HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/12/15 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
December 15, 1992
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate
Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary;
Tarry Smith, Park Planning Development Superintendent
(tour only)
TOUR OF SPORTS COMPLEX
The five Planning Commissioners toured the sports complex beginning at
3:00 p.m. on December 15, 1992. They were accompanied by Community
Development Director Rick Gomez, City Planner Brad Buller, and Park Planning
Development Superintendent Tarry Smith.
The tour concluded at 4:15 p.m. and the Planning Commission recessed until
4:45 p.m.
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-18 - SMITH'S - The
development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 square foot
grocery store, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive-
thru pad of 4,800 square feet on 10.6 acres of land in the Community
Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21, and 49. Staff recommends issuance of a
mitigated Negative Declaration.
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 4:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
Brad Buller, City Planner, gave a recap of the history of the project. He
noted that the project had gone through a pre-application review and several
design review meetings. He stated that during the process the applicant had
been advised of the issues and concerns of the Planning Commission and staff
and the applicant had made some changes. He said that following the last
Design Review Committee meeting the project had been forwarded to the full
Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. He stated that at the
end of the public hearing the Commission directed staff to prepare a
resolution of denial. He said that if the Planning Commission allowed
additional testimony, that it could only take testimony on issues raised at
the public hearing on December 9, 1992. He also indicated that staff had
provided the resolution of denial as requested by the Commission as well as
the resolution of approval if the Commission should feel that today's
testimony indicated the applicant had made efforts to address the issues which
had been raised. He turned the meeting back to the Chairman to determine if
the Commissioners wished to open the hearing for public testimony.
Chairman McNiel stated he had talked with the applicant's architect following
the December 9, 1992, meeting and the architect had asked what they could do
to salvage the project. He said he had told the architect they could make a
short presentation to address the issue of loading dock placement and its
effect on circulation and Vineyard Avenue and the aesthetic issues of front
loading docks. He said they had not discussed further architectural issues.
He asked if the other Commissioners would like to open up the hearing to see
if the matter warranted returning the project to design review or review by
the full Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to hear from the applicant if
any new information was available.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Prescott Muir, Prescott Muir Architects, 1744 Berkeley Street, Santa Monica,
stated they had looked at the possibility of moving the dock to the back of
the building, but Smith's felt that would be unworkable because it would
create a blind corner for the trucks to maneuver into the back and would
require a rear yard setback variance because of the existing residences. He
said if the property were converted to commercial, as shown in the General
Plan, a zero lot line would be sufficient. He indicated they considered
eliminating the access from San Bernardino Road, creating a retaining wall,
and lowering the grade to dock elevation to allow trucks room to maneuver, but
that would also need the variances on the setback and parking. He said they
felt the proposed configuration was the only possible one without requiring a
variance from the Commission. He stated there were other opportunities to
massage the project. He suggested the eastern dock could be eliminated by
creating a corridor in back of the building but that would mean losing the
trellis element or approximately 12 parking spaces. He thought the project
did not have excess parking available.
Mr. Buller asked if the lost parking spaces could not be regained on the east
side of the building in the area from which the loading dock was being moved.
Mr. Muir agreed it would be possible to eliminate the east dock, shift the
building forward 6 feet to maintain an interior corridor, maintain the
setback, and place double loading parking on the east side of the building.
He said they would not need any variances.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt there may be a grading problem with such a shift.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 15, 1992
Mr. Muir said there is a 7 percent slope in the area. He said the back of the
building would not change. He stated there is a 14-foot grade elevation
difference between the first finished floor of the apartments and the floor of
the store. He said that was why they had felt a rear dock could be hidden
with an effective greenbelt separation.
Commissioner Melcher thought the larger footprint area cf the building may
mean more parking would be required.
Mr. Muir agreed that may be true.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the additional floor area would be allocated for
handtrucks to service the east side of the store.
Mr. Muir agreed it would not be sales space and would not generate any
additional parking demand.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the additional square footage could be factored
out of the parking calculation requirements.
Mr. Buller thought a minor exception process could be used.
would require a notice to the neighbors.
He said that
Commissioner Chitiea noted that would still leave an exposed dock on the west
side.
Mr. Muir felt the western dock would not be exposed. He stated they could
develop a site model to show how the dock would be concealed. He noted it is
flared away from the main view corridor.
Commissioner Vallette asked for an explanation of how the rear dock would use
berming.
Mr. Muir showed where the rear dock would be located and stated a 12-14 foot
retaining wall would be needed in addition to closing off the access to San
Bernardino Road.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if a variance would be required for the rear dock.
Mr. Buller felt there were findings that could be made to grant the variance
because of the lot configuration and the grades. He felt that a minor
exception might also be available.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if a public hearing would be held.
Mr. Buller stated a public hearing would be held only if a variance were
required.
Commissioner Vallette stated that at the pre-application review workshop
direction had been given to have all docks in the rear of the building. She
asked why the applicant had not pursued that avenue.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 15, 1992
Mr. Muir stated they had planned side docks because of a combination of trying
to maintain the minimum parking required and trying to accommodate the goals
of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in creating an activity center. He
said that Smith's felt they would need one outlying drive-thru pad in order to
make the project economically feasible. He said that in order to accommodate
the rear docks they would have to buy the adjacent property and they had
received direction that an additional fast food drive-thru pad would not be
palatable. He stated Smith's felt that the project would not be economically
feasible to absorb the cost of the additional property to accommodate rear
docks. He felt it would also require a 16-18 foot retaining wall.
Mr. Buller said that staff would prefer utilizing only the western dock and
expanding the building footprint rather than eliminating the access to San
Bernardino Road and elimination of the rear parking area.
Chairman McNiel asked if the western dock could not be moved north to be more
hidden from view from Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Muir said that may be possible.
Mr. Buller said that if the dock were moved north, the grade may be more
difficult for maneuvering the trucks. He said that during the site plan
review there had been comments about traffic flow and there had been
discussion that it would be easier for users who wished to travel north on
Vineyard Avenue to exit to San Bernardino Road because there would then be a
signalized intersection to enter Vineyard. He said he would be concerned
about any designs that eliminated access from the project to San Bernardino
Road.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there is often a line of cars going south on
Vineyard Avenue attempting to cross Foothill Boulevard and those cars would
conflict with anyone attempting to make a left from the eastern drive of the
center onto Vineyard Avenue.
Chairman McNiel felt the changes proposed were very dramatic and would require
that the project go back through design review. He asked if enough
information had been presented to allow the applicant to process through
design review.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to give the applicant the
opportunity to return to design review.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the issues were major in terms of circulation
including access to San 8ernardino Road, moving the docks from exposure to
Foothill Boulevard, building articulation in front and rear, the need for
additional building movement, relationship to adjacent residences, and
appropriate designs for the satellite buildings. She said that if those
things could be achieved, it would be appropriate to go back through the
design review process. She was not sure the project would fit without
acquiring additional property.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 15, 1992
Commissioner Melcher stated he understood that the pad buildings would be part
of a separate application. He felt that if Smith's were willing to examine
the ideas proposed and show the possible result, that would be a more rational
approach than to deny the project.
commissioner Tolstoy stated he had nothing to add.
Commissioner Vallette stated that when the project was initially reviewed at
the pre-application workshop, the main concern addressed was the desire of the
majority of the Commissioners to have rear loading docks. She felt the
Commission had been consistent in the original direction at the pre-
application review and in their denial of the proposal in expressing a desire
for the rear docks. She thought it is mainly a safety issue. She felt there
were still serious internal circulation problems. She thought there are
potentially hazardous pedestrian crossing areas in the current proposal. She
did not favor approving the project as presented and felt that major changes
were needed to the site plan and circulation plan.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if Commissioner Vallette was satisfied with the
architectural elements of the building.
Commissioner Vallette said she had some concerns regarding the architecture
but her serious concerns were with the loading dock and the existing internal
circulation. She recalled making statements during the pre-application review
that existing Smith's markets have very little movement and relief on the
front of the buildings. She felt the Design Review Committee had done the
best they could with what had been presented by the applicant but indicated
she did not feel it is up to the standard of other projects within the City.
She stated there is not a commercial project located anywhere in the City with
front loading.
Chairman McNiel felt those issues could be readdressed at design review. He
suggested the project go back through the process. He felt the major issues
could be resolved.
Mr. Buller asked what the Commission was expecting the applicant to change.
He said Commissioner Chitiea had indicated there should be significant changes
in the site plan and architecture and Commissioner Vallette had indicated
there should be major changes in the site plan and some changes in
architecture.
Commissioner Vallette felt there should be more emphasis on movement of the
building. She asked if it would be better to workshop the item rather than
only having two Commissioners at design review.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that would be best.
Mr. Buller agreed that all five Commissioners should be part of the process.
He questioned if it would be acceptable if the applicant eliminated the
eastern dock and provided a plan showing all access off the western dock
without making other changes to the site plan.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 15, 1992
Chairman McNiel felt that would not be acceptable.
Commissioner Vallette stated the City implemented a pre-application design
review process to allow applicants to receive early direction from the entire
Commission. She said direction had been quite clear at the pre-application
workshop that there should be no front dock areas visible from the street and
she did not feel the City should try to massage the plans submitted.
Mr. Buller requested clarification if it was the position of the Planning
Commission that there should be absolutely no front dock doors no matter
what. He said if that were the case, the applicant could then decide whether
to pursue additional design review meetings.
Chairman McNiel stated he felt that Commissioners Chitiea and Vallette were
firm in their opposition to front docks.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he also has a problem with front loading. He said
the Commission had been told at the pre-application review workshop that
Smith's could not operate a store unless they had the loading as depicted on
the current site plans, but afterwards the Commissioners learned there are
stores which are back loaded.
Commissioner Vallette stated she did some further checking and found there are
stores in Glendora and Riverside in addition to the Fontana store with rear
loading.
Chairman McNiel felt that rear loading would be the appropriate direction to
pursue. He agreed a full Commission workshop should be held and additional
attention should be paid to building articulation.
Mr. Buller recommended reopening the public hearing to allow the applicant to
address if they would be willing to consider a design that would eliminate all
front loading. He suggested that if the applicant were willing, the
Commission may wish to set a workshop date in early January.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Muir stated they felt they had already gone through the process. He said
their understanding at the last Design Review Committee meeting was that
historically the recommendations of the design review process carried
considerable weight at the Planning Commission and would not require
subsequent design review processes. He felt to go back through the design
review process would be a six-month step backward. He indicated that Smith's
and their legal counsel would prefer a vote on the project at this time, even
if it were a denial, to allow them to pursue the matter through an appeal. He
apologized for the misunderstanding that the Commissioners felt Smith's does
not have rear-facing dock configurations. He said a majority of their stores
do have rear-facing dock configurations, but they felt the site configuration
demands side-loading docks.
Ray Lavange, 6123 Peridott, Rancho Cucamonga, asked about the corridor. He
said it is a heavily congested area and he feared there may be a problem if
Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 15, 1992
there is only a little turn-in going south on Vineyard and people may back up
into other intersections.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be necessary to go through the denial
process if the applicant was willing to make the changes Mr. Muir had
suggested,.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Muir stated they would be willing to make the changes they had discussed
but their carry costs are so expensive that time is of the essence and they
did not wish to initiate a long and extensive design review process
re-examining every facet of the project. He felt if they could limit the
debate to strictly the dock configuration and they received enough feedback
that one of the two or three proposed schemes would make the project
acceptable, ~hey would be willing to work with the Commission.
Chaired< ~cNiel closed the public hearing. He felt that if the docks are
move ~t dramatically changes the footprint of the building and creates a
prcDiem with respect to architecture that would have to be addressed.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
denying Conditional Use Permit 92-18 without prejudice. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
MELCHER
NONE -carried
Mr. Buller stated if there were an appeal, the matter could possibly be heard
at the second City Council Meeting in January.
, , , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adjourn.
5:35 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop at 5:00 p.m. on
January 6, 1993, at the Tolstoy residence regarding Planning Commission goals
and priorities.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 15, 1992