94-01 with the deletion of supermarkets as a use for the subject parcel. Motion carried by the following vote: - AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONEWS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 22, 1994 STREET NAME CHANGE 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the street name "Pierson Court" to "Pearson Court," located east of Johnston Place. Matt Everling, Planning Intern, presented the staff report and stated letters of opposition had been received from two residents. He noted that One of the letters had suggested that another street be named Pearson in the future. Mr. Everling observed that would conflict with the City Code which disallows two streets with same or similar names because of potential for misdirection of public safety employees in the event of an emergency. He suggested that the Commission may wish to extend the effective date from six to nine months so that the name change would not occur during the holiday period. Chairman Barker noted the name change request was the result of a letter from a resident. He opened the public hearing. James Clark, 6826 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Etiwanda is a special place to him and he believes history is important. He reported that all of the streets in the housing development where this street lies had been named after pioneer families but Pearson had been misspelled because of incorrect records. He requested that the spelling be corrected. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked for confirmation that the name change action would be final with the Planning Commission but could be appealed to City Council. Brad Buller, City Planner, confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher asked how many addresses are located on the street. Mr. Bullet responded there are four. Commissioner McNiel asked if the specific tract is connected to the Pearsons. Mr. Buller replied it is not, but the developer used historical names of community founders for all of the streets in the development. Commissioner McNiel thought perhaps the full name of Willis Grant Pearson could be used elsewhere in the City. Mr. Buller stated that Willis Grant Pearson would make for a very long name and the name would still not be acceptable to the public safety agencies. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is very important to preserve historic family names. He thought it imperative that there not be a Pierson Court and a Pearson Court. He suggested the name change be effective in ayear so that residents would have plenty of time to use up checks and stationery and process address changes for magazine subscriptions, etc. Commissioner Lumpp also believed that the name should be spelled correctly in order to preserve the history of Etiwanda. He understood the residents' concerns but strongly felt the correct name should be used. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 22, 1994 Commissioner Melcher expressed the Commission's gratitude to Mr. Clark for bringing the matter to the attention of staff and suggested staff determine the appropriate length of time before enactment. Motion: Moved by Melcher, approving Street Name Change determine the effective date. seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution 94-01 with modification to allow staff to Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-11 - INSTITUTE OF DIVINE METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH - A request to establish a personal service for seminars and research in a leased space of approximately 2,613 square feet in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9774 Crescent Center Drive, Suite 502 - APN: 210-071-52. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested the resolution be changed to indicate that no public assembly use would be permitted prior to compliance with Fire District and Building and Safety conditions. Chairman Barker observed the City had received a complaint from a neighboring business. He asked if the complaint had been by letter or telephone. Ms. Luttrell stated the adjacent business owner had telephoned both the Code Enforcement Supervisor and her and she had suggested that he submit a letter or attend the public hearing to voice his concern. She said she had not received anything in writing and did not know if he was present tonight. Commissioner Lumpp asked how long the use had been in operation at this location. Ms. Luttrell was not sure. Commissioner Lumpp asked if they had been essentially operating without an approved conditional use permit. Ms. Luttrell responded that was correct. Commissioner Melcher was concerned about the parking impacts. He said the City Code requires one parking space for every 35 square feet but the Fire Department rates the use as one person for every 15 square feet if there are fixed seats and one person for every 7 square feet if there are no fixed seats. He noted that could produce up to five times the occupancy that the City code expects; however, he suspected that the heavy occupancies would occur at non-conflicting hours. Ms. Luttrell agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 22, 1994 Mr. Bullet stated that throughout the system, parking and occupancy load numbers of the Municipal Code are always under the occupancy load determined by Fire. Commissioner Melcher said he understood but he thought perhaps the way of calculating parking in business and industrial parks may be fatally flawed and there may one day be a situation where principal public assemblies would occur during hours in common with other tenants. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Tyrone Horn, 257 Coral Tree Drive, Rialto, stated he is the teacher at the institute. He said they have been operating at the site since September. He reported they have no fixed chairs in the building at this time. He said they hold classes on Thursday evenings from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. and on Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He requested approval and said they had looked all around for a suitable place to meet. He reported they had met in a motel conference room for about three years but felt they needed to expand. He said he had known about the need for a conditional use permit but they did not have the time or money to apply for the permit prior to moving to this location. He said the adjacent tenant has a tool and die shop and plays stereo music 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He stated he had asked the adjacent tenant to turn down his music during the times the Institute meets and the adjacent tenant is not cooperative. Commissioner McNiel asked if there has been a resolution to the conflict. Mr. Horn said the adjacent tenant now has turned his music down. He reported there had been a verbal altercation between one of his students and the adjacent tenant and the adjacent tenant called the Police. He said the Police came and asked that the music be turned down. He commented that currently about 24 people attend their meetings. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the applicant knew that the adjoining tenant plays music 24 hours a day. Mr. Horn replied he stops by periodically. Commissioner Lumpp asked what the Institute does. Mr. Horn said they are a non-profit, religious, scientific research organization. He said they research and teach Biblical principles and study comparative religions, psychology, etc. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Horn operated any other facilities. Mr. Horn said there are other branches of the organization but not in Rancho . Cucamonga. Commissioner Lumpp asked if some people might work at the facility during the day. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 22, 1994 Mr. Horn replied they are sometimes there for an hour or two to handle correspondence, etc. He said they have no complaints about the neighboring tenant running his music during the hours he is there; they only object to the music playing when the owner is not there. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant was aware that he would have to spend money to bring the facility into compliance with conditions imposed by the Fire Department. He thought that since there had already been a conflict with a neighboring tenant which might not be resolved, the applicant may wish to look elsewhere instead of spending the money to upgrade the facility. Mr. Horn agreed that might be the best, but felt a business park would be best because of the low rent. Chairman Barker aske~ if the applicant understood the requirements needed to meet the conditions and had been given a copy of the proposed modifications to the resolution. Mr. Horn replied he understood the requirements and had been given a revised copy. He said if the Fire Department tells him it is too much money, he was curious about his lease. He said he had signed a three-year lease before realizing the requirements. Chairman Barker stated that if the Fire Department indicates they may .not assemble, then they may not assemble. Mr. Horn said he understood and he thought perhaps that would help him to get out of his lease. Commissioner Lumpp noted the requested days of operation were Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday evenings. He said he thought the applicant had said they meet on Thursday evenings and during the day on Sundays. Mr. Horn said he had changed his meeting dates and times and he requested that the resolution be changed to allow them the option of changing days and times. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested that the condition be rewritten to limit the hours of operation to weekends and after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. He felt that would give them latitude to change the days of operation. Mr. Horn said that would be acceptable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the maximum occupant load would be established. Mr. Coleman replied that based on the Uniform Building Code, the applicant's described business would be in the same category as a church and lecture hall type of setting which has an occupant load of 7 square feet per person for the size of the meeting hall, translating into a maximum of 196 people. He said staff is proposing a more restrictive occupancy because of the parking. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 22, 1994 Commissioner Melcher noted the Fire Department allows 196 people but the resolution permits only 34 and the hours of operation are evenings and weekends. He asked how the City would know that the applicant is sticking to 34. Mr. Buller said that many times staff relies on complaints and field observations from other agencies. He said Code Enforcement Officers also work on some weekends. Commissioner Melcher stated that the staff report indicated that if problems arise between tenants, the Conditional Use Permit would be brought back before the Commission for re-evaluation. He felt the Commission would not want to get involved in tenant disputes. Chairman Barker noted that if a use is introduced into a project and has a negative effect on surrounding neighbors, then perhaps the use should not have been introduced. He agreed the City should not be involved in simple arguments among tenants and should not develop a paternalistic attitude. Commissioner Melcher commented that the proposed use would be under a conditional use permit next to a permitted use which has been in continuous operation for approximately nine years. He noted that if there is ongoing conflict resulting in complaints for Code Enforcement, Planning staff, or the Police, the Conditional Use Permit would be reviewed because the other tenant is there by right of zone. He asked if there was any way correctiv~ conditions or restrictions would be placed on a tenant who is there by right of zone. Mr. Buller replied conditions could only be placed on such a tenant if there were complaints that the zoned tenant is in violation of City Code, such as noise restrictions. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, replied there would not be conditions placed, it would be an independent code violation, which would not be handled by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that conduct of individuals would not be grounds for revoking a Conditional Use Permit and discussions would need to be confined to land use and compatibility issues rather than the conduct of individuals. Commissioner Melcher noted that the Commission had approved a great number of applications for religious organizations to occupy inexpensive spaces in industrial parks in the four years he had served on the Commission. He said for the first time, the staff report indicated there had already been some compatibility problems and he just wanted to be sure the Commission was aware of the situation. Mr. Bullet stated the City has the right to review any conditional use permit for possible revocation if problems surface, even if there is no such language in the permit. He said the condition is typically included as a matter of courtesy to indicate to the applicant that the City has the power to revoke the permit. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 22, 1994 Commissioner Melcher said he was not asking to have the condition deleted; he just wanted to make it clear that the granting of the permit would not jeopardize the permitted use. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the ~esolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-11 with modifications to require compliance with Fire District and Building and Safety conditions prior to public assembly use and to change the permitted hours to weekends and after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 94-02 - COFFEE KLATCH - A request to conduct live music in conjunction with an existing coffee bar within the Thomas Winery Plaza in the Specialty Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-101-23. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported the applicant had indicated he would like to have the doors remain open and utilize the courtyard during entertainment. Commissioner Lumpp asked for a definition of a small orchestra. Ms. Luttrell responded that she thought the applicant merely used that term to indicate they are interested in a variety of music types such as jazz, bluegrass, gospel, etc. Commissioner Melcher noted the resolution indicated that interior noise levels within adjoining businesses should not exceed 55 dB. He asked how staff would control such a matter. Ms. Luttrell said Code Enforcement would follow up on complaints from adjacent tenants. Ms. Luttrell said it was felt that the music may be more bothersome to the restaurant than the craft store because of the times the music will occur. Commissioner Melcher asked how the 55 dB standard was determined. . Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the 65 dB and 60 dB for exterior noise levels were taken right out of the Municipal Code. He said staff felt interior noise levels should be lower and 55 dB was felt to be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 22, 1994 Commissioner Melcher asked where the 65 dB contour for Foothill Boulevard would extend across the front of the winery. Mr. Coleman responded it would probably be behind the winery. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification that the noise level in front of the winery would probably exceed 65 dB just from street traffic noise. Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher asked about the noise level from Carnelian. Mr. Coleman felt the noise level from Carnelian would probably be about the same as from Foothill Boulevard because sound levels tend to be higher at intersections. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Michael Perry, 23,295 Merrygrove Circle, Moreno Valley, stated he and his wife own the business. He said they would like to have small groups such as a high school jazz ensemble, choral singers, church groups, etc. He commented they would like to be able to expand to other nights if the community supports them. He presented a petition signed by six of the tenants of the center indicating support for entertainment both inside the building and on the patio between the book store and his business. He indicated that the only nearby tenant who did not sign the petition was Frontier Restaurant. He reported that the manager supported the entertainment but indicated she could not sign without permission from their corporate office. He asked if they could have the entertainers outside. He stated a restaurant in the northern end of the center has entertainment until 1:00 a.m. and he asked that entertainment hours be extended until l:00 a.m. in case they decide to extend their hours. He said they are further away from residential areas than the restaurant, so there would be even less of an impact. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated there are similar operations in the City that serve the community well and are packed in the summer. He supported the applicant's requests including extending the hours and leaving the doors open or having the entertainment in the patio area. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner McNiel. He thought the liveliest space in the City is the coffee shop in the Virginia Dare Center. He thought it is a pleasant alternative for residents. He felt the patio space is a very pleasant open space and he was delighted the applicant wants · to use it. He suggested Conditions No. 3 and 4 be deleted. Commissioner McNiel felt Condition No. 4 should remain so that there would be less chance of problems with interpretation. He noted that nothing would happen until there are complaints. Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 22, 1994 Commissioner Melcher did not believe the 55 dB level in an adjoining business would be a valid standard because he was not sure how you could determine how much of the noise is generated from the entertainment and how much is generated from within the adjacent business. Commissioner Lumpp asked if an Entertainment Permit runs with the operator or the use. Mr. Bullet responded it is with the operator, so that a new user would have to obtain a new entertainment permit. Commissioner Lumpp felt the type of music Mr. Perry described seemed very appropriate. He supported deletion of Conditions No. 3 and 4. He agreed it was delightful that they want to use the patio area. He agreed with the applicant's requests. Mr. Buller suggested that if the Commissioners were in agreement that entertainment could be conducted from the patio, a site plan should be marked up to indicate the appropriate area where entertainment may take place. Chairman Barker invited Mr. Perry to indicate where he would like to set up the outdoor entertainment. Mr. Perry indicated the area south and west of the metal building. Commissioner Melcher indicated that when he visited the site, the adjoining craft shop was conducting a crafts class and had the top half of their dutch door open. He felt the entertainment should be to the west of the dutch door. Mr. Perry responded that he would be happy to have the entertainment to the west during any hours the crafts shop is open. He said they do not currently have classes on Fridays through Sundays. He noted they had signed the petition supporting entertainment. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that staff work out the details. Mr. Buller suggested that the resolution indicate that the Commission is in support of outdoor entertainment south or west of the still building. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Condition No. 4 should remain because it does provide a point of departure if there are problems. He said he was not sure that 65 dB and 60 dB are the proper numbers and he stated he would like to discuss the possibility of adding a work program item to further research the dB ratings. Mr. Coleman stated the maximum exterior dB ratings are in the City code. He noted that staff would not object to deleting the last sentence dealing with interior noise in the adjacent businesses. Chairman Barker felt the last sentence should be deleted. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 22, 1994 Commissioner Melcher agreed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the last sentence be stricken. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that the maximum dB rating levels in the Code should be researched. He noted that street noise will raise the level above 65 dB for the site. He feared that any noise added would place the applicant in a position of non-compliance. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Entertainment Permit 94-02 with modifications to allow outdoor entertainment in an area indicated by exhibit approved by the City Planner, permit entertainment to last until 1:00 a.m., and delete the reference to maximum interior noise within adjoining businesses. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14635 - RANCON REALTY FUND III - A subdivision of 7.4 acres of land into 2 parcels in .the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan} located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Street, APN: 208-352-09. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher noted the staff report indicated the master plan does not address Planning Commission concerns expressed when it reviewed a previous master plan. He thought at least some of the concerns had been addressed. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that some of the concerns had been addressed, but two Commissioners had expressed a concern about the narrow width of the southern lot and that same layout is shown. He said the applicant feels the southern lot is marketable in the configuration they have shown. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Commission was approving the master plan. Mr. Bullet replied that if the Commission approves the parcel map, it will begin to establish a pattern of development even though it was not specifically approving the master plan. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Steve Palmet, Rancon Financial Corporation, 27720 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, stated they had addressed the Commission at a pre-application stage approximately one year ago. He said the Applebee's chain is now interested in purchasing the parcel and developing the site. He said the driveway is Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 22, 1994 currently approximately 5 feet further south from where it had been originally proposed in order to comply with Engineering requirements. He indicated a major health club has expressed interest in a portion of the site and he thought other restaurants may also be developed. He said he did not know when they would construct the office building on Parcel 2 but stated it has plenty of parking and adequate access and circulation space and complies with the open space requirements. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the City would be committed to approving the site for Applebee's restaurant if the parcel map is approved. He recalled there had been some questions regarding the previous restaurant, such as the apparent location of the entrance facing the Santa Ana wind direction. He asked if the strategy was to sell the land to Applebee's and let them process the improvement plans. Mr. Palmer responded ~hat was correct. He said they had offered the project as either a sale of land or as a build-to-suit and Applebee's chose to purchase the land and do their own development. Mr. Buller said he had already met with Applebee's and they are aware of the site constraints and had been given copies of the pre-application review file and are aware of the wind condition issues raised by the Commission. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated there had been discussions about the narrow lot to the south. He feared the developer would then plead that the southern lot has certain site constraints. He felt the Commission may be approached to approve setback or landscape variances for the remainder parcel. Although he thought the entire site is narrow for an east-west split, he expressed a willingness to approve the project. Commissioner Tolstoy shared Commissioner McNiel's concerns. He said the Commission had dealt with such issues in the past and could deal with them again. Mr. Buller said that staff had reviewed the proposal and believes that the remainder parcel is sufficient in size and shape to not require a variance and the record would reflect that there are no grounds for a variance. Chairman Barker agreed the record should reflect that statement. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 14635. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 22, 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-49 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - The development of an integrated shopping center consisting of 15 buildings totaling 223,665 square feet and 1 fast food drive-thru restaurant totaling 3,000 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. Chairman Barker indicated the item had been rescheduled and staff had recommended that the item be tabled and readvertised with a proper description for July 27, 1994. He opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to table the item. carried by the following vote: Motion AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-15 - B.H.P. STEEL, INC. (SUPRACOTE] - A request to allow the use of a temporary office trailer for an existing industrial site in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 11200 Arrow Route - APN: 208-961-19. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 94-11. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel questioned the estimated time the trailer should be in place. Mr. Murphy replied they have already begun site work in preparation for construction of the permanent facility, and it is estimated the trailer would be there for only one year. Commissioner Melcher thought the requirements for temporary structures are written more for situations in which the temporary structure will remain as the primary facility for a number of years. He thought the applicant could have merely informed the City that the trailer was one of their construction trailers and would not have had to make any improvements. He did not feel extra trimmings should necessarily be added since the trailer should only be there for one year and major construction would be taking place along Arrow during that time. He noted the staff report indicated staff suggested the color be compatible with the existing building and there be skirting around the base along with potted plants. He observed that the resolution called for a trellis and he questioned whether staff wanted skirting and potted plants or a trellis and if such items should be necessary. Mr. Murphy agreed the applicant has been straightforward with their request. He said most of the modular units in the past have been associated with churches or schools and have remained in place for a number of years. He Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 22, 1994 agreed there may be some arguments as to whether improvements should be necessary. He said staff had requested the improvements from a consistency standpoint and because the trailer will be visible from Arrow Route. He suggested that if conditions are placed on the trailer, it should be consistent with the staff report so far as the color of the tra~ler, the skirting, and the potted plants. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, appreciated the acknowledgment of their straightforward approach with the City. He said they had been unaware that their corporate office planned to add staff so quickly and had not realized the need for the additional space at the time they processed their recent application for expansion. He said the office trailer would be used to house additional accounting staff for the management of the construction project and the staff will move into the expanded building when the improvements are completed. He reported the trailer will only be used by staff and will not accessed by the public. He commented they would prefer not to add a lot of trimmings to the trailer because there is major construction occurring on site. He said they would obviously obtain all the necessary Building and Safety and Fire permits. He requested that they not be required to paint the trailer because the existing building is one color and will be repainted so it would be difficult to determine which color the trailer should be painted. He said the trailer comes with skirting and would be provided with a foundation. He reported the trailer was previously used as a classroom unit. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant would be willing to paint the trailer if it is a shocking color. Mr. Pitassi felt his client would be willing to do so. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the application because it is clearly stated that the trailer will be removed when construction is completed. Commissioner McNiel agreed. He noted the applicant has been cooperative and is bringing a lot to the City. Commissioner Melcher thought Conditions 3 and 4 should be removed. Commissioner McNiel agreed with deleting Condition 3 regarding the trellis, but he felt Condition 4 should remain because it merely stated the color of the trailer should be compatible with the existing building to the satisfaction of the City Planner. He acknowledged there is a multitude of colors on site. Mr. Murphy stated the intent of the condition was that the color be compatible, not that it necessarily match. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 22, 1994 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-15 with modification to delete the condition requiring a trellis. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , H. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of various amendments to the Sign Ordinance. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the item be moved to the end of the agenda as the Commission may wish to move to a workshop setting. Chairman Barker stated that was his preference. OLD BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-02 - CRHO ARCHITECTS, INC. - A request to construct an 8,540 square foot restaurant on a 2.2 acre parcel in the Office Park designation of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-58. Chairman Barker commented that Item I had been withdrawn by the applicant and no Commission action was necessary. , , , , Je CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of pylon sign design for Foothill Marketplace, a commercial/retail center located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-41. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted the item had been referred back to the Design Review Committee. He said the Design Review Committee had not reached a consensus. He stated that Commissioner McNiel had expressed concern about the visibility of the sign from surrounding areas and Commissioner Melcher felt a more simplistic design would be better because of the potential for four pylon signs at the intersection and the thought that perhaps the four signs should be consistent with each other rather than having four very different signs matching their respective centers. He stated the applicant had provided several alternatives based on comments made by Commissioner Melcher at the meeting and the signs are in the 67 to 70 foot range. He said the signs have room for eight major tenants and five logo graphics except that one of the major tenants is eliminated in the 67-foot proposal. Commissioner McNiel stated that Commissioner Melcher had proposed that a simpler sign might be appropriate as opposed to the more ornate designs which Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 22, 1994 had been presented and the applicant had graciously provided alternate sketches. Me said his position remained unchanged as the sign has essentially remained the same in size and he still felt it will be overwhelming. Commissioner Melcher thought the flat top tends to make the sign appear more impressive. He agreed that not all of the stores should be listed. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, 3620 Birch Street, #100, Newport Beach, commented that for the last two years it had been the Commission's direction that the sign should be designed using the components and architecture of the project. He said he had modeled the new proposals after the Palm Court sign in Fontana, based on a suggestion made by Commissioner Melcher at the last design review meeting that the sign be simpler. He felt the simpler design is cleaner and does not fight with the architecture of the center. He said this was a freeway pylon sign and there could only be a few more in the City. He stated the purpose of a freeway pylon sign is to attract people off the freeway to stores in the center which are not visible from the freeway. Commissioner Melcher asked if the panels would be illuminated. Mr. Wattson said the letters would be routed and only the letters would be illuminated. Chairman Barker asked the size of the Palm Court sign. Mr. Wattson replied that it is 110 feet high by 38 feet wide. Commissioner Lumpp asked how many tenants are on the Palm Court sign. Mr. Wattson said there is a capability for eight tenants but only six names are listed so far. He said that Ikea and Target also have their own signs. Commissioner Melcher felt the sign design for Palm Court diminishes the appearance of height. Chairman Barker reiterated his feelings that the sign should not include so many tenants because he thought people will not read it. Commissioner Tolstoy observed the original sign was 57 feet high and the applicant was now looking for an additional 13 feet. Mr. Wattson said they could bring the sign down to 65 feet. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the sign with the square top would appear very similar to the Sunrise Center sign. He opposed the look. Commissioner Melcher felt the signs with the Foothill Marketplace semi-circle on top appear to be a "tricked-up" version of the Sunrise Center sign. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 22, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy did not agree. Commissioner McNiel observed that the applicant's leases with the major tenants contain clauses indicating that those tenants' names must be on a freeway sign if a freeway sign exists. He said the C~ty has an optio.n to deny the sign or to allow that large of a sign. He felt approval of a 65-70 foot sign would lead to future requests from other applicants for ll0-foot signs. He feared approval of a sign will set a dangerous precedent. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Commissioner McNiel was totally opposed to a pylon sign. Commissioner McNiel said he is opposed to the concept that a successful center requires such a sign. He observed that the buildings have signs on them which are visible from a great distance on the northbound side of the freeway. He thought most people who travel the freeway, travel both north and south. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be a sign. He thought freeway businesses need a sign and travelers on the freeway need a sign. He recalled that during initial discussions he had suggested the logo signs be included. He did not like the sign with the square top, but preferred the lower signs. He objected to the number of tenants listed. Mr. Wattson stated the lower sign had four tenants on each side, but the tenants contacted him and indicated they would sue if their names did not appear on both sides of the sign. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the tenants would sue if the City denies the sign. Mr. Wattson replied the leases do not require a sign, they merely require that the tenants' names appear if there is a sign. He felt a sign would benefit everyone. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the tenants would sue if approval were granted for a sign that just identifies the center. Mr. Wattson replied that they would not build such a sign. He said they do not need to advertise the center, but rather the businesses located within the center. He stated that national chain stores would not advertise that they are located within the Foothill Marketplace center. Commissioner Melcher asked if such signs improve the financial performance of tenants. Mr. Wattson stated that the tenants have all indicated that it does. He observed that PetsMart has indicated that 67 percent of their patrons learn about their locations via sign. He commented that an increase in sales would mean additional sales tax revenue for the City. Commissioner Melcher felt that if the Commission denied the sign, it would be approved upon appeal to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 22, 1994 Commissioner McNiel did not deny the possibility that the Council would approve the sign, but he felt he should reflect his opinion. Commissioner Melcher said he understood, but he was trying to point out the reality of a denial. Chairman Barker did not like the square top; he preferred the design elements of the previous designs with the semi-circular shopping center logo and felt it made the sign appear smaller. He was not opposed to freeway identification of centers. Commissioner Melcher suggested revising the square topped sign to carry the semi-circular shopping center logo. He felt that would have the effect of reducing the top of the sign but would delete the other architectural elements which he felt would make the sign even more obvious. Commissioner Tolstoy favored the style with the semi-circular shopping center logo and the enhanced base. Commissioner Lumpp preferred the combination of the straight base with the semi-circular top. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. Commissioner Lumpp stated he did not like the flat top. He thought the straight base is simpler and the other sign appears cluttered in the upper area. Commissioner Barker felt the whole sign will look like clutter. Commissioner McNiel observed that the base of the sign will be seen in the parking lot. Mr. Wattson said it will be seen only by drivers in that corner of the parking lot. Commissioner Tolstoy preferred the sign with the enhanced base because he felt it better mimics the rest of the center. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the upper molding be turned over. Chairman Barker and Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Mr. Wattson expressed a willingness to turn over the molding. . Commissioner Lumpp agreed to accept the design acceptable to Commissioner Tolstoy and Chairman Barker. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, to approve the 67-foot sign with a modification to the cornice detail. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 22, 1994 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher observed that he was voting against the design, not against having a freeway sign. , , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Ke OAS INVESTORS - A request to consider adding Commercial Recreation Use in the Specialty Commercial District within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. William Walls, 941 Clear Creek Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, said he planned to open an upscale billiard and sports viewing club with a sit-down pizza restaurant. He said he had obtained support from the Small Business Administration, OAS Investors, and the other tenants in the center. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the definition of upscale. Mr. Walls replied that it is a plush type club catering to strictly adults and they would be checking ID's of those going into the billiard portion of the club. He said he was trying to cater to white collar type individuals. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the Commission should act with their eyes wide open. He reported the owners of the Book Cellar had told him they relocated to a shopping center at Hellman and Foothill because a billiard club had gone in at their previous center. He felt that the operation of this proposed billiard club may be adjusted to suit a different clientele than what was proposed because the main objective would obviously be to make money. He thought the use could be successful but felt the Commission should be alert to what has happened elsewhere. He favored moving forward with the amendment to add Commercial Recreation to the Speciality Commercial District, but he felt such a use may have to be regulated under the conditional use permit application. He thought this particular location may be far enough from the other elements of the shopping center so that it should work. Commissioner Tolstoy noted the applicant was asking for a specific place, and he agreed that may be a good location for that type of business.- However, he noted that the amendment would allow the use in other places in the City and those locations may not be sufficiently far enough away from residential areas. Planning Commission Minutes -19- June 22, 1994 Commissioner McNiel supported the concept. He noted that the billiard club adjacent to the theatres in Upland caters to a younger group and sometimes causes problems for theatre patrons. He thought this use would be similar to the club which had recently been approved for the Masi Center. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to direct to the applicant to apply for a Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan amendment to add Commercial Recreation as a conditional use in the Speciality Commercial District. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried The Planning Commission moved to the DeAnza Room for the balance of the meeting. H. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of various amendments to the Sign Ordinance. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report, highlighting the work of the Sign Task Force and the various options available to the Commission. Chairman McNiel praised the Sign Task Force's participation and their efforts. He expressed his opinion that every time the Sign Ordinance has been reviewed it has been weakened; however, he felt that most of what the Sign Task Force had discussed was acceptable. Chairman Barker suggested the Commission discuss the items individually and reach consensus before moving on to the next type of signs. Grand ODeninq Siqns: Commissioner Melcher felt such signs should be required to include the opening date for the business. Paula Dempsey, Chamber of Commerce and Lewis Homes Management Corporation, indicated that tenants commonly request a "Coming Soon" banner. There was a general consensus that the proposed changes were acceptable without a specific opening date display requirement. TemDorarv AdvertisinQ Signs: Ms. Dempsey felt the proposed changes were positive because business owners would have greater flexibility. She indicated that the changes are consistent with what her tenants typically ask for. Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 22, 1994 There was consensus that the proposed changes were acceptable. Monument SiGns: Mary Rohrer, Diversified Properties Co., stated that the Sign Task Force had discussed the possibility of allowing property owners to choose either Option 1 or Option 2 presented in the staff report. She felt that property owners need such flexibility to respond to tenant needs and unusual site constraints. Chairman Barker agreed that such flexibility may be needed based upon the layout of the project. Ms. Dempsey indicated that Lewis and Diversified had surveyed other cities regarding monument sign regulations and determined that, even with the proposed changes, Rancho Cucamonga represents the more conservative approach to signs. Ms. Rohrer agreed and listed the following survey results. Montclair - 60 sq. ft. (10 ft. high x 6 ft. wide) Ontario - 100 sq. ft. (20 ft. high) Upland - one 100 sq. ft. (16 ft. high) or two 60 sq. ft. (8 ft. high) Fontana - 30 sq. ft. (6 ft. high) or pylon with no limit Fountain Valley - 50 sq. ft. (8 ft. high) Irvine - 50 sq. ft. (6 ft. high) Mission Viejo - 36 sq. ft. (6 ft. high) Costa Mesa - 125 sq. ft. (25 ft. high) Dana Point - 100 sq. ft. (20 ft. high) Commissioner McNiel said the survey cities reflect the trend to have bigger signs. He felt that what other cities do should not be the basis for what Rancho Cucamonga does, unless we want our community to become commonplace. Ms. Dempsey thought that Option 1 should allow 8-foot high signs instead of the proposed maximum of 6 feet. She noted that the City's current sign regulations allow 8-foot high monument signs. Mr. Coleman indicated that the lower height was recommended to discourage 24 square foot monument signs that are 8 feet high and only 3 feet wide, which would appear disproportionate. Ms. Rohrer also felt that Option 1 should be increased to 8 feet high in order to allow space for architectural embellishments. Brad Bullet, City Planner, pointed to Exhibit "D-l," which illustrates how a 24 square foot monument sign could be horizontally oriented and still have 2 feet for architectural features. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Sign Task Force discussed wall signs. Ms. Dempsey replied that the Task Force had discussed wall signs but focused on signs at the street as directed by City Council. She indicated a desire to Planning Commission Minutes -21- June 22, 1994 continue discussions with the Commission regarding other sign issues that would include wall signs. She commented on the importance of signs as a marketing tool for small businesses. Dave Newsome, Lewis Homes Management Corp., indicated that the retail trade has undergone major changes in the last decade. He stated that the trend today is for big box discount retailers in shopping centers. He felt that future shopping centers will feature fewer small tenants. Commissioner McNiel felt that Option 1 was acceptable with the 6-foot height limit. Commissioner Lumpp asked what would prevent tenants from violating the ordinance under the either/or option. Ms. Dempsey stated that Lewis Homes Management Corp. would not automatically demolish existing monument signs in their shopping centers to take advantage of additional sign opportunities under the proposed ordinance. She said that if more than two monument signs are allowed per street frontage, then they may construct a second monument to provide more tenants the opportunity for identification at the street. Mr. Newsome commented that property owners could include a copy of the approved Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center in their leases as a means of notifying the tenants of their sign restrictions. Chairman Barker expressed his opposition to 8-foot high monument signs because they are not pedestrian in scale. Commissioner Melcher expressed concerns with allowing two monument signs per street. Ms. Dempsey felt that the minimum 300-foot spacing proposed by staff provides adequate separation between signs. Mr. Buller indicated that staff simply needs Commission direction in order to prepare an ordinance for consideration. Chairman Barker liked Options 1 and 2 with an either/or possibility. indicated that he prefers the horizontal sign format. He Commissioner Melcher felt that Option i is the best because it allows more tenants to be identified at the street. He thought an 8-foot height is too much for a 24 square foot monument sign. He said he would support an either/or possibility with Options 1 and 2. Chairman Barker noted that the City requires undulating berms to screen parking areas which results in a greater apparent sign height. Commissioner Lumpp stated a preference for Option 1; however, he felt that more signs will not increase business for tenants. Planning Commission Minutes -22- June 22, 1994 Ms. Dempsey opposed the recommendation that major anchors be limited to 50 percent of the sign area. She preferred Options 1 and 2 with an either/or possibility. Commissioner McNiel felt that Option 2 should not be allowed for all shopping centers. He felt that smaller centers do not need a 48 square foot sign. He asked that criteria be developed for when Option 2 can be used. Commissioner Tolstoy preferred Option 1, but said he would entertain Option 2 if criteria were developed as suggested by Commissioner McNiel. Chairman Barker asked the property owner representatives to submit reasonable criteria for application of Option 2. In addition, he asked that the criteria address location of monument signs to protect views into the shopping centers. He requested that the proposed 300-foot spacing be reviewed for existing shopping centers to see if it is reasonable. Ms. Dempsey requested that no limit on the percentage of sign area devoted to major anchors be included in the ordinance. She felt that should be determined through review of Uniform Sign Programs. She commented that such a limitation would not allow for creativity. Mr. Coleman indicated that the 50 percent limit on majors was intended to preserve adequate sign space for smaller tenants in response to the direction given by City Council. He noted that absent such a limit, majors could use the entire sign area. Commissioner Melcher supported the 50 percent limit on major anchors. Chairman Barker commented that the 50 percent limit seemed to address the needs of the small businesses. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the City require the major anchor tenants to be identified on the sign and let the property owner determine what other tenants should have street signage. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that staff should prepare language for the Commission to consider. Chairman Barker commented that the 50 percent limit would protect property owners from being pressured by major anchors. He requested that staff investigate alternative language that would allow sufficient area for small tenants. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff provide an ordinance reflecting the Commission's direction for consideration on July 27, 1994. · , · , , COMMISSION BUSINESS L. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Planning Commission Minutes -23- June 22, 1994 Commissioner McNiel asked to be removed from the Committee because of time constraints. Commissioner Melcher said he would be willing to continue to serve on the Committee in the interest of continuity but he wished to be replaced the next time. Chairman Barker appointed Commissioners Melcher and Lumpp to serve on the Design Review Committee with Commissioners Tolstoy and McNiel and Chairman Barker serving as alternates. M. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 WORK PROGRAM It was the consensus of the Commission that the item be placed on a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT 12:50 a.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on July 13, 1994, for a workshop on Town Center Square. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -24- June 22, 1994