No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/03/28 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 28, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:50 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga, Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Munoz then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca; Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director;Tabe Van der Zwaag,Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager NEW BUSINESS • A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND • CITY OF ONTARIO-Ajoint workshop from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff and the City of Ontario Planning Staff to present the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Donald Granger, Senior Planner, gave a brief introduction regarding the purpose of the workshop. He noted that the airport is an asset and creates business synergy and the plan promotes land use compatibility. He said two main components are airspace protection and air flight notification. He then turned the meeting over to the City of Ontario team consisting of Jerry Blum, Planning Director and Lorena Mejia, Associate Planner. Mr. Blum gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the process of adopting the plan and explained that the airport creates 55,000 jobs totaling $5.4 billion (1.5 billion devoted to aviation and 3.5 billion which is spent in the local economy). He noted that the airport greatly increases the need for Class A office space. He said the plan has a 20-year horizon and this is why the impacts would extend to Rancho Cucamonga and the other neighboring cities. He said the plan is in conformance with Ontario's new General Plan. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, Mr. Blum noted that it is not likely the capacity cap of 30 million passengers will be exceeded and if it did, it would not occur for many years and at 24 billion, would require additional runways at a huge cost. • In response to Vice Chairman Howdyshell, Mr. Blum said the Natural Hazard Disclosure that realtors provide to their buyers will now include Air flight notifications. He said following adoption, we must meet the policies of the plan. He noted that the plan only affects new development within the area of the plan. He said some projects will have to go through a notification process and be submitted for review by the collaborative group such as: General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments, annexations, structures that exceed the allowable height, and those that have the potential to create electrical or visual hazards. He said that if other jurisdictions are in a dispute regarding a specific project that does not affect our jurisdiction we would not be brought into the dispute; disputes are dealt with by the mediation board. Mr. Blum emphasized that they critically analyzed time, effort and cost in the development of this process. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, he said all plan amendments would be submitted for review even if they have "no effect" - it would merely be submitted as a general notification of the project. He said their response time is 20 days. He said it is their hope that sending the notification will be part of Rancho's existing process. Mr. Blum added that the committee would only be aware if a specific project was not compliant. He said unlike county commissions, our mediation group will be staffed by people that represent the cities that are most affected. James Troyer, Planning Director, noted that this is already outlined and represented in our 2010 General Plan Update. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, asked if they are looking for a specific finding. Mr. Blum said that it need only be found to be in conformance with our General Plan and policies. He said the next step is to move forward with the review of the agreement and then it would proceed to the Commission and for final approval by the City Council. 111 Discussion of this item ended at 8:30 p.m. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 -ZION ENTERPRISES LLC: A request for a Planning Commission Workshop review of a mixed use project comprised of a senior assisted living and dementia care facility, a medical office building, retail and restaurant pads, and a hotel on two parcels of about 301,000 square feet (6.9 acres) in the Mixed Use (MU) District (Subarea 19) located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive that is part of a retail and residential development generally located on the west side of Haven Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Foothill Boulevard;APN: 0208-331-40 and-47. Related files: Development Review DRCDR00-79 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179 James Troyer, Planning Director gave a brief introduction of the project. He introduced the design team from Zion Enterprises LLC: Brian Hunter (Managing Partner), Charlie Zhang (Owner) and Greg Irwin (Architect). He stated that most of the project is consistent with City policy but that the main policy question for the Commission is about the proposed Senior Assisted Living and Dementia care facility located on the western portion of the site. He said that the applicant has already been notified that a Use Determination would have to be processed to determine if the Senior Assisted Living and Dementia care facility use is similar to a "convalescent facility"which is currently allowed in the Haven Overlay. He said if the applicant was not successful in the Use Determination process, then the applicant would have to file and successfully process a Development Code Amendment for it to be allowed. Linda Daniels,Assistant City Manager, said that the use described as"Convalescent Facility" will be removed/will not be permitted in the Haven Overlay in the proposed Development Code Update that is currently in process and nearing completion. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- March 28, 2012 Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney said although not completed, the update is coming forward as the draft Code has been released for review. Vice Chairman Howdyshell confirmed that there is an element of timing. Mr. Hunter introduced Mr. Irwin and Charlie Zhang, of Zion Enterprises (Principal owner/investor) and Ms. Mejia, Associate Planner. He explained that this is essentially the fourth phase of commercial development. He said the facility might employ the PACE program which incorporates skilled nursing during the day. He said part of the senior care facility is beyond the west boundary line of the Haven Overlay and therefore, they believe this to be a transition use as residential uses exist to the west. He said 95% of the assisted living facility lies within the residential area and is fairly far off from the Haven corridor. He said they have support from the neighbors in the form of an amendment to their association document for this proposed use and from the apartment owners. He said it is a mixed use site and putting the hotel, restaurant, retail and senior care together should generate activity. He said the architecture matches the Verona style already used in the existing development. He said there are some things about the plan that staff may want to adjust. He said they believe the parking is adequate using the number 70 as a benchmark number. He said they intend to have a parking study done. He said it is a mixed use site in a village type setting. He said their financing is not an issue, it is in place, they are ready to get it done. Chairman Munoz noted that depending on what they finally bring forward will determine the parking. Mr. Irwin said that with respect to the architecture, his firm substantially does senior housing. He said that it is a transitional use because it is between residential and commercial uses. Mr. Zhang said he is looking for high quality; Victoria Gardens is his model. Chairman Munoz then asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Oaxaca said he likes the layout and arrangement of buildings. He said he would like to see a parking study as their buildings may have them locked in as to what is available for parking. He said the architecture looks consistent with what is there however it is a highly visible site. He said he is not necessarily opposed to the senior care facility but thought he should have more information about how much of those services we already have in the City. He said with respect to such residents, there is the potential about emergency response vehicles and noise. Commissioner Fletcher stated he supported the idea of a parking study and he did not favor the idea of shared parking. He said he did not think a dementia care facility fits for this site-it is not what the City envisioned for Haven Avenue. He said he also had not favored the residential project to the south. He said it was envisioned as Class A office and the idea was to attract corporate headquarters. He said with respect to the architecture,the hotel building appears monotonous with linear plane windows and needs a lot more design work. He said he was more in tune with the prior project that was approved. • Vice Chairman Howdyshell said that because the intersection of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard is an important focal point, and traveled extensively, she would like the architecture to be more upscale. She said she is ok with the inn and suites and it could service visiting business people: She said she did not know how many or how much senior care facilities we already have. She said she is more familiar with those existing in the north portion of the city. She said she was not sure this mix of uses is a match. She said she thought this facility should be in an area of lower density with a mix of single-family houses and more open space. She said the connectivity with the development to the north is a challenge with respect to the parking. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- March 28, 2012 Commissioner Wimberly said that Mr. Hunter specifically noted that the southerly portion of the site has been reserved for a larger office building, but because of the economy, that part of the development is not being brought forward at this time. He said this proposal is not the same level of product previously proposed but that could make this corner better than what it is. He said parking is a concern and they need to do a traffic/parking study. He said the actual design of the assisted living facility fits but he would like to see more quality. He said the City already has several senior assisted facilities and they blend better than this does. He was curious about the funding sources for the senior facility (private/government). Commissioner Munoz said we welcome restaurants and retail. He said the hotel design needs to be punched up because of the significant location. He read the goals of the Haven Overlay into the record: Encourage long-range master planned development along the Haven Avenue Corridor which enhances Rancho Cucamonga's image providing an intensive, high-quality gateway into the City and by promoting a distinctive, attractive, and pleasant office park atmosphere in a campus-like setting with high prestige identity. He said he did not believe the senior care-dementia facility is in line with the goal statement set for the Haven Overlay. He said that with a convalescent type of facility is the idea that patients will get better and go home but with dementia care it is more of an issue of maintenance and eventually people pass away, they really don't go back home and the ambulances will eventually come. He said the idea for the use should be revisited. He said he likes the architecture on the smaller buildings but the hotel design needs to be punched up. Mr. Irwin commented that his firm has focused on senior housing since 1966. He said the terminology is very different now than it used to be. He said with assisted living, it involves seniors that are 85, and no longer drive. He said seniors want to be in more active, urban places and they want to be involved. Typically they do not put them in quiet neighborhoods any longer. He said this is what the push is in senior housing today. He reemphasized that the line for the Haven Overlay runs vertically along the westerly portion of the site and that with that in mind, the use conforms to the code because it is a transition use. Commissioner Fletcher reemphasized that he did not feel it was the right place/location for this facility in such close proximity to this corridor. Chairman Munoz said they would not debate that issue, but the Commission is here to provide comments. He said he is looking at the project not with respect to the line but with what is practical. Commissioner Fletcher mentioned that the issue of the line came up with a previous approval (existing residential to the south)and the Commission unanimously did not support that proposal but it was later appealed and approved by the Council. Charlie Zhang asked what this project should be. He said in this economy they can build buildings for corporations but they remain empty-they have had zero success with that. Chairman Munoz said their original proposal is closer to what we want and he suggested the applicants bring other alternatives. Mr. Hunter asked what the next steps are. Mr. Troyer said they would have to file their submittal, get a Use Determination, go to DRC,then to the Planning Commission for approval. He said design and use is discussed at the DRC. He said the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. PC Adjourned Minutes -4- March 28, 2012 Mr. Flower said the big issue is the Use Determination. If.it is found to not be consistent with the Code then the applicant would need to file for a Code amendment. He said that would go to the Commission and then the City Council for final approval. He said the new Development Code Update will likely be adopted before that. PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Approved: April 11, 2012 • e•-t-/3(41/---- PC Adjourned Minutes -5- March 28, 2012