Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/10/11 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 11, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 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. ROI.L CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel (arrived at 8:25 p.m.), John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent LeCount, Associate Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Shelley Petrelli, Planning Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Barker, carried 2-0-1-2 (Melcher and Tolstoy abstain, McNiel absent), to approve the minutes of September 27, 1995. CONSENT CALENDAR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-23 - THE MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP - A request to construct a 24,045 square foot addition to an existing commercial building (Price Club) in the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), locate on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-35 and 43. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, (McNiel absent), carried 4-0-1, to approve Conditional Use Permit 95-23. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A - WOHL/RANCHO 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. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 - 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. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 95-02-A. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked what the status of the City's market analysis was. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that the rough draft was sent back to the consultant and it should be back to the City in about two weeks and would likely be distributed to the Commission soon thereafter. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the original time line was still intact. Mr. Buller replied it was still within the time line. Mr. Lumpp asked why the setback requirements were mentioned in the staff report when the site plan had not been evaluated yet. Ms. Bratt responded that she had performed a brief review for the potential fastfood use and determined that the setback requirements had not been met for that use. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter DesForges, Wohl/Rancho Partners, 2400 Michelson Dr. #170, Irvine, CA 92715, stated that he had sent a memo to Mr. Buller yesterday addressing questions that were in the staff report and he assumed that the Commission had a copy. Mr. Buller, responded that the Commissioners had received that information. He pointed out to the Commission that a letter from Urban Research Associates, responding to the market study, had been placed in front of the Commission for this meeting. Mr. DesForges commented that Wohl Partners believes the site should be changed from Industrial to Community Commercial and explained the concept of "critical massing" of retailers related to how retail has changed since the inception of the General Plan. He stated that critical mass retailing was the clustering of similar retail businesses, in a fairly close proximity to one another, to provide customers with the convenience of comparison shopping. He further commented that this idea originated a few years ago with the introduction of auto malls. He stated that he recently read in the Business Journal that the Mills project, in Ontario, will be good competition for Rancho retailers. He said this was an excellent location for this project given the recent clustering of retail between Terra Vista and the 1-15 Freeway by adding to the critical mass that already exists here. He introduced Brad Kaye. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 11, 1995 Brad Kaye, Real Estate Manager for Good Guys Home Electronics, 7000 Marina Blvd., Brisbane, CA 94005, stated that Good Guys went public in 1986 with 12 stores and now have 64 stores with sales of over one billion dollars. He stated his job is working up demographics, determining where new stores should be located, and negotiating the deals for these stores. He commented that they do extensive analysis prior to selecting a site and the Rancho market shows a trade base of more than 400,000 people, with the good incomes, and they have no hesitation in moving into the area. He went on to state that they are the industry leader in consumer electronics sales and their sales increase last year was 29 percent (8 percent above average). He stated they were interested in locating in Rancho and at this site because they want to be where they have an attractive street frontage and in an area where their customers can conveniently cross-shop. He pointed out that their business actually generates more revenue when they are located next door or across the street from their direct competitors (i.e.; Best Buy and Circuit City). He stated that the service level and their high-end merchandise is what makes them successful. Commissioner Lumpp asked why they haven't considered locating on the north side of Foothill within Towne Square or another location in that area. Mr. Kaye stated he was not aware of an opportunity there. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Kaye was aware of the concern expressed about the proposed location of that building; it is a large building placed up against Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Kaye stated that was no longer their location; they are in line with the other buildings. Chairman Barker asked if they moved the building location. Mr. Kaye responded affirmatively. Mr. DesForges stated that there was a revised map attached to the letter given to the Commission earlier this evening. He stated he wanted to address the issue of locating the proposed project on the south side of Foothill. He said their site offers opportunities to their potential tenants that they may not be able to get elsewhere because the site has over 14,000 square feet of frontage on Foothill Boulevard, it is convenience-oriented, and is easily accessible for ingress and egress traffic. He commented that the project has the potential to produce quite a bit of sales tax benefits for the City. He stated there will be approximately 100 extra parking spaces at the site that could be used to move buildings around if staff and Commission want. He felt the project is compatible with surrounding retail because it would broaden the scope already available. He stated that Great Western's main objection was that they thought there should be a restaurant on the corner, rather than Good Guys, and he stated Wohl Partners agreed and changed the location of Good Guys so that could occur. Chairman Barker asked for additional questions and/or speakers on the proposal. Andrew Hall, Manager, Best Western/Heritage Inn, 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730, stepped up to address the Commission stating he was pleased to find out that Good Guys will not be locating in building J, but at the same time, he was concerned that building A could pose visibility problems for the hotel also. He was pleased to note that two restaurants are under construction currently within walking distance of the hotel and stated more restaurants and movie theaters in the area are good for their customers. He stated his desire to have the Commission consider placement of types of business that complement the hotel rather than detract from it. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 11, 1995 Chairman Barker asked for clarification on the issue of building J versus building A and the hotel's concern regarding this matter. Mr. Hall responded that street visibility on the east side of their building is still a concern as J and A are about the same size, and depending on the height of the proposed building, either has the potential to block their visibility from the approaching westbound traffic. Chairman Barker asked for additional public comments on the project, and hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp stated there were many issues to consider and it was his feeling that market studies can be manipulated any number of ways and that isn't necessarily the information he is seeking to make his decision. He commented that there are CEQA issues that need to be explored, including air quality. He stated he felt this could be a good location for this land use, but he was concerned about making a final decision on this issue before our consultant's commercial study is completed. Commissioner Melcher stated he thought the applicant had made a sincere effort but he felt he would not be able to support the project because he had not been shown yet how the land use would fit into the longer range plan (the Industrial Specific Plan). He stated the depth of the site troubled him as the parking in front of the biggest stores has to be shifted one direction or the other to ensure there will be ample parking. He did not feel what had been presented thus far was convincing enough for him to change his opinion. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought we needed to reflect on the original vision for the City, which was to have residential and associated business commercial retail uses above Foothill Boulevard and industrial and associated commercial service uses below Foothill Boulevard. He stated that this has remained true with a relatively small amount of ~leakage" on Archibald Avenue and the Masi project (by the sports complex), but he felt there was no need to change that vision at this time. He stated the problems he saw were: 1) required landscape and building setbacks; 2) parking with limited access from Foothill; 3) building mass; 4) buffering of the surrounding properties; he felt there was no way to accommodate all these conditions on a site with only a 400-foot depth. He agreed with Commissioner Melcher's views on the parking situation. He told Mr. Kaye that he would like to see Good Guys locate in Rancho, but this was a land use issue, not an issue of whether we wanted Good Guys here or not. Chairman Barker asked for clarification on the current allowable land uses and conditional uses that could have a major impact on parking, etc., at the proposed site. Mr. Buller responded that under the Industrial Specific Plan, the type of retail uses allowed are called Business Support Retail; businesses that support the business industry on the south side of Foothill. He stated this was one of the broader, more open commercial designations. The limitation is what will physically fit on the site with parking and building mass. Chairman Barker stated his question was which uses would have an impact on the elements of this project. He requested clarification on whether a movie theater is a permitted use for the site now. Mr. Buller responded that a theater is a conditionally permitted use under the existing land use. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 11, 1995 Chairman Barker asked if a theater would have similar parking or site plan problems. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought they would have similar problems, given the depth of the property and the potential for such a concentrated use. Commissioner Melcher stated that strip-fashion arrangement of buildings on Foothill was never the intention of the original plan. Chairman Barker stated he would like to be supportive of a plan for restaurants and movie theaters because he thought that there weren't enough theaters currently to support the present population. He asked Commissioner Lumpp for clarification on his former comments regarding the City's consultant study. Commissioner Lumpp stated that Urban Research Associates (URA) was the consultant for the original Foothill Specific Plan and they stated, at that time, there was no need for additional commercial uses in the City; now they are coming back saying that perhaps there is a need for additional commercial use. He stated he is not convinced by this market study, or other market studies, that the information is sufficient to make him comfortable approving this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted to change what he had previously said by stating he now believed that a movie theater could be appropriate for this location. He stated that previously he had thought of it in a strip-fashion configuration, but with a different footprint, there could be a theater (with appropriate parking) on the property. Commissioner Melcher stated that looking at a piece of property, individually, without considering the larger, long-range plan for Foothill Boulevard seems opportunistic since there is already a developer and tenants ready to move forward; it does not mean the proposal is right for the City however. He stated he understood the benefit to the City, with regard to sales tax prospects, but his function is to determine the appropriateness of the project for that particular site. Mr. Buller commented that he had just now been informed that a resident in the audience wanted to speak to the Commission regarding this matter. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing and invited the resident to come forward. Fred Doe, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, apologized for arriving late as he did not realize this would be the first item heard this evening. He said he had just listened to the tapes from' the recent City Council meeting on this project and he wanted to comment on a couple things he heard on those tapes. He complimented Commissioner Melcher on his ability to change his mind when given new or different information. He stated he agreed with what he had heard from the Commission this evening as he did not think strip malls were a positive move for the City. He also stated he was pleased to hear the Commission aligning closely with their Specific Plan and General Plan for the area, but that they are also willing to make considerations as needed. He stated that someone should look at all the strip malls currently in the City and check their vacancy rates and compare those malls to the land uses they have. He commented that consideration should be given to projects that will enhance or complement the hotel/convention operations which in turn could generate even more tax benefits to the City later. Mr. Doe did not feel there was a need for more theaters, or at least more in the same vicinity, as there just weren't that many good movies out at one time. He stated that perhaps we could consider using some vacated retail space in the City before making a land use change of this 14 acres. He Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 11, 1995 stated there is an obligation to look at development as it comes up and to allow City staff to have the proactive advisory role that is intended to implement the long range goals and plans of the City. He ended by paraphrasing comments from Commissioner McNiel, stating that if one of these businesses does not make it because of the direct competition the other creates, we then end up with a blight on one of the most beautiful, industrial, historic areas in Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. DesForges stated the narrow depth of the site should not create parking problems because of the extra spaces currently available and because the building orientations could be rearranged. He commented on the other issue of strip mall versus meandering retail building placement by saying that they have found these centers are not successful. He stated people need to see the sign on the storefront and be able to get in and out conveniently. He commented that orienting any of their commercial use away from Foothill, to the south, would not be feasible for them because the traffic count in that direction is too sparse. He stated that the land use already does allow commercial uses, they are only asking to broaden those uses. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. He asked for a motion. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Melcher, seconded by Commissioner Lumpp, carried 4-0-1, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL - carried , , , , , The Commission recessed at 8:20 PM and reconvened at 8:30 PM. McNeil arrived at 8:25 PM. Commissioner GRUBB & ELLIS - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add thrift stores as a Community Commercial use within Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for a definition of a "thrift store." Mr. Coleman responded that perhaps a second-hand store would be a better definition because it is used or second-hand items for resale. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a store such as the American Cancer Society would be considered a "thrift store." Mr. Coleman replied he was not familiar with that particular store and that the application was for the Salvation Army. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that definition would include pawn shops, second-hand, or used goods. Commissioner Melcher asked for examples of General Commercial areas. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 11, 1995 Mr. Coleman responded that the following would be considered General Commercial: the Virginia Dare Business Center; the center on the northwest corner of Hermosa and Arrow; portions of Grove (south of Foothill); downtown Alta Loma; and the former Gemco Center. Chairman Barker asked if anyone from Grubb & Ellis was present to address the Commission. (There was no response from the audience.) Commissioner Tolstoy asked the Commission how they felt about 4~charity" thrift stores, (items are donated and sold solely for the benefit of the charity) versus "commercial" thrift stores (second-hand merchandise is resold). Commissioner Melcher stated that would be considered a church-operated store. Chairman Barker stated that the issue wasn't what type of operation it was or where the money was going as much as it was an issue of what type of impact these stores had on the Foothill Specific Plan. He stated that these stores attract a specific clientele which in turn does not generate a desire for high-level retail to locate in the same center. He commented that this type of business does not promote the ideals of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and he would not be in favor of it. Commissioner McNeil stated that most organizations operating thrift stores are non-profit, but he pointed out that much of Holt Boulevard and downtown Ontario have these type of outlets and they do not have a positive effect on the community or the leasing of retail stores within the centers. He stated that he wasn't saying these operations did not provide a service, but rather that caution needed to be used in their placement because the community has to live with the diminishing effects they have. He commented that careful consideration should be taken with vacant retail space in the City and how it should be filled. Commissioner Melcher mentioned that perhaps consideration should be given to changing the General Commercial designation to ensure that a thrift store does not go into the Gemco Center. Mr. Coleman clarified that the Gemco Center is actually not in the General Commercial designation, although it has a similar classification to this site, but he commented that previously he was referring to K-Mart Center (which is General Commercial) and another site, the Deer Creek Village (north of Virginia Dare). Commissioner Melcher stated that he saw no reason to initiate the change. Mr. Buller stated that the Commission did not need to take a formal action on this item. He stated he was sorry that the gentleman making the initial request was not present, but he went on to explain that the Commission must first consent to the initiation process for a textual amendment to a Specific Plan prior to the applicant submitting the application and fee requesting the amendment. He commented that the Commission had gone a little further by giving their opinion and suggested that, if they felt these types of shops may be appropriate elsewhere in the City, they could consider that issue at a later date. Mr. Buller stated that staff would get back to the gentleman requesting consent to initiate the textual amendment, informing him of the Commission's comments, and allow him to proceed as he wishes. Chairman Barker suggested that perhaps community involvement with this issue might help provide an appropriate end result to the issue. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 11, 1995 E. DISCUSSION ON SMALL LOT DEVELOPMRNT - Presentation by Lewis Homes and Griffin Homes - (Oral Report) Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that a slide show presentation would be presented to the Commission on small lot development and then the Commission would have an informal discussion regarding the potential for this concept in Rancho in the future. Richard Niece, Griffin Industries, stated he was present, along with Lewis Homes, to give the Commission a presentation on small lot development. He briefly went over the booklet he passed out to the Commission and then introduced world- renowned architect Barry Berkitz. Mr. Berkitz presented the slide show. Gary Luque, Lewis Homes, presented information on some possible changes to the Terra Vista Community Plan. The Planning Commission agreed to accept the applicants' offer to attend a field trip to view other small lot projects. They thanked everyone for the very informative presentation and asked the City Planner to work with the presenters on a date and itinerary for the field trip. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS No Commission Business was discussed. ~DJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned at 10:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 11, 1995