Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/05/26 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 26, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, Melcher John ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, announced that the Design Awards would be presented at the June 9, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. It was announced that this evening's meeting would adjourn to a pre- application workshop to be held on June I at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and Vallette absent to adopt the minutes of April 28, 1993. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-09 - WOMEN AT LARGE, INC. - A request to establish a recreational/fitness facility in a leased space of 4,638 square feet, located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8768 Helms Avenue, Suite B - APN: 209-032-53. Related File - CUP 92-34. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher noted the floor plan calls for a number of offices but only one exercise room. He asked if some of the offices would be used for classes. Paula Brooks, 7741 Montecito Court, Rancho Cucamonga, responded that the offices will be used for a small retail area, a consultation office, her office, and a conference area for support groups. She said she may have outside speakers. Commissioner Melcher asked if Ms. Brooks had any concerns about limiting the number of students to 11 during the hours of 8=00 a.m. to 5=00 p.m. on weekdays. Ms. Brooks responded that her peak hours will be between 5:00 a.m. to 8500 a.m. and 5~00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. She felt the limitation during normal office hours would not cause any problems. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-09. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , VARIANCE 93-04 - NERO - A request to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow the construction of a storage shed in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 8593 Lemon Avenue - APN: 1062-461-07. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel questioned the type of construction. Mr. Ross responded that the shed is framed wood with a breezeway between the shed and the garage and a gable roof similar to the garage. He showed pictures of the partially completed shed. Commissioner Melcher requested that the other properties with reduced side yard setbacks be identified on the map. Mr. Ross indicated the other properties. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dick Nero, 8593 Lemon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval of the variance so that he could complete construction of the storage shed. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 26, 1993 Chairman McNiel asked if the same roof material would be used as on the house. Mr. Nero replied affirmatively and said the stucco would also match the house. He observed that there is a grade change between his house and the house to the west, so that the roof of the shed appears lower when viewed from the adjacent house. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitlea felt it would be appropriate to grant the variance as similar situations already exist in the neighborhood, there is a grade separation, and there would still be a 5-foot separation. Commissioner Melcher stated he was in favor of the variance but noted that it raised some interesting questions about side yards. He questioned if the side yard separation requirements are being eroded by the granting of variances. Chairman McNiel agreed that on an individual basis the Commission may want to grant variances, but he questioned if it is best for the community. Commissioner Melcher noted that Mr. Nero had done an exceptional job in designing the addition. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving variance 93-04. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEE, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried , , , , , Ce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-05 - SCHEER BRADEN ARCHITECTS - A request to construct a 10,600 square foot restaurant ("Claim Jumper"), including the on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Con~nercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard, east of 1-15 - APN: 229-031-39. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if adequate sidewalk is being provided or if patrons would have to move through the parking lot to get to the front door. Mr. Murphy replied that the matter had been discussed at t~e Design Review Committee meeting. He noted the applicant's preferred plan provides a sidewalk along the southern portion of the building, extending from the southwest corner to the front entry with a large bardscape area at the entry. He said the Design Review Committee discussed the large amount of parking to the north of the building and the lack of a sidewalk along the eastern side. He showed several proposed sidewalk layouts submitted by the architect. Planning Co~nission Minutes -3- May 26, 1993 Chairman McNiel questioned what portion of the building would be adjacent to where the landscape/sidewalk area would be a maximum of 5 feet wide along the east side of the building. Mr. Murphy replied that it is a dining room pop-out with windows. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any enhanced pedestrian paving was planned through the parking lot. Mr. Murphy responded negatively. He said that enhanced paving was only planned for the entry area at the southeast corner of the building. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Doug Parson, in charge of construction for Claim Jumper, 16721 Milliken Avenue, Irvine, showed samples of the rock they propose using. He noted that the colors appear the same as some of those used on rock monument signs in the City. He said they would be willing to use any of the alternative plans submitted for a sidewalk on the eastern side of the building. He indicated their preferred choice and noted that it was preferred because of drainage considerations. Mr. Parson stated they would like to use their proposed asphalt shingle, as it is a trademark look used on all of their buildings. Chairman McNiel noted that when shopping centers are built, the City tries to maintain some identity and consistency within the center. Mr. Parson asked that the Commission consider that the tile roof would cost more than $15,000 more than the asphalt shingles in addition to engineering costs to support the tile roof. Jerry Dennehy, Scheer Braden Architects, 18201 McDurmott West, Suite A, Irvine, stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel asked the difference between the two stone samples. Mr. Dennehy replied that they proposed using the larger stone, which has a more variegated color range. He said they would prefer to stay away from a lot of grey tones because the stain used on the building has more of a brown tone. chairman McNiel asked if some of the same stones could be found in the Cucamonga wash area. Mr. Dennehy responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked if any of the stones would be markedly different from the samples shown. Mr. Dennehy responded negatively other than some boulders placed in the landscape area. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 26, 1993 Chairman McNiel asked how large the landscape area is at the northeast corner of the building. Mr. Murphy responded it would be approximately 40 feet deep at the deepest point and about 70 feet across. Chairman McNiel suggested having a sidewalk run through the landscaping area. Mr. Dennehy said they were concerned about running a sidewalk through that area because there will be a drainage swale in the area and they would prefer not to span the depression. He said they would prefer to have the sidewalk along the edge. He stated they plan to use heavy landscaping in an effort to buffer the building from the parking lot. Chairman McNiel felt that patrons would walk through the landscaping with or without a sidewalk. He thought an interesting passageway could be incorporated. He suggested a small bridge to span the swale could be worked into their motif. Mr. Parson said they would be willing to place a sidewalk in that area. Mr. Dennehy agreed they would work with the City. He said their main concern is to provide landscaping along the east side of the building and noted that a sidewalk will greatly reduce the area available for landscaping. He said they wanted to avoid having bardscape and pedestrians too close to the dining room. Chairman McNiel stated he understood their desire to go with asphalt shingles, but he noted that would not be consistent with the center. He acknowledged the additional costs but felt the building will be there for many years and the additional costs may be warranted. Mr. Dennehy reported the specified asphalt shingles are set up to take high wind loads and can be warrante~ for 40 years. He said the building is prototypical and the client also has a certain budget to work with. He remarked the staff report indicated the Commission had stated that signature architecture would be acceptable for the site. He noted that the resolution called for extending the decorative paving from the entry area into the handicap parking stalls. He expressed concerns about oil stains on the decorative paving and said they were also concerned that using the same material would make it difficult to discern the level change between the elevated decorative walkway and the lower parking area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitlea felt the stone to be attractive and appropriate. She thought a sidewalk is needed in the northeast corner and along the eastern side of the building and the details could be worked out at the Design Review level. She observed that for many years the Commission has had a policy requiring tile roofs and noted that tile roofs can have many different looks. She did not feel that asphalt shingles would be appropriate and acknowledged that a barrel tile look would also not be appropriate with their Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 26, 1993 building but thought a number of tile materials could be used to perhaps even emulate a shake roof. She commented that a certain amount of signature architecture may be appropriate but that did not mean an off-the-shelf corporate design is mandated. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been on the Design Review Committee and he and Commissioner Vallette had agreed that asphalt shingles would be perfectly acceptable in that location even though they were cognizant of the Commission's policy. He felt the Commission's policy is a wise one throughout the City, particularly in residential areas and the City has a better community because of the policy. However, he did not feel that the small roof area on Claim Jumper would detract from or dilute the policy. He thought that Foothill Boulevard is one of the more interesting streets because of the diversity of roofing materials including wood, asphalt, metal, and barrel tiles and even flat roofs. He felt a tile roof should not be required Just for the sake of being in conformance with the policy and an asphalt shingle roof would not have a significant effect other than on the cost of the building. Regarding the sidewalk, he said he had thought a sidewalk would be desirable so that patrons would not be walking through the parking lot. He preferred the option which depicted a sidewalk running all the way along the east side because he felt it would serve more parking spaces than the proposal with the bridge over the swale. Chairman McNiel remarked there has been a long standing policy within the City regarding tile roofs. He commented there are a great number of new materials on the market that are not tremendously heavy and would provide a better appearance than asphalt shingle. He felt those materials should be investigated before permitting the asphalt shingle. He stated the applicant would not need to use 10 pound tile. Commissioner Chitlea suggested that the resolution be modified to require a tile roof and a sidewalk from the northerly parking lot along the east side of the building similar to the option presented. Mr. Buller noted that Chairman McNiel had stated he would be willing to accept alternative materials that would not require structural changes. He suggested the condition be worded that the roofing material be tile or other, as approved by the City Planner. He noted that staff concurred with the applicant's concern regarding the paving of the handicap parking areas but he felt alternatives may be found other than regular asphalt and he suggested that staff could work with the applicant. Chairman McNiel felt that special paving should be utilized. Mr. Buller suggested a sand-blasted concrete might be used. Chairman McNiel noted that in many centers the handicap areas are. difficult to see when it rains or when it gets old and the paint starts to wear off. Commissioner Melcher recalled that at the most recent Design Review meeting, the two Commissioners present accepted the applicant's argument that it was Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 26, 1993 inappropriate to not have a strong visual change at the location because of the possibility of someone falling off. He felt it is frivolous to require that handicap spaces be made more different than they already are by virtue of the signs and the blue stripping. Commissioner Chitiea suggested the handicap parking stalls have a color and texture change to provide a more visible contrast. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-05 with modifications to require that the roof be tile or other material as approved by the City Planner (not asphalt), that a sidewalk be provided from the northerly parking lot along the east side of the building similar to the option presented, and decorative paving be provided for the handicap stalls. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried Commissioner Melcher stated that he supported the Conditional Use Permit but he voted no because he disagrees with the added conditions being imposed. , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90 - FOOTHILL VILLAGE - A request to modify the Uniform Sign Program to add a new sign color and an intermediate tenant definition and sign criteria for an existing shopping center at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - APN= 208-261-58. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff had discussed the proposed change in the size of intermediate tenants with the applicant. Mr. Murphy responded negatively. He said staff had originally planned to recommend denial of an intermediate tenant classification, but later decided to recommend approval similar to Terra Vista Village. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Jack Boyt, The Boyt Company, 333 South Grand Avenue, #3030, Los Angeles, stated he is the owner of the management company. He stated that during the last eight months they have been trying to secure regional and national tenants. He requested that an intermediate category be set up for tenants occupying over 3,000 square feet, as he felt that would constitute an intermediate size in their center. He reported that Napa Auto Parts and Gemmel Pharmacy are planning to move to the center and their trademarks are blue. He requested that blue be a permitted for major and intermediate Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 26, 1993 tenants. He noted that Gemme1 Pharmacy plans to occupy 3,500 square feet of Pad B. Chairman McNiel remarked that Pad B would then have two signs facing Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Boyt said that was correct, with one sign being on the tower and the other on the storefront at the other end of the building. Commissioner Melcher asked if there are any yellow signs in the center. Mr. Murphy responded there are none. Commissioner Melcher suggested substituting blue instead of yellow so that the two approved colors would be red and blue instead of red and yellow. Mr. Boyt agreed that would be a good solution. Commissioner Melcher noted that if a new intermediate category is set up it would include Blockbusters and they would then have the right to request a larger sign. He felt they have good visibility with their current 18-inch size. Mr. Boyt did not feel Blockbusters would request a larger sign. Commissioner Chitlea asked the square footage of the Blockbusters store. Christine Pelegrin, Schneider Commercial Real Estate, 1915 West Orangewood, Orange, said that Blockbusters is approximately 5,800 square feet. Commissioner Melcher asked how large the Napa Auto Parts store will be. Mr. Boyt replied it will be 5,408 square feet. Batty Vantigar, Executive Vice President of Gemmel Pharmacy Group, 2177 North let Avenue, Upland, stated that their type style logo uses ascendere and descendere. He said under the current interpretation of the sign program, the entire letter can only be 18 inches including the extendere, which results in the normal lower case letter being significantly smaller than 18 inches. He indicated that one reason Gemmel Pharmacy is relocating is because they feel there is a lack of visible signage at Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. He requested that their letters be permitted at 24 inches including the ascendere and descendere. Mr. Murphy observed that the letter size proposed by Gemme1 Pharmacy would be consistent with what is approved for Central Park Plaza. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission could accommodate Mr. Boyt's request by approving an intermediate category of 5,001 to 9,999 square feet, allowing a change in the criteria to permit minor tenants to a maximum size of 18-inch letters with lower case ascendere and descendere being allowed a maximum Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 26, 1993 24-inch letter height, and changing the second approved color from yellow to blue. He said that would give some degree of control over Pad B while accommodating the Gemmel Pharmacy request. Mr. Boyt asked if the other tenant in Pad B would be restricted to 18-inch high signs if they don't use lower case letters. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that capital letters would be limited to 18 inches high, which would give the same visual effect as lower case letters of 18 inches with ascendere and descendere up to 24 inches. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Melcher's proposal. Chairman McNiel agreed. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to create an intermediate tenant category of 5,001 to 9,999 square feet with maximum sign letter size of 24 inches, to change the colors to red and blue instead of red and yellow, and to permit minor tenants using lower case letters to use extendere up to 24 inches. Chairman McNiel noted that Blockbusters could then request 24-inch letters because it would be classified as an intermediate tenant. He felt that would be too large of a sign. Mr. Buller suggested the Commission exclude the pad buildings immediately adjacent to Foothill Boulevard from the intermediate tenant classification because of the visual impact to Foothill Boulevard. Commissioners Melcher and Chitlea modified their motion to exclude the pad buildings immediately adjacent to Foothill Boulevard from the intermediate tenant category. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES= NOES= ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS= COMMISSIONERSz COMMISSIONERSz CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY, VALLETTE -carried ***** PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Melcher wished that the City could find some way to make residents aware of side yard setback requirements, particularly when property changes hands. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 26, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and Vallette absent, to adjourn. 8:40 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 6:30 p.m. on June 1, 1993, for a pre-application workshop. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 26, 1993