Loading...
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