The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987/05/18 - Agenda PacketO :� --- c COMMISSION -, ,. AGENDA 197 t> MONDAY MAY 18,198T 7:30 "P.m FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC HEARIN Lions Park Community Center 9183 Base Line ikoad Rancho Cucamonga, CkErornia L PLEDGE OF ALLEC L&WCE EL ROLL CALL Commissioner Blakesley_,' Commissioner McNiei,_ Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner 'Tolstoy_,, Commissioner Bmerick,� I 1 lit. DRAFT EN6Itt£)iiMEN`PAI- IMPACT REPORT �} Staff will provide an overview of the environmental review proem and status of the report. Public Input IV. FOOTHffAL BONI"ARD sPECIPiC PLAN: A. PROGRESS OIL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW B. OVERVIEW OF SECONDARY POLICY ISSUES (Continued from April 311th) • Community Design • Arohiteetural issues Public Hearing SITE SPECIFIC LAND USE DwSIGNATiONS o Automoti ,,te Uses within the Corridor o Extension of Community Commercial District northerly along � Etlwa; da Avenue o Speciolty Commercial along the south side of Foothill in Subarea 1 o Mixed Use/Retail at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Public Hearing Cz SUBAREA LAND USE P,7G0 })1ATJONS AND DE"WELOPMENT StMARMIt- 0 �Aaster Plan Provisions (Pg. 9-1) -.Aj)bareq 1(Pp. 9 -2 'Ehrough S-6) o. 94barea 2 (Pgs. 9 -7 through 9 -11) o Subarea 4 (Pp. 9- 6 through 9 -20) Publzc Hearing IV. !lil OUI MMMW?tT% It is recemmended that .0e 3pecifle Aan hearing be continued io the Planning 04hum!sAOp "*egWar meeting date of dtme 24, 1987. The meeting'wM take ice, =E: at Uors Park Community a 1 Center„ 3161 Base .Line Roed, Rancho Cucamonga, begiming of 1:00 p m. I I 6!� O O F � Z U i> May 18, 1987 isn Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN A public hearing and WVrksnGp oconsiadr the pr�`ovisions of the Draft Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. I. BACKGROUND: This meeting is a continuation of the Planning a, ss� workshop review process for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which was initiated on April 30, 1987, At that meeting, the Planning Commission provided the plan consultant and staff with direction on the primary policy issu ?s and a good portion of the sec,ary policy issues. Tonight, wd anticipate that we will complete the secondary issues and begin a page by Oage analysis of the standards and regulations. Further, any additional comments on the Community Background (Part I) and Development Framework (Part II) of the text should be brought up at this time. II. PROGRESS TO DATE: On April 30, 1987, Planning Commission direction was provicted on the following issues: Issue: The Planning Commission , determine the appropriateness of the overall corridor dsign concept in attaining a unique and unifyind design for Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission voiced favorable comments regarding the overall concepts of activity centers and gateways in conjunction with the suburban parkway transitions. More emphasis was suggested for the gateway concept in presenting a positive community identity. Some concern was voiced over the "formal" desigf.':concept of the activity centers. It was felt that a strict formal concept might not be compatible with some of the existing- development (especially in the Sycamore Inn /Bear Gulch area). Issue: SUuld the commercial /office acreage along the corridor be increased from 252 acres to approximately 359 acres. f ;r DATE: TO: FROM: r BY: , SUBJECT: �s 6!� O O F � Z U i> May 18, 1987 isn Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN A public hearing and WVrksnGp oconsiadr the pr�`ovisions of the Draft Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. I. BACKGROUND: This meeting is a continuation of the Planning a, ss� workshop review process for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which was initiated on April 30, 1987, At that meeting, the Planning Commission provided the plan consultant and staff with direction on the primary policy issu ?s and a good portion of the sec,ary policy issues. Tonight, wd anticipate that we will complete the secondary issues and begin a page by Oage analysis of the standards and regulations. Further, any additional comments on the Community Background (Part I) and Development Framework (Part II) of the text should be brought up at this time. II. PROGRESS TO DATE: On April 30, 1987, Planning Commission direction was provicted on the following issues: Issue: The Planning Commission , determine the appropriateness of the overall corridor dsign concept in attaining a unique and unifyind design for Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission voiced favorable comments regarding the overall concepts of activity centers and gateways in conjunction with the suburban parkway transitions. More emphasis was suggested for the gateway concept in presenting a positive community identity. Some concern was voiced over the "formal" desigf.':concept of the activity centers. It was felt that a strict formal concept might not be compatible with some of the existing- development (especially in the Sycamore Inn /Bear Gulch area). Issue: SUuld the commercial /office acreage along the corridor be increased from 252 acres to approximately 359 acres. f i The Commissioners . voiced some concern over the level of commercialization,, but were generally comfortable with the of regional - related;(commercial activities proposed adjacent to the I- a' 15 FrZeway., '@ Commission recognized that the regional related commercial area forms the majority of the commercial acreage �. i ncreas.e. Issue: Should the regl(w ally related commercial zone Al l oag for businesses which will not only complement but may also compete with the business types'anticlgated for tk-4 future mall? The Planning Commission felt that the uses allowed within this district should be expanded to include many of those contained in the proposed Co4mnity C(mn►ercial zone, to allow greater range of uses. This recommendation. =4aas made with the provision that some fi mechanism be included in the plan which regn1res the development of a regional related commercial use within each development, C Issuer Can a comercial /residential mixed use scenario be planned and dea> loped successfully under a raster plan concept? If so, what spcalfic uses would be appropriate within this land use category? The mixed use /retail (MU /R) zone concept was accepted by the Commissioners. 'The requirement of master planning was the key to the Commissioners` favorable view, In one of the areas cq Foothill Boulevard where the MU/ii district is proposed, its enactment was viewed as an opportunity for property owners to work togei -her on masker planning large sections of land which currently exhibit significant development problems. Issuer Does the . Specialty+ Commercial designation provide sufficient activity allowances and .appropriate limitations to ensure specialized development of key poin,, of interest and landmarks? The use of the Specialty Commercial designation to fine tune the development potential of activity centers of special significance was favorably received. Review of the district regulations is still needed to specifically define appropriate uses and standards of development for each area.. Issue: Are traffic control measures appropriate to ensure a safe circulation system while providing adequate access for the viability of commercial developments? i The Commissioners concurred with the need to implement- median island construction, intersection improvements, and access limitation regulations in order to successfully handle the anticipated traffic along the corridor. Issue: The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of the recomianded alignment of Red Hill Country Club Drive versus the other alternatives. The Commissioners favored the Advisory Committee,-'s recommendation for the realignment of Red }mill Country Club Drive. Final determination of this alignment is to be withheld until a City - initiated traffic study cn the area is completed. The traffic study was suggested by tFr City Engineer in response to a traffic analysis performed by the consultant to owners of properties iffected by the realignment. Extension of Estacia Avenue Issues: 1) Should access be prohibited or severeli limited to San Bernardino Road? 2) If so, should access to the area be as proposed? A Planning `.oMmission concensus was reached on this issue which recommends that the Plan include the -following: A. Access to ;an Bernardino Road should be allowed for residential development only, and B. Direct access to San Bernardino Rod for commercial uses should not. be allowed, and C. Two points of access•on Foothill Boulevard and one point of dceess opposite Estaci,a Avenue should be identified, around which a master plan for development would be required. Iss.ie: San Diego Avenue realignment. The Commission considered alternatives for the realignment or aband3nment of San Diego Avenue. It was determined that the ultimate vacation of San Diego Road is desirable but only upon development of an approved master plan for the area between Vineyard Avenue and Cucamonga Creek Flood Channel. Issue: San Bernardino Road. Realignment. The Planning Commission concurred with the propos,d realignment of San Bernardino Road. III. DISCUSSION: For this meeting, the Planning Commission should con roue a review of those items outlined at the April 30 meeting. These issues are discussed in the attached issue papers and include the following: SECONDARY POLICY ISSUES (Continued from April 30tt) o Community Design 0 Architectural Issues SITE -- SPECIFIC LAND USE DESIGNATIONS o Automotive Uses within the Corridor o Extepsion of Coimaity Comercial District northerly along Etiwanda Avenue o, Specialty Connercial along the Louth side of Foothill in Subarea I o Mixed Use/Retail at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard SUBAREA LAND USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS o Master Plan Provisions (pg. 9-11 o Subarea 1 (p9s. 9-2 through 9-61 o Subarea 2 (pg$ 9-7 through 9-11) o Subarea 4 (pgs. 9-1b through 9-20) The attached chart shows where we are in the suggested "roadwp" of review. IV. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Co+wission camp e5 its Thitial review of the Draft Specific Plan and p"rovide the consultant and staff with direction for amendment where needed. The hearing should be continued to a scheduled meeting date at which a revised plan will be submitted for Planning Coinmission review and action. 4Resp full fitted, Brad Ter City ity larniner BB:AW:te ;:ttachments: Exhibit I - Specific Plan Process Review Chart Exhibit 2 - Issue Pape7s Exhibits 3 and 4 - Issue Paper Maps is J 444 � 8.1 OVERALL COiMIHITY DESIGN COIXEPT (Section 7.5) This section contains specific design guidelines which implement the objectives of the activity center /suburban parkway concept. The components of this section as noted on pages 7 -5 through 7 -9 contain the following components: o Subarea Structure o Activity Center o Suburban Parkway o Overail Architectural Concept o Overall Landscape Architectural Concept Issue: The Planning Commissi+�n should, determine the appropriateness of these design coearjonents within the overall design ccncept for the corridor. L B.2 ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES One of the more recognizable aspect$.• of a komMunity design image is that of its architectural style. The Advisory Committee deliberated extensively on What architectural style should be encouraged as an aspect of community identity. The importance of this issue is exemplified by the plans Jverall Statement: "Goal: To create a dynamic concourse that is attractive and of high quality with a unifying design image, reflective of community heritage and iaeatity...." Discussion: Concern was voiced early on that the community does not have a. single identifiable architectural theme, but exhibits a diversity of styles which were identified as winery, mission, California b4Irn, 1930's Route 66, agricultural heritage, etc. The Committee resolved not to limit architecture to a single theme or style. Rather, it was decided that architecture should borrow certain elements from historical styles found in Rancho Cucamonga. This view resulted in an architectural concept (Rancho Cucamonga Heritage) which 1. Encourages the use of elemenT° from these types along the Corridor with pro ions for design compatibility, 2. The use of a single sty of architectural element is not a part of this plan. i i� LZ EXHfiW 2 0 EXH[Brr 2 i 3. Encouragement of design them9s on a site -by -site basis is encouraged and provided for at activity v centers and key features (Section 8.2 - 8.4).. ._ Issue: W11 an architectural program made 'up ,T different r distinct styles be able do fora a utsM-Yiaig - design concept for ' the Corridor? Staff Analysis: Staff believes the Advisory Committee's recomadati -on has- definite potential within the overall design framework so long as distinct architectural s' stylesltheraes are implemented at each activity center. In this manners corpatit)e architectural diversity can act as a unifying,velemmment 1n the suburban parkway, streetscape while maintaining distinct architectural styles at key activity nodes/centers. f As an alternative, the Plannipg Commission may wish Ito consider narrowing the bane,` of architectural styes to be designated along the entire length of the boulevard. 0 EXH[Brr 2 8.3 SITE SPECIFJP. ISSUES: a. Issue: Stmould autemative related uses be elimmloated along the Corr1dor -2 The proposed plan permits automotive fl related uses in portions of the area. However, concerns were voiced toot automobile services -may not be / ' appropriate al a revitalized Foothill Boulevard and that such uses should be located in the Industrial Area. b. Issue: Should the community commercial extend�i%,�irtherly an additional 300 feet along the northwest ,corner of ( Foothill and EtManda? Staff has concerns on the apptnpriateness of extendiq.g commercial activity northerly into the predominantly residential Etiwanda Specific Plan, ,,,(Exhibit 31 t c. Issue ` Should the south. 'ilde of Fcgthill Boulevard opposite the Sjvcamore Inn be included in the Specialty Csomercial nistrict? Staff has concerns on the viability of such a large area designated solely for- Zpecialiy Commercial uses. (Exhibit 4) d. Issue: Is the mixed use designation on the north side of foothill, east of Etivanda Avenue, appropriate? In light of the Comammissions concern about the account of comwcial? Current land use ,designation is Medium Residential, $ -14 dwelling units per acre. (Exhibit 3) Staff will need the Commission's direction'in these areas. s C. "" !SLGMUT Si'AWWS 'The Planning Commission should review the permitted uses In Part III of the Development Standards for all land n3e categories, as follows: 1 o Master Plan Provisions (Pg. 9 -1) o Subarea I (pgs. 9 -2 through 9 -6) o Subarea 2 (pgs. 9 -7 through 9 -11) o Subarea 4 (pgs. 9 -16 through 9 -20) EXNWiT, n1, ` N N , N o EXHIBIT v (:MvF- EXHIBIT LA