Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/01/16 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting January 16, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner , , , , UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of the proposed uniform sign program for a ~60-acre commercial/retail center located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - AFN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Chairman McNiel opened the meeting for public comment. David Holt, Signage Solutions, gave a brief overview of the sign program. Chairman McNiel stated that he did not recall a sign program with the number of directional signs proposed. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, noted that Terra Vista Town Center was approved for three on-site directional signs with the latest revision to the sign program. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, commented that the Fire District has requested that directional signs, possibly with addresses, be provided at the project entries. Mr. Murphy remarked that the Fire District requires directional signs on various types of projects to assist them in locating buildings, on-site fire hydrants, knox boxes, etc. He suggested that staff check with the Fire District to determine what specific requirements will be placed on this project. Commissioner Melcher felt that the overall design of the sign program was disappointing. He thought the sign designs appear awkward with inconsistent logo designs provided on the various monument signs. As proposed, he felt the monument signs create the appearance of a cabinet with a border around the tenant identifications and he thought the "picture frame" is not needed. Commissioner Melcher also felt that the letters on the monument sign should be three dimensional, extending out from the monument face. Chairman McNiel felt that the monument signs should be scaled down. He thought the number of monument signs proposed along Foothill Boulevard is excessive and a considerable reduction in the number of signs should occur. Commissioner Vallette agreed that too many signs are proposed for Foothill Boulevard. She felt that wall signs on the back of the buildings along the freeway would be acceptable. Commissioner Chitlea commented that the number, size, and scale of the signs within the Town Center is appropriate and that similar considerations should be given for Foothill Marketplace. She concurred that the number of signs proposed along Foothill Boulevard is excessive. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that logos tend to be cluttered and tough to pick up as you drive by the site. Mr. Wattson indicated that the center and tenants need to have recognition from the street and freeway, but said h~ will work to keep it simple. Commissioner Chitlea stated that Montclair Plaza has one large sign that is an eyesore. She felt people know where Montclair Plaza is located without a sign identifying every tenant. She noted the outlet stores in Lake Elsinore have an architectural tower with signs on it that is also an eyesore. She thought the pylon sign proposed for the site is not necessary. She hoped the regional mall will have a sign that is low and tastefully done. Commissioner Melcher noted that while the major tenants in Montclair Plaza'are not identified on the pylon, they do have large wall signs that are readily visible from the freeway. Additionally, he observed that the Montclair Entertainment Center immediately to the west has a pylon sign that identifies all the tenants of the complex. He felt the design of the proposed pylon sign is terrible, but the marketing approach makes sense. He suggested the middle tenant identifications on the pylon should be eliminated. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that all the tenant identifications under "Major 2" be eliminated. Chairman McNiel felt that the pylon sign is not necessary if wall signs are provided on the back of the buildings. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Planning CommisSion Minutes -2- January 16, 1992 Chairman McNiel stated that the pylon should include only the name of the center or possibly the center plus the major tenants. Mr. Wattson responded that the cost of the sign is not justified for the sole purpose of identifying the center. He said many tenants within the center had already expressed a need to be identified on the sign because of their business orientation towards freeway traffic (i.e., Chevron, In-N-Out, etc.). Commissioner Melcher suggested that only the freeway oriented businesses be identified on the pylon sign. Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that staff and the applicant provide examples of existing freeway signs for the Commission's consideration in evaluating the pylon for Foothill Marketplace. Chairman McNiel stated that he has seen very few "good" freeway signs. Commissioner Melcher said that he knew of a sign he thought was good but that he did not believe the rest of the Commission would agree--the identification for Tustin Marketplace. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher's assessment that the Commission would not care for the design; he thought it is a bad example. Mr. Buller stated that staff will obtain examples of designs for the Commission to review. Mr. Murphy suggested that the Commission con~nent on the sign design proposed for plaza tenants. The applicant is proposing a metal cabinet with individual letters on the cabinet. Only the letters and the logo will be illuminated. The past Commission direction has been to use individual channel letters. Commissioner Melcher asked that a cross-section be provided through the entire fascia to include the cornice and the lintel. He felt the cabinet would look awkward with the molding around the cabinet positioned between the cornice and lentil. Mrl Holt stated the reason for the cabinet was to avoid the continual repair of the fascia as individual tenant signs are changed. He presented a series of pictures to illustrate his point. The Commissioners expressed serious reservations about the use of the cabinet. They felt it looks too much like a can sign. Mr. Bullet recommended that staff and the applicant sit down together to review alternative signs for inclusion in the program. He stated staff would try to obtain pictures of freeway signs for review at the next meeting. The Commission directed the applicant to work with staff on revisions to the sign program. They commented that a subsequent workshop could be scheduled upon completion of the revisions and review by staff. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 16, 1992 The Commission recessed from 10:25 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN - Discussion of Medium and Low-Medium development standards in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented a brief overview summarizing previous meetings regarding the related application proposed by U. S. Homes. Commissioner Tolstoy posed the following questions: 1) Should the areas under consideration be deleted from the Etiwanda Specific Plan area?$ and 2) What are the specific objectives for development in the affected areas? Chairman McNiel thought that the "driving force" of the Etiwanda Specific Plan is the area north of Base Line Road. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the area south of Base Line was included in the specific plan because of its link with "old Etiwanda." Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan is intended to protect the separate identity of Etiwanda through the use of paseos, entry statements, rock curbs, etc. He observed that the area south of the Devore Freeway is now discontinuous and unrelated to the balance of Etiwanda since the freeway acts as a natural buffer. Commissioner Vallette remarked that the development standards should be studied closely to ensure that densities do not become lower simply by providing much larger corner and cul-de-sac bulb lots in trade for a majority of the lots being minimum size. She suggested that these lots not be included when determining the average lot size within a project. Mr. Kroutil commented that the concept of providing a minimum average lot size was initiated with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Vallette linked the architectural expectations for projects within Etiwanda with the concepts of reduced lot coverages to create projects with the character intended for Etiwanda. Mr. Kroutil felt that any homogenous changes to the Etiwanda Specific Plan and other Specific Plans or the Development Code will reduce individual community identity. He stated that maximum lot coverages were established in the City not only for when the initial residences are built, but more importantly to deal with later problems created by individual owners constructing additions and accessory structures. He commented that at the time of Specific Plan adoption, the City was more concerned with new projects providing only "starter homes" for lower income groups and first time buyers~ hence, the City adopted a minimum residence size of 1,000 square feet to alleviate this Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 16, 1992 concern. He indicated that at the time there was no concern that homes may actually be too large for their lots. Commissioner Melcher felt that the Etiwanda Specific Plan does not recognize that garages were located in rear yards and served by alleys and that streets were predominantly in a grid pattern. He suggested that the City explore alley served neighborhoods for residential garage access. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that there has been opposition to alley served neighborhoods in the past because of concerns with safety and maintenance. He asked the commission if there might be a way to achieve this "look" without actually providing alleys. Mr. Kroutil added that "informal" site planning (i.e., curvilinear streets, setback variety, etc.) has been preferred with previous projects because of the look of County approved projects in the immediate area, which has a predominantly grid pattern circulation system with little streetscape variety. Commissioner Vallette suggested that a minimum variation in lot size be adopted to encourage a greater variety of lot sizes and building setbacks to provide greater streetscape variety. Mr. Hayes suggested that the Commission consider what is the most appropriate type of development for the affected areas and what development standards should be applied to ensure this type of development. He warned the Commission that if the Basic Standards are "loosened" and the Con~nission prefers Planned Unit Developments with common open space, developers will have less incentive to do the innovative projects if higher densities are possible under Basic Development Standards. Therefore, he suggested the Optional Development Standards should be studied closely to provide incentive to developers to propose innovative developments. Mr. Buller explained that it may be hard to recapture the traditional Etiwanda look with the current development standards for this area. He stated that the Commission may consider the possibility of requiring building envelopes similar to those required in hillside areas to achieve the appearance of greater separation between residences. Commissioner Melcher felt that the affected areas should be restudied in light of the neighborhood surroundings. He suggested that limiting roof pitches to a maximum slope of 5 to 12 and ribbon driveways to rear yard garages should be encouraged. He felt that half-acre lot areas constructed throughout Etiwanda were not delivering the "rural atmosphere" as intended by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Vallette expressed her preference for requiring reduced lot coverage, which may lead to smaller homes on smaller lots. Commissioner Chitlea thought that small homes along the Devore Freeway may become rental properties within a short time which may inherently become poorly maintained and project a negative image of the City for freeway Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 16, 1992 travelers. She felt that planned communities with Homeowner's Associations would lead to better maintained and more aesthetically pleasing projects. Mr. Kroutil summarized the main thoughts of the workshop and felt that imagination will be a key in solving the issues mentioned in the workshop. Chairman McNiel felt that there should be no rush to encourage smaller houses given his previous experience on the Commission when the City worked for larger houses and created a minimum residence size requirement. Commissioner Vallette restated her main concerns: 1) Maximum lot coverages should be studied and possibly reduced$ and 2) A sensitive land use transition should be provided between the affected areas and the more traditional Etiwanda developments north of Base Line Road. Mr. Hayes again summarized the main Commission concerns and asked the Commission to think about the most appropriate type of development for the Medium and Low-Medium zones in Etiwanda and developing standards to further encourage this type of development. , , , , ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 16, 1992