Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/03/27 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 27, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were DO announcements. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF A 30-FOOT EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT on two lots at the southwest corner of Laredo Place and Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-801-06 and 07. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. VARIANCE 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to reduce the required building and parking setbacks for a commercial development in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 95-25. Brad Buller, City Planner, repoded that the applicant had forwarded a letter requesting a continuance so that the Commission could review the variance application concurrent with a conditional use permit application. He commented that staff had sent a letter to the applicant explaining the advantages of reviewing the variance application first, as the conditional use permit application is not yet complete and the potential for holding up the conditional use permit if the variance should be denied. He recommended that the matter be continued for two weeks but noted the applicant Was in the audience and may wish to address the Commission. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gil Roddguez, Jr., U. S. Properties, P. O. Box 281, Upland, stated he had not had time to address the letter he received from staff today. He requested that the matter be continued. Mr. Buller suggested that the application be continued to a specific date in order to avoid the cost of running the advedisement again. Mr. Rodriguez requested that the matter be continued to April 24, 1996. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue Variance 96-01 to April 24, 1996. C. ENVIRONMENTAl ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A - WOHLJRANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked the definition of Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Map. Ms. Bratt replied it is similar to what would be found at the Virginia Dare Center. Commissioner Lumpp asked if it would be General Commercial as opposed to Community Commercial, which would be larger users. Ms. Bratt confirmed that was correct. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter Desforges, General Partner, Wohl/Rancho Partners, 3402 Michaelson Drive, #170, Irvine, referred to a letter he had written to the Planning Commission on January 8, 1996. He felt that a national tenant would not be willing to locate anywhere in the City other than on Foothill Boulevard east of Haven Avenue. He stated the existing retail core along Foothill Boulevard east of Haven is thriving even though he acknowledged a letter submitted by Lewis Homes Management Corp. which complains about the high vacancy in Terra Vista. He commented that Lewis' rezoning for 360,000 square feet of retail in the Promenade area indicates there is an expanding market. He felt the Agajanian study underestimated the amount of retail that will be coming into the market and thought there will be continued demand for substantial acreage to accommodate future retail development. He stated that "critical mass" is desired by retailers. He observed that retail development contributes tax dollars to the City. He thought the City needs to be aggressive in attracting new retailers to the City. He remarked that the outlet center industry climbed rapidly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but tenants are now seeing a sales decline. He thought it was premature to say that Hahn will never build Victoria Gardens because he felt Hahn is just waiting to see what will happen with Ontario Mills. He felt there is a market niche for conventional retailers. He stated that Lewis Homes currently has a monopoly on retail development along the Foothill Boulevard corridor. He acknowledged that Masi has zoning for some retail on the south side of Foothill Boulevard but has experienced delays because of management and financing problems. He indicated he had been told that retailers feel the Masi site is a "tweener" site because it is not close to either Terra Vista Town Center or the Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 27, 1996 freeway, but in the middle. He stated that Planning staff had suggested that they wait until the north side of Foothill Boulevard is developed before rezoning the south side for more commercial uses. He thought his site has obvious potential for retail zoning and he wanted to give potential tenants another alternative to consider along Foothill Boulevard. He acknowledged that adding retail acreage may slightly delay development along the north side, but he felt it will ultimately draw more tenants to the City and all of the tenants would do better because of the concept of critical mass. He stated that concerns had been raised that if the Wohl site is rezoned, all of the south side of Foothill Boulevard should be rezoned. He thought the City should not rezone all of the south side of Foothill Boulevard, but should rather start at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and work east. He felt their site would be the next obvious site in that progression. He felt that the City could wait approximately 5-15 years before considering rezoning for more commercial to the east. He noted they have a commitment form the Good Guys to build a 20,000-25,000 square foot store. He said they also have proposals from other tenants, but stated their competition has been very vocal in saying that retailers should not talk to them because of the City Council denial in November. He thought that when Lewis rezoned the Promenade site, their only solid commitment was from Best Buy. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the zone change because he said they are in danger of losing the Good Guys as a potential tenant, as they have been approached to lease at the Ontario Mills site. He observed that staff had indicated that a zone change without design and master plan submittal would allow them to build anything they want, but felt that the City would be protected because of the Design Review process. He stated they had hired Tom Bond of Architects Pacifica because of his past experience working in the City. He said they did not submit a master plan because they wanted to resolve the use issue first. He expressed a willingness to work with the City to develop an acceptable project. He noted that Commissioner Melcher had p~eviously voiced a concern about whether the site can accommodate a Community Commercial center. He said the General Plan defines a Community Commercial Center as between 100,000- 350,000 square feet situated on 15-50 acres. He acknowledged that their site is slightly below 15 acres but said it will be between 110,000-130,000 square feet. Mr. Desforges said they plan to place a restaurant immediately in front of the hotel and incorporate the design of the hotel into their site. He commented that adding the hotel site into their acreage would bring the site up to just under 18 acres. He said he had included the three site plans to show they could design a center with sufficient parking fields. He noted that the narrowest parking field depicted on the site plan schemes is 12 parking spaces deep. He commented that a concem had been raised at an earlier meeting that the strip configuration places a back door to the properties to the south. He said they are now considering three retail pods and they would like to do signage on the backs of the building to invite the businesses to the south to access the service retail and the restaurants they will have. He thought they could address all concerns through the Design Review process and said they would like to have a workshop once the land use issue is resolved. He did not feel any use other than retail would fit the site and said that several brokers and architects have visited the site and commented that the site is only suitable for retail because of its frontage on Foothill Boulevard and its location across the street from a retail center. He noted the property is currently zoned for industrial, office, or business support retail. He felt that industrial is not practical and office vacancies are too high to consider office uses. He thought that office uses will locate along the Haven corridor. He observed that staff has indicated there is no need to rezone the property because the current zoning allows uses which are complementary to, rather than competitive to, the uses on the north side of the street. He said they are permitted to have office support retail but those uses already exist across the street in the Terra Vista Plan. He stated it appeared that the north side is allowed to compete with the south side but the south side is not permitted to compete with the north side. He thought that business supply retail has changed considerably since when the General Plan was first adopted, in that large office supply firms serve both the business community and the residential community and therefore locate in centers where they are surrounded by other retail uses. He stated they cannot attract enough users to the site without a zone change. He said they had previously thought a theater chain would utilize a large portion of the site, but large theaters have now been planned for the Ontario Mills site and Mountain Avenue and the I-10 Freeway and their prospective theater tenant put their plans on hold. He said they had elected not to have a Pre-Application Review because they felt it important to get the use issue resolved first. He thought that Lewis is Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 27, 1996 now expressing support for the Agajanian study because they are negotiating to purchase land along 4th Street for retail uses. He observed that the staff report indicated that major shops are doing well along the north side of Foothill Boulevard and at the Foothill Boulevard/l-15 location, but in-line shops are struggling. He said they are proposing their center in order to give avenue to smaller retailers who do want to be located along Foothill Boulevard but do not want to be lost in a huge power center. He thought their center may dilute the success of Terra Vista Town Center in the shod term, but felt it will be beneficial in the long term because it will add critical mass, He felt their project will allow healthy competition along Foothill Boulevard and is compatible with the General Plan in terms of Community Commercial. He noted their site already permits some retail and said they are just asking for an expansion of those retail uses. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, 17711 Mitchell North, Suite B, Irvine, stated they are proposing a different kind of retail center designed to compete by filling a niche in the existing retail market. He said currently there are large 30-60 acre centers along Foothill Boulevard with limited opportunities for smaller speciality users. He indicated their center is designed to promote smaller, speciality service and convenience retail users which will thrive on the easy in-and-out capability. He said the smaller uses will be the prime users in a less-overwhelming center because the majors will be in the 20,000-35,000 square foot range. He thought that current zoning ensures that the site will not be built out for many years to come because an office park is neither feasible nor desirable along Foothill Boulevard, which is retail oriented. He felt a light industrial use would not make sense and the demand for the other approved uses is very low and would not justify development of the site. He thought the primary purpose of zoning is to protect property values and the secondary purpose is to create orderly development. He acknowledged that Foothill Boulevard forms a logical zoning division boundary to separate the homes and churches to the north from the offices, industry, and City hall complex on the south side. However, he believed the zoning would be enhanced by providing the services needed on both sides to be available on both sides. He felt that would encourage development by providing services that future development will require. He thought Foothill Boulevard needs an alternative to the power center. He felt the shape of the center provides excellent visibility for a variety of sizes of tenants, with larger tenants on the two expanded ends of the site and smaller users in the compressed middle of the site. He said they are proposing retail pods to counter the strip look and to create an opportunity for access from the south. He said the center pod will be for food and service retailers with free-standing buildings to create a focal point on Foothill Boulevard and pedestrian entry from Eucalyptus Street to the south. He said the remaining pods would be clusters of flexible space intended for small-to-medium size users. He said a restaurant pad is proposed for Foothill Boulevard and Spruce to complement the hotel and additional pads are proposed along Foothill Boulevard for fast food or retail. He felt a zoning change would reinforce the intent of the existing zoning and encourage development south of Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner McNiel asked how this development would differ from the development across the street which has smaller users sandwiched between large users. Mr. Bond replied that the configuration of the buildings would be similar to what is located on the north side of the street. He said Terra Vista Town Center bulged in the center of the project which led to placing the theater in the back and trying to pull people through the center. He stated this site is opposite, in that it is shallow in the center so that the major users would be on the ends. He said the smaller users will be in a very visible location because they will not have a huge parking field or other buildings in front of them, Commissioner McNiel felt the proposal is more of a strip center type of construction. Mr. Bond replied he would not categorize it as strip commercial. He said they are proposing a central core of a pair of buildings nestled around a courtyard being aligned on the main entry drive so there will be a place for food users to have tables, awnings, trellises, and pedestrian amenities. He said those buildings would be essentially freestanding with some parking to the sides. He stated Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 27, 1996 they were not proposing any service aisle behind them. He said they would force service to come in from the sides so that the backs of the buildings would present a front appearance to Eucalyptus Street. He stated that to the east and west there would be two-three other pods of other types of retail of 30,000-40,000 each. He said they would be proposing two very short service roads on the far ends of the site to service the eastern and western pods. Commissioner McNiel asked if the lack of a service corridor behind the central pod was driven by the depth of the property. Mr. Bond said it was ddven by the depth but it was also an attempt to turn the best possible face to Eucalyptus Street. He said it would make the center inviting from all directions. Commissioner Lumpp asked Mr. Bond to define a strip center. Mr. Bond responded it would be a configuration of retail buildings stacked side-to-side with basically one architectural elevation. He commented they were trying to create a series of buildings which are three-dimensional. He said the central core will have architecture on all sides. He stated the side pods will also have architectural treatments on the fronts, sides, and the beginnings of the rear. He noted that there will be a loading dock to the rear of the side pod buildings but said they will be attempting to disguise that with a variety of screen walls, trellises, and landscaping. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Bond feels there are any stdp centers within Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Bond said there is one west of Haven on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He stated that Terra Vista Town Center is a strip center in many respects. Fred Deaux, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed opposition. He thought the project is the same as what had been denied by the Planning Commission and City Council in November 1995. He felt tonight's presentation was merely a rehash of the same issues which had been addressed in the past. He thought the project is a typical strip mall proposal. He felt the center and project are not unique. He stated that Foothill Boulevard is a critical corridor for Rancho Cucamonga and spot zoning should not be permitted. He opposed making a change for another retail outlet that will be carrying primarily electronic goods. He noted that Best Buy, Service Merchandise, Montgomery Ward, and Target are located immediately across the street and Walmart, Price Costco, Circuit City, Office Depot are just down the street. He said that all of those outlets carry all or some of the products that the Good Guys carries at various pricing levels. He did not feel the Good Guys will either increase the size of the market or improve it with better quality and quantity of merchandise or better pricing and would merely slice the existing business into more pieces. He thought the development will be detrimental. He felt that Wohl Development has seen the value of their land drop because the approved users have chosen to locate elsewhere so they are now asking the City to change the zoning so they can develop. He preferred that the land stay vacant rather than having vacant retail outlets in the next few years. He thought that Terra Vista is currently experiencing approximately a 50 percent vacancy rate in the smaller outlets that Wohl is now indicating would be their primary target. He asked how much vacant retail space will be located along the Foothill Boulevard corridor before the City realizes that there is enough. He said the developer is asking for a change in the zoning that the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga are not clamoring for. He noted that the developer had asked that their zone change be approved but suggested that the City should wait before rezoning any property to the east. Mr. Deaux asked that the City deny the request. He thought the change might be more reasonable in the future when there has been more economic growth or the Terra Vista area has been more built out with a resulting population growth. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, 1156 Nodh Mountain Avenue, Upland, feared there will be a change of power in Rancho Cucamonga if the City Council approves a project that the Planning Commission has turned down. He said that Lewis Homes has always submitted plans, worked with staff, and had Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 27, 1996 numerous design review meetings, and Planning Commission review meetings in order to reach an agreement at the Planning Commission before going on to City Council. He commented that the City established the General Plan and has worked with master plans and changes have generally required an intense amount of study and justification as to why the overall plan has to be changed with the impact being considered on more than just the property in question. He stated the Agajanian study had started the process toward probable changes in the General Plan and specific plans based upon the study but he felt those changes should be made only after input of the participants who will be affected and additional studies as needed. He said that if Wohl's strategy is successful, Lewis Homes would probably rethink their strategy. He noted they had worked on the Promenade project approximately a year in order to amend the specific plan, looking at the various land uses, dealing with specific building designs, landscaping, amenities, traffic studies, etc. He noted that when the City voted on the plan change, it was aware of what would be coming in. He observed that the project was conditioned so that any changes will require them to modify the conditions. He stated that retailers do not have allegiance to any one developer. He said that the City has generally controlled where it wants retail to develop. He acknowledged that most retailers want to be close to the intersection of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and stated that if they had realized that other sites would be available for rezoning, they would have probably chosen the site at Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard instead of the Promenade site because it would have been easier to lease because it is closer to Haven Avenue. He noted there is a large amount of vacancy including the 80,000 square foot K-Mart building and the 105,000 square foot Gemco building and said they have 373,000 square feet of retail still to be built on the north side of Foothill Boulevard (approximately 40,000 at Terra Vista Town Center, 33,000 at Town Center Square, and 300,000 at the Promenade). He said they have 75,000 square feet of tenants currently in bankruptcy. He felt that Marshall's and TJ Maxx would have located on Foothill Boulevard if they had not had an opportunity to go to the Ontario Mills project. He said there had been previous discussions with Edwards Theaters regarding expansion, but that will not likely happen because of the theaters to be built at Ontado Mills. He felt that the retailers may reassess the market place after the Mills project opens. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Hoxworth was suggesting that the tenants currently in bankruptcy will vacate their premises. Mr. Hoxworth confirmed that some of them will. He said some of their other tenants have been granted major rent concessions in order to avoid having the spaces become vacant. Commissioner Lumpp noted that in his March 13 letter, he used the terminology that they "will be rezoning their Elm to Milliken piece." He asked if the comment was to imply that they already have an approval from someone higher than the Planning Commission. Mr. Hoxworth noted that was not true, he merely meant they will submit an application. He said that they feel sites closer to Haven Avenue will be more desirable to tenants before the remainder of the Promenade site will be leased and they want to be able to offer tenants an alternative if other sites are to be zoned so that they will not be at a competitive disadvantage. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the request to rezone Elm to Milliken would be any different from the Wohl request, since the Wohl parcel is closer to the Haven Avenue intersection. Mr. Hoxworth stated they had previously had discussions with the City that they would not apply for any other zone changes to retail properties on the north side of Foothill Boulevard until the Promenade site matures. However, he said it now appears that the rules are changing relative to how properties are rezoned and they do not want to be at a competitive disadvantage. Commissioner Melcher observed that Lewis' March 13 letter indicates they will be rezoning the Elm to Milliken parcel but then states in the next paragraph that the "City needs to carefully consider the Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 27, 1996 impact of additional retail zoning on existing Centers." He asked if Lewis meant the City should be careful in considering requests from Lewis as well as from Wohl. Mr. Hoxworth responded that their proposal to rezone is purely one from a competitive situation in that they want to have competitive sites closer to Haven Avenue. He said that if the Agajanian study and the study they did to justify the Promenade do not hold true, then they would like to look at other sites they feel may be better located for retailers than the Promenade. Commissioner McNiel stated that Mr. Hoxworth had voiced concern about the process and fair play under the process and protecting their property rights under the process. He noted that the Terra Vista Community Plan has been continually revised since it was adopted. He said State law requires that the City be willing to consider General Plan amendments several times during the year. He did not feel considering Wohl's request is taking unfair advantage of any other developer. Mr. Hoxworth said he was talking about the steps involved in the process that they have historically gone through. Chairman Barker said he heard Mr. Hoxworth to say they were trying to protect themselves because they feel the process has been changed. Mr. Hoxworth said that most projects processed within Rancho Cucamonga have provided much more detailed plans with any zoning applications so the City will know what will be developed. He said that was the change in process he was referring to. Commissioner McNiel stated some plans had been proposed which had been rejected. He said that Wohl knows that if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the plans that have been submitted will have to be changed. Commissioner Melcher observed that the staff report identifies that the City has the request without a planned proposal and that is of great concem to the staff and he thought it bears in some measure on staff's recommendation that the request be denied. He felt the staff report was extremely well done and did not feel the application or the recommendation before the Commission constitutes a change to the process. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:40 p.m. to 8:48 p.m. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, #205, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was speaking on behalf of the project. He felt the original objections and concerns raised about Terra Vista were similar to those the Commission was hearing tonight. He said it was his understanding that Wohl's proposal has been in process for quite some time. He stated that Mr. Desforges would not have spoken for so long if he felt he had a done deal. He observed the staff report indicated that there have been leasing difficulties experienced by the Masi project and other properties along Foothill Boulevard. He felt there were unique problems with the Masi project and the Moore site and he thought most of those problems had been self-inflicted and did not have anything to do with the marketplace or design standards of the City. He observed that Mr. Hoxworth had indicated there is a better market for properties located closer to Haven Avenue, which meant the Wohl property is well situated for commercial. He commented that many large corporations go into bankruptcy but continue to operate and would not necessarily be vacating their premises. He said one of the challenges for the Terra Vista sites is that they have very large users and the small retailers are sometimes lost in the mix. He noted the Wohl proposal has a much smaller scale and he felt it has a better balance and design. He thought the restaurants and anchors will draw in and complement the other businesses in the Wohl project. He felt it will offer competition to the businesses across the street. He said he has talked to the Best Buy people and was told that electronics firms benefit by having competition close by because buyers are drawn to the area to do comparison shopping. He remarked that the Good Guys have sophisticated marketing techniques Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 27, 1996 at their disposal and the City should consider that they are willing to invest in this location. He said they are also considering the Ontario Mills site. He stated Wohl is not talking about compromising quality or design standards. He noted that the staff report expresses reservations about approving the request for the land use change because no plan was submitted with it. He said some people want to determine the use issue before looking at a plan while others seem to want to look at plans before determining the use issue. He felt the use should be approved in order to turn Foothill Boulevard into a commercial corridor with retail on both sides of the street. He said the project will be complementary to the existing land uses and those across the street. He noted they already have some commercial uses but said one of their prime uses (office related commercial) has located across the street. He said the current commercial uses are very restrictive. He felt there are a lot of stdp commercial centers in the City. He asked that the City put away type-cast, traditional terms so far as designations and land uses and be creative. He hoped the City would not lock out retail users by having Lewis be the only game in town. Gary Kendrick, 6661 Morocco Street, Rancho Cucamonga, observed that he had spoken at the November City Council meeting. He stated that the developer presented one set of plans at last year's Planning Commission meeting and another set at the City Council meeting. He felt it is an infamous chameleon, constantly changing. He felt that the Planning Commission should recommend denial unless there have been dramatic changes since last year. He asked that the City not grant Wohl a credit card to change the property to whatever they want. He felt the project is a less ambitious project than it was previously with the Good Guys being the only common denominator. He stated that the City Council denied the project without prejudice only because the market report had not been completed. He thought the City Council should again deny the project unless there were some stadling revelations in the market report. He felt the City should appreciate the wisdom of the General Plan and the way things are done. He asked that the Commission stand firm and deny the request for a zoning change. Brad Umansky, Grubb & Ellis, 7269 Fermo Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and a retail specialist. He said he has worked with Mr. Desforges since the last time the project was before the City. He felt the current zoning of industrial for the parcel does not make sense. He did not think the requested change would negatively affect anyone. He said there were no residents speaking against the project because of concerns about crime or increased traffic. He felt there are plenty of other opportunities in the community for the uses which are currently zoned; i.e., plenty of land for office space along Haven Avenue and plenty of land for industrial south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Haven Avenue. He thought there are few parcels remaining that would be appropriate for retail and he felt this proposal for a narrow site with good visibility near the Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue intersection makes sense. He thought the use is logical for the site and it would not create an onerous situation for other landowners. He commented that Mr. Hoxworth argued against the process and potential competition but not the use. He felt the Agajanian study presented information that should be used as a tool but it should not be taken as gospel. He acknowledged that there are several large retail buildings which are vacant in the community but he felt that is true in many communities today. He felt those vacant properties will always be more competitive than anything built in the future and he thought those buildings will be absorbed over time. He thought centers currently have a higher leased rate than they did a year ago. He commented that Terra Vista Town Center has most of its vacancies in the Food Court area and he felt it may be because the Food Court area is hidden behind other buildings. He stated here had been about 100 residents at the City Council meeting in November when Wohl's project was denied. He said the residents were at the meeting regarding another matter, but after the meeting about 10 people stated they would like to have retail in that location. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the change because he feared Mr. Desforges will lose credibility in the marketplace and the momentum will be lost. He commented that Rancho Cucamonga has recently been more proactive in trying to help business even though it is still a difficult place to do business because of the high standards. He felt the City will lose credibility if they do not approve this change because it is a logical project. Planning Commission Minutes -8o March 27, 1996 Commissioner McNiel observed that Mr. Umansky said the City has high standards and a certain image. He asked if it is the City's high standards or the rest of the world's lower standards that the City is struggling with. Mr. Umansky said Rancho Cucamonga has higher standards than other communities. He felt the higher standards have a benefit but they make life more difficult from a developer"s point of view because it is easier to develop in another City. Commissioner McNiel asked if that meant the City should relax its standards in the hot pursuit of tax dollars. Mr. Umansky did not think it should and he did not think the Wohl project is asking that the standards be changed. Mr. Umansky said when he was talking about high standards he was talking about architectural standards, but not from a point of view of dropping standards to put a beer and wine mini-market on a corner when the City does not want a mini-market on the corner. He felt there are two levels of standards; one from a construction point of view and another from a use point of view. He thought Rancho Cucamonga has high standards for both and other cities have a lower standards from a use point of view when the use is onerous to other parties. He felt the change was not being requested for tax purposes but because it is a logical progression for the property. Andrew Hall, General Manager of Best Western Heritage Inn, 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had previously appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council to express concerns with having a Good Guys store immediately in front of the hotel. He said he has subsequently talked with Mr. Desforges and the concerns he previously voiced have now been addressed. He said he now feels there is an opportunity to highlight the hotel with synergy on the comer by having a restaurant on the corner and retaining the hotel's visibility to Foothill Boulevard. He stated he was glad for the City's high development standards because he felt the process made for a better hotel. He indicated he had also been told a restaurant on the corner pad could be of similar design and style to the hotel. He understood that the Planning Commission still needs to look at the bigger issue of determining what is best for not only the hotel, but also the residents, the community, and the business community. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel observed that the site is 14.4 acres that, if it is rezoned, would amount to about 2 percent of what will ultimately be built out in the community. He acknowledged that is not significant but he felt the significance is the location and the City's approach to the General Plan and the community as it was designed to be developed when the General Plan was first put together. He said the original plans were for retail on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, some commercial and mostly industrial on the south side. He said the City has deviated from that in the past and he has experienced some regrets in the process. He stated that Mr. Desforges had previously told the Commission that Best Buy is doing well but Circuit City is experiencing some problems. He felt that the Wohl proposal is being driven by one user, the Good Guys, and he did not feel the that one user will make such a large contribution to the City that the change should be made on a one-user driven property. He said the property is already zoned for some commercial uses and he felt the property could be developed under its current zoning. He commented the City had already considered the proposal and said he saw nothing new that was offered to entice the City to alter its previous decision. He did not see that changing the zoning will benefit the community and did not think that lining Foothill Boulevard with commercial on both the north and side sides from the eastern City limits to Haven Avenue and beyond will benefit the City in the long term. He said such a proposal reminds him of Palmdale with one long stretch of strip centers. He was uncomfortable with making the change and thought he might be more receptive to such a change in perhaps five years after other development has taken place. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 27, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp observed that numerous people had spoken this evening and he said he would like to address some of those comments. He said a number of people had spoken in opposition because of the General Plan. He felt that planning is a process that is continually evolving and needs to change for progress and to allow innovation to continue. He thought Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan needs to be revised. He noted that one person spoke about spot zoning, vacancy rates, cluttering, and economic growth. He asked how this request was different from the Promenade project with respect to spot zoning. He felt the vacancy rate is a function of the economy and the lease rates on a per square foot basis and smaller users generally have to pay more money because the larger users are the major draws. He said comments were made that Foothill Boulevard is cleady the undisputed commercial corridor in the City, but he asked why one only one side is commercial and the other side industrial. He was not sure that he agreed with comments that this is a community oriented commercial area while the 4th Street area is regionally oriented commercial. He thought that some users along Foothill are more regionally oriented such as Best Buy and Home Depot. He was not sure that the property will fill a niche. He noted that the architect who designed Terra Vista Town Center indicated that Town Center is a strip center. He questioned how this center will be any worse or any better. He asked "If not us, who; if not here, where; and if not now, when~' He felt that because Lewis Homes has indicated a desire to change the zoning on the north side between Elm and Milliken that indicates that there may be a good reason for changing the zoning on this property because Lewis Homes has first-hand knowledge about the retail market in this community. He thought the City should consider changing the entire Foothill Boulevard corridor. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been involved from the developer standpoint in the preparation of the Terra Vista Community Plan. He felt there is a distinct difference between the north side of Foothill Boulevard and the south side and that difference is the centers concept. He said the notion of the centers concept is that gathering one or more related uses together on a large parcel of land allows for a quality of development which is quite different from a strip center which was regarded as an anathema at the time the plan was being prepared and the City was preparing its General Plan. He felt the only thing which can happen on a parcel as small as the Wohl property is a strip center with a narrow field of parking parallel to the street with a row of small uses at the back of the site. He acknowledged that it may be done with more creativity, but said it would still remain a strip center and he did not think that was the kind of vision the City has always had for Foothill Boulevard. He thought the City was being asked to rezone in an opportunistic way to solve a problem for a landowner who has a small piece of property. He did not think that is what planning should be and he did not support the application. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. Desforges delivered a compelling argument in favor of his request but he noted the City recently commissioned and received a professional study concerning commercial development and one of the conclusions was that the City probably has too much commercial land available for future needs of the City. He observed that study was supported by other professional opinions as well. He stated that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for the long-term goals and strategies for retail development and the Commission has held several meetings and will need several more meetings in order to arrive at the goals and strategies to present to the City Council for their approval or disapproval. He did not support the application at this time. He indicated he had previously expressed concerns about the physical constraints of the property and he still had those concerns. He noted that the proposal and Mr. Bond had both mentioned drive-thru restaurants and he did not feel a ddve-thru facility will fit with enough stacking space, parking, and other associated needs. He agreed with the points raised by Commissioners Melcher and McNiel. Chairman Barker said that Mr. Desforges is an articulate, convincing debater. He stated he has said several times that the City needs to look at the master plan which exists to evaluate these issues. He agreed with Commissioner Lumpp that the City should look at the entire Foothill Boulevard corridor to consider if it should all be commercial. He thought it should be looked at in total, not just one small piece. He agreed the property is a difficult piece of property. He did not think the City Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 27, 1996 should be making a decision on one small piece of property at a time because there is an opportunity for the current owner of that property. He said he resented having to make a decision on this small property without being able to look at the remaining six to seven properties on the same side of the street who probably want the same thing. He noted that Mr. Desforges had suggested that the City should approve this request but wait 5-15 years before considering the remainder of the properties to the east. He did not think that if Mr. Desforges owned any of the property the east he would want to wait up to 15 years. He felt the City had started the process of looking at the General Plan to see if it should be modified and he commented that some City Council Members have indicated they feel the entire Foothill Boulevard corridor east of Haven should be commercial. He did not think changing the use on this property alone is good planning. He felt that if the City Council has made the decision that this change would be in the best interest of the City, then the Planning Commission would do what it is directed to do to make it work. He said he did not support this particular change because it is out of context and it is not fair. Commissioner Lumpp said he tried to focus on what Commissioner Melcher said with regard to a land use perspective that if the zoning is changed it will create a situation which will cause a strip center which is less desirable than what we normally would like to see. He asked how different in size and shape the Wohl parcel is from other properties which have already been rezoned west of Haven Avenue. He thought there are two centers to the west of Haven Avenue which are of similar size and depth. Chairman Barker noted that the parcels to the west of Haven Avenue were in-fill projects of leftover parcels from County development. He acknowledged this project is almost in-fill in nature because of its awkward shape. Commissioner McNiel felt that the awkward shape is by design. Commissioner Lumpp appreciated that Chairman Barker concurred with the idea of looking at the entire corridor. He felt there will be other requests for zone changes to commercial along Foothill Boulevard even if this zone change were not approved. Commissioner McNiel stated that when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was written, Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard was considered the heart of the City and going to the east was to be a transition from office commercial with ancillary uses to those functions down to the regionally related center at the mall site. He stated that regionally related commercial uses were planned near the freeway. He observed that the original plan was not etched in stone and it could obviously be changed but he urged caution so that the area does not mimic Palmdale. Commissioner Lumpp said he did not feel this community has any direct relationship to Palmdale. Commissioner McNiel felt it is a lot closer today than it was five years ago. Chairman Barker noted that Commissioner McNiel's comments about the original concept was correct. He asked if the City should now look at a master plan for the City to see if it should be modified. Commissioner McNiel agreed it should be looked at but he felt the historical perspective should be considered. Chairman Barker felt that changing individual pieces will leave the City in a situation where one day it will have to try to glue all the pieces together. Commissioner Lumpp agreed it was piecemealing. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 27, 1996 Chairman Barker said he does not want to piecemeal development. He felt the City has an advantage of not having piecemealed development in this area. He said there are other areas of the City where it is obvious projects have had to be piecemealed in. He said he was not bothered that someone is asking that the City consider changing the zoning, but he was bothered by not having time and the opportunity to look at the total picture. He said the rezoning on the Wohl properly may make sense by itself but he was not comfortable approving the request. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that the Commission has had two workshops on the Foothill Boulevard corridor issue and more will be held in the future. He suggested the Commission may wish to ask if the applicant would be willing to table the item to allow additional time to look at the entire south side of Foothill Boulevard between Haven Avenue and the freeway. Chairman Barker said he wanted to consider the north side as well. Mr. Buller suggested that perhaps a time frame could be established for those decisions. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Buller could suggest how much time that would take. He thought it would require reopening the General Plan, the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the Foothill Boulevard Plan and going through a series of public hearings and workshops with the properly owners and Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Buller asked what the Commission would like as supporting factual evidence so it could make some recommendations about the corridor. He said he felt some people may feel the City has enough information to make the recommendation for change. He acknowledged that starting from scratch to change the General Plan, Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Foothill Boulevard Plan could take from six months to a year. Commissioner Melcher felt that the only data the Commission has received was the study which recommended that it not be changed. He thought the Commission would need data that would suppod the change. He said he was willing to work with Mr. Desforges for whatever length of time it will take but he thought Mr. Desforges needs to know it will be a long process. Chairman Barker said that was correct but that was one of the frustrating things about making the changes on a piecemeal basis. He noted that the Masi request was the first but there are other properly owners along the street who will also want to make changes. He thought the City should not just keep tinkering with the plan but it should plan. He said that theoretically if there is a plan, a businessman can look at the plan and go forward. Commissioner McNiel said the City has a General Plan which has been adopted and is in place. He said Mr. Desforges has presented evidence suggesting that a change be made but he felt the evidence was not compelling enough for the Planning Commission to do that. He thought considering the entire corridor would not change Mr. Desforges' position. He suggested that the City move slowly on making changes to Foothill Boulevard zoning. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 96-01A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01. Chairman Barker requested that Mr. Desforges respond to Mr. Buller's question as to whether he would want to continue the matter. Mr. Desforges questioned what would change with respect to the concems he heard. He did not feel it is a relevant argument to hold up his request while considering the remainder of Foothill Boulevard because he felt changes have been made to the north side zoning without considering the entire street and the results of those changes have shown it can be successful. He thought the City should look at making changes as the opportunities arise and developers present plans that make sense. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 27, 1996 He thought their plan makes sense on their property. He said he heard concerns about the depth of the property and commented that they are proposing a parking field that is as deep as that which is in front of Petsmart. He said the parking area in front of Roger Dunn is only seven spaces deep. He said he had already made all the arguments he could with reference to the Agajanian study so he did not see any benefit to postponing his request. He felt the Agajanian study merely reflected Mr. Agajanian's personal opinion that retail should not be on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He guessed that Mr. Agajanian felt the City had concerns about putting retail on the south side. He noted that the General Plan envisioned business-related retail on the south side of Foothill but said that unfortunately there are no longer a retail uses that support businesses as opposed to residential. He felt the City should consider how retail uses have changed. He said that if their proposal is denied through the process, they would of course continue to work with the Planning Commission to find an ultimate use of the site but he felt nothing else will happen for many years. He said he cannot fill 15 acres with permitted uses. He felt there is merit in considering his parcel separately from the remainder of Foothill Boulevard because of the opportunity to have a Good Guys store and the he felt the site makes sense. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. He noted that the north side of Foothill Boulevard has been changed over the years piece-by-piece. He noted that Mr. Desforges had said the change makes sense for his site and stated that his concern is for more than that site. He called the question. The motion to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 96-01A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: BARKER, LUMPP ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman Barker said he voted no because he wants to look at the whole picture rather than one piece at a time. Commissioner Lumpp felt there was compelling testimony given this evening which he felt warranted the decision he made in concert with what Chairman Barker stated about the desire to consider the entire Boulevard. NEW BUSINESS E. DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request to initiate text changes to the Etiwanda Specific Plan development standards for the area south of the 1-15 Freeway. Related File: Preliminary Review 95-10. Related file: Tentative Tract 15711. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the applicant was proposing to change any aspects of the Etiwanda Specific Plan other than the lot size. Mr. Hayes responded that the applicant is asking for changes to be consistent with the same development districts that are governed by the Development Code so that would include lot sizes, setbacks, lot coverage, and the elimination of the requirement to have 50 percent of the homes plotted other than parallel to the street frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant wanted to eliminate some of the architectural requirements that apply to homes in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 27, 1996 Mr. Hayes replied that the applicant was not proposing to change those. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Pete Pitassi, Architect, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite 105, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Diversified Pacific. He requested that they be permitted to process an application for an amendment. Commissioners Lumpp, McNiel, and Melcher indicated they had met with Mr. Pitassi regarding his proposal. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to accept the proponent's request to initiate a text change to the Etiwanda Specific Plan upon submission of an application. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE - Review of the Uniform Sign Program for the proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed Phase One consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use District (Commercial, Residential, Office) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker observed he had expressed concern about the mastic to be used between the stones on the sign. He felt an incorrect color mastic would ruin the image. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City has been shown the design of the center other than the Home Depot facility. Mr. Hayes replied that staff has met to discuss preliminary uses and building designs with other possible pad tenants but nothing has been submitted as yet. Commissioner Melcher recalled that the center is proposed to be a number of large box buildings with a facade applied to the front which is very different from what has been developed in the past. He thought the proposed signs could be very character giving and are very different from anything else that Lewis has placed on Foothill Boulevard in the past. He did not object but he wondered whether it will be appropriate once the center is designed. He thought it might be better to wait to see what is planned for the rest of the center. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the stone came from the activity center which will be on the comer of Rochester Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard and has already been reviewed and approved. He said they were trying to be consistent with that. He noted that there will be a heavily landscaped pedestrian area in front of the building facades. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to approve the Uniform Sign Program for Condtional Use Permit 95-11. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 27, 1996 G. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 96-05 - PATRICK SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.- A courtesy review of a proposed juvenile housing facility located in the General Industrial designation (Subarea t4) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Fourth Street - APN: 229-283-70. Commissioner Melcher excused himself from the dias because he works for the applicant. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chris Sahlen, Patrick Sullivan Associates, 5211 Jurupa Avenue, Riverside, stated they will address the issues brought up by the Design Review Committee. He said landscaping will be added along Etiwanda Avenue. He proposed dark green or brown vinyl clad or powder coated chain link fencing for the fence facing Etiwanda Avenue because the fencing is in front of a block wall and it would be less noticable than regular chain link. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the fencing will be visible from Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Sahlen replied it is visible but it will be approximately 400 feet back from the street. He said there had also been concerns voiced regarding the height of the wall. He said the wall is 12 feet high but he thought it could be nicely done. He stated that because they are on a fast track and have to get the documents out for bid within 30 days, the aesthetics have to wait until later but they would not ignore them. He said the mechanics of the building are designed and ready to go. He said they will come back with a scored split face with a heirarchy of a base, a mid-range, and a capital feeling to the structure to give it depth and they will also do that on the permieter walls to soften the massive height. He introduced Leatha Wiest-Elsdon and said she had been involved with the project since the beginning. Leatha Wiest-Elsdon, 7260 Corte Place, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that Mr. Sahlen had addressed everything. Chairman Barker thanked the proponent for their quick response and willingness to address the concerns raised at Design Review. Mr. Sahlen felt the location is probably the best site because it is at the most invisible podion of the parcel. He said they are leaving a large area between the building and Etiwanda Avenue for future development of a more benign project. Commissioner McNiel said they had presented some very lovely textured walls and that the City would not want straight precision block with paint. He indicated it had been a pleasure to meet with the applicant at Design Review. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the perimeter chain link fence will have razor wire on top. Mr. Sahlen replied negatively. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the metal seam roof will be the same color as the rendering. Mr. Sahlen replied it will be a deeper red than the rendering. He said it is a brick red. Commissioner Lumpp felt that the California Highway Patrol facility and the fire station on Milliken Avenue have unattractive roofs. He asked if this roof will be similar. Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 27, 1996 Ms. Wiest-Elsdon thought the roof on the fire station has turned pink from oxidation. Commissioner McNiel asked if a more muted color could be used for the roof. Ms. Wiest-Elsdon felt they are proposing a deeper, more muted one. Mr. Sahlen said it would fade to a brown. Ms. Wiest-Elsdon noted that the elevation is from a straight-on view and people looking up at the building will only see about a third of the roof. Chairman Barker thanked the proponents for their cooperation. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buffer, City Planner, announced that several Commissioners had indicated they may want to attend the neighborhood meeting regarding the relocation of the Maloof residence. He reminded the Commission that the meeting will be held Saturday, March 30 at 2:30 p.m. He said Commissioners were invited to attend, but their role would be strictly as observers because of the Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 10:35 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 6:00 P.M. on April 10, 1996, for a workshop to be held in the Rains Room regarding Variance 95~04 - Sacred Hearth Catholic Church. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 27, 1996