Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/09/13 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 13, 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. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-46 - FLORES -A resolution of denial of a request to modify the approved site plan and certain conditions of approval for a previously approved gas station and mini-market in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN 208-192-06 and 07. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, commented that a revised resolution was in front of the Commissioners which included changes in some of the findings. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution with the amended findings. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-18/MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - PRICE COSTCO - A request to amend the original Master Plan to provide a 5,040 square foot building or a 2,800 square foot restaurant building on a one-acre parcel within an existing shopping center (Foothill Marketplace) in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031- 35. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14748 - PRICE COSTCO - A subdivision of 12.32 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Regional Related Commercial Development District, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between the 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue - APN 229-031-35. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related files: Development Review 95-18. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and noted that a letter had been received from Foothill Marketplace Partners, the shopping center developer, identifying a number of items of concern. He said he had spoken to Mr. Ramming from Foothill Marketplace Partners, who stated he wanted to clarify that they are supportive of the project and only wanted to be sure that the issues they raised are considered. He reported Mr. Ramming said he did not wish to hold up any action by the Commission. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Arthur Strock, Price Costco, 4649 Morena Boulevard, San Diego, stated they accepted the conditions as proposed. He said he and his team were available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher noted the proposed roadway design is significantly different from the sketch which Commissioner Lumpp had made at the Design Review Committee meeting. He was concerned that the intersection remains offset and that the new roadway on the Price Club property approaches the intersection at an oblique angle, rather than a right angle. He thought a lot of money will be spent without correcting the problems unless the intersection is constructed at more of a right angle. Mr. Strock said they felt this was an improvement over the sketch and he thought the Design Review Committee had accepted their revised plan. Commissioner Melcher asked that staff comment regarding the intersection. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, felt most patrons who enter the center from Foothill Boulevard who want to go east will enter at the traffic signal to the east of this intersection. He thought the majority of the people entering this intersection will be going to the right or straight and felt the proposed driveway alignment provides safe movement in those directions. He did not think there will be many people attempting to make left turns at the intersection in question. Chairman Barker noted the Commission had raised some concerns regarding the traffic pattern immediately in front of Price Club. Mr. Murphy stated that at the time the project was originally approved, the drive aisle in front of Price Club was considered as an important element to provide overall circulation for the shopping center but cones have been put up across the front of the Price Club site which have been inhibiting the traffic flow. He noted that a condition had been included in the resolution regarding the Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 13, 1995 modification to the master plan to require the cones to be removed and provide for City Planner approval of other appropriate traffic measures. Commissioner Lumpp recalled that the applicant had expressed a willingness to remove the cones even without a condition. Mr. Murphy responded that was correct. He said the condition was merely a reinforcement of what was agreed to at the Design Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant may have expressed a willingness to remove the cones, but it had not been done as yet. He felt the cones could be put back up the day after Price Costco receives approval. He feared that if the City requires removal of the cones, the City would be liable if there is a subsequent accident. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, said that it is possible, should an incident arise, that the City could be brought into a lawsuit, but he did not believe the requirement to remove the cones would create greater liability. Commissioner Melcher asked how the City can enforce keeping the cones out. Mr. Hanson said that could be handled by Code Enforcement, but he acknowledged it would be difficult. Commissioner Lumpp asked that the applicant's traffic engineer discuss the lack of a 90-degree angle at the traffic intersection. Herman Basmaciyon, Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2100 West Orangewood Avenue, Orange, felt that Mr. James had given a good summary of the situation. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He asked if the letter from Foothill Marketplace Partners should have an impact on the Commission's decision. Mr. Murphy replied that several of the points raised are issues between property owners. He thought the only one which would could potentially have bearing on the Commission's decision tonight would be regarding the location of the building relative to the property line. He said staff had not an opportunity to research what those impacts would be. He thought in a worse case scenario, it may mean forcing the building to the west if there is a need for an easement which cannot be worked out with the property owners. Commissioner Lumpp said the final decision on where the building should be is up to the Planning Commission and he felt Foothill Marketplace was merely trying to voice its concerns. Mr. Murphy observed that the letter was directed to the architect of the project, not the City. He thought that if the Commission were to approve the project as submitted by the applicant and there are requirements for easements which cannot be worked out, the applicant would have to request a modification to the plans. Commissioner Melcher stated he was still concerned about the intersection and cone issues. He felt the applicant should be required to either remove the glass enclosure which was put in at their entrance or change the openings in the glass enclosure to the sides so that people will not step directly into the drive aisle when exiting the building. He thought the construction of the glass enclosure had led to the placement of the cones to protect people exiting from vehicles traveling in the drive aisle. He thought it would be a mistake to merely rely on a condition to remove the cones. He requested that the City Traffic Engineer Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 13, 1995 comment on the differences between the proposed intersection and that which was sketched at the Design Review Committee meeting. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, agreed with the analysis which Mr. James had given. He said the intersection should operate with fairly low speeds with a two-way stop and should operate fairly well in either configuration. He thought it could be changed to a multi-way ~top or a signalized intersection. He agreed that the one which includes more of a 90-degree angle is ideally better, but he felt there are limitations on the property and the applicant wanted to cause as little disruption as possible. He felt the cone issue is important and noted he had not observed other shopping centers utilize cones in such a way that it cripples on-site circulation. Commissioner Melcher said his main concern with the applicant's proposed intersection design is that it will be particularly awkward for drivers who enter that intersection and want to go east because the angle is more than 90 degrees. Mr. Rougeau agreed it will be more awkward than the original sketch. He suggested a compromise between the two designs. He said the people entering from Foothill Boulevard will not have a stop sign before making a left turn and it would be easier to make if it is more of a 90-degree angle, but he did not think it would have to be the extreme condition depicted on the first sketch. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. He asked the applicant to comment on Commissioner Melcher's stated concerns. Mr. Strock said there is no resistance from Price Costco to removing the cones. He felt they would be happy to write a letter indicating they will remove the cones and keep them out. He noted that many City employees patronize Price Club and thought the City would know very rapidly if the cones were put up again. He said he understood Commissioner Melcher's concerns regarding the intersection, but he observed that a vehicle turning left would be turning to the far lane and said the turning radius is larger than if first appears. He thought perhaps the intersection could be changed at the corner to provide more of a 90-degree turn. Chairman Barker asked Mr. Strock to comment on Commissioner Melcher's proposed modification to the front of the store. Mr. Strock did not feel that would solve the problem because the same number of people would be exiting the store and crossing the drive aisle at that point. He thought the solution would be to remove the cones and install some other traffic device such as signage, change in paving patterns, or speed bumps. He thought that would provide an adequate level of protection for pedestrians. He did not feel Price Costco would want to tear down the glass enclosure they had just built and he did not think it would solve the problem to have the patrons exit to the sides and make a turn to enter the parking lot. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp felt that the intersection design would be acceptable since the Traffic Engineer feels comfortable with the design but said he would be happier if the geometry could be modified somewhat to provide more of a 90-degree turn. He said he had initially provided the sketch only as a suggestion and had said he would defer to the experts to make the final decision. He thought common sense would indicate that it would be better to have more of a 90-degree angle if it works within the confines of the design. He felt the City could rely on Price Costco's professionalism and common sense to remove the cones and not have to be involved with Code Enforcement. He did not feel remodeling the front of the building to bring patrons out to the sides would solve the problem because Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 13, 1995 the number of people would remain the same. He thought the minor modifications requested by the Design Review Committee had been made to the building design. He said he will be disappointed with the traffic engineer if it turns out there are problems with the loading and trash collection area because he had voiced concerns about that and was assured that it would not be a problem. He voiced support for the project. Commissioner McNiel agreed the intersection should be modified to provide more of a 90-degree angle. He also suggested that a four-way stop be considered because part of the traffic is currently forking off to go east before it reaches that point. He said that will not happen with the new design. He stated he does not like the cones, but felt that most patrons have now been trained that they can exit the store and walk directly across the drive aisle without looking to the left or right. He thought that speed bumps and possibly a stop sign will be needed to ensure the safety of patrons. Commissioner Melcher noted that the Commissioners, staff, and even the applicant had indicated the intersection could be modified and he suggested the resolution be modified to require realignment. He was not sure a four-way stop sign would be best and felt a free right-turn lane should be protected for in-bound traffic. He thought that most people expect to be able to exit a building into a safe environment. He thought the cones were put in place to provide a barrier so that people exiting the glass enclosure could be protected from immediately stepping into the drive aisle. He acknowledged it will be the same number of people exiting the building, but said it would restore the ability to step through the doors and be safe on the sidewalk if the front glass is closed and the doorways are moved to the sides. He said it would allow transitioning from inside to outside without stepping directly into traffic. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that staff is currently processing an application for expanding the Price Club. He suggested that the design of the entry be addressed with that application. He said that would allow the applicant and staff more time to evaluate the ramifications. Commissioner McNiel felt that would be appropriate. Commissioner Melcher agreed that would be appropriate. Chairman Barker also agreed but noted that people do not expect to enter drive aisles immediately upon exiting a building. Mr. Buller stated it was his understanding that the Commission was not requesting removal of the cones at this time. Chairman Barker said that was true, but it was the Commission's understanding that the expansion application is in process. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 90-37, Development Review 95-18, and Parcel Map 14748 with modifications to realign the intersection to more of a 90-degree angle and delete the requirement to remove the traffic cones from the entrance. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried Chairman Barker thanked the applicant for rapidity and diligence in working with the City. Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 13, 1995 Mr. Strock expressed appreciation for staff's efforts in quickly processing the application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to change the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres bounded by the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider Commercial, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, Conditional Use Permit 95-11, and Parcel Map 14022. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to change the land use district from "MOC" (Mixed Use Office/Commercial/Residential) to "CC" (Community Commercial) for 47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to "H" (High, 24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres of land bounded by the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider "C" (Commercial), "M" (Medium, 8-14 dwelling units per acre), and MH (Medium High, 14-24 dwelling units per acre). The changes include amending portions of the text and various tables and graphic exhibits of the community plan to implement design features of the proposed land use designations - APN: 0227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 95-01B, Conditional Use Permit 95-11, and Parcel Map 14022. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT ¢Q, - 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 (Commercial, Office, Residential) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 95-01B, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, and Parcel Map 14022. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CQ- - A subdivision of 66.5 acres of land into 12 parcels in the Mixed Use Development District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related files: General Plan Amendment 95-01B, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, and Conditional Use Permit 95-11. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that SANBAG had requested additional data from the developer on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Lewis had agreed to a two-week continuance to allow time for the report to be resubmitted and approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 13, 1995 by SANBAG and City staff. He said that Lewis had expressed a desire to comment on some of the proposed conditions. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report regarding General Plan Amendment 95-01B and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report regarding Conditional Use Permit 95-11. He noted that staff suggested adding a condition that approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-11 be contingent upon approval of General Plan Amendment 95-01B and Terra Vista Community Plan 95-01. Commissioner Melcher questioned where to find the condition dealing with the adjacency situation between this project and the proposed residential area behind it. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, replied that the language is in the proposed Terra Vista Community Plan text amendment on Page D, E 55. Commissioner Melcher asked if a road will be located behind Home Depot going into Rochester. Mr. Hayes responded that is to be a service drive for trucks exiting the site. Commissioner Melcher said he had not previously noticed a connection from Home Depot to Rochester. Mr. Hayes said the enlargement was a revision which was incorporated since the second workshop. Commissioner Lumpp asked that Lewis Homes color up the most recent site plan for presentation at the September 27 meeting. He asked if the resolution for Conditional Use Permit 95-11 included conditions for only Phase One. Mr. Hayes responded that the conditions are for Phase One development but some conditions pertain to the project in total. He said the situation is similar to the way Terra Vista Town Center Square was processed. Commissioner Lumpp asked if staff had discussed how the project will be modified to meet minimum parking requirement. Mr. Hayes said he thought the applicant wished to discuss that as part of their presentation tonight. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that the condition regarding noise levels be modified to indicate it refers to maximum noise levels as measured at the property line. Mr. Buller responded that the condition was repeated directly from the Development Code. He said the intent is to measure the noise levels at the property line. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the focal point and roofing material would be discussed this evening. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, Lewis D~velopment Co., 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated Greg Hoxworth from their commercial department and representatives from their Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 13, 1995 engineer and Home Depot were in attendance. He stated they could answer any questions'from the Commissioners. Chairman Barker suggested that they make the Commission aware of any and all issues having to do with Home Depot. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Development Co., 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated their discussions with Home Depot had centered around the assumption that Home Depot would not have to have parking for the uncovered portion of the garden area. He said the covered portion of the garden department had increased and Home Depot had indicated a willingness to provide parking for the additional 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, which would result in 10 to 15 spaces. He said it was their position that they were not planning or aware that they would have to provide parking for the uncovered portion. Chairman Barker asked if that meant that they would have not provided any parking if the total sales area were outdoors. Mr. Hoxworth said that garden areas are typically uncovered because parking is then not required in most cities. He said the other side'of the coin is that Home Depot is really a warehouse store and a lot of the square footage is actually warehouse and storage space rather than retail. He thought that if the building square footage were broken down by use, parking at 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet would provide much more parking than is needed. Commissioner Lumpp did not agree with the idea that a large portion of the business is warehouse and storage space and would not need to be parked at 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Hoxworth said that when the entire project is built, it will be parked at 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. He thought the issue is now the phasing. Mr. Hayes stated that parking was calculated for the entire garden area on previous projects with outdoor garden centers, such as Wal-Mart, Target, and the original Home Depot center on another property. Mr. Hoxworth asked if Home Depot would have to accommodate all of the parking on their parcel. He noted that Home Depot is purchasing their parcel and the parcel size was calculated to provide 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of covered building. He asked if Phase One needs to include the spaces required by the uncovered garden area or if that parking could be installed with future phases. Commissioner Lumpp stated that Phase One would be deficient 95 parking spaces based on the current plans and the Development Code will not allow that deficiency because there is no guarantee that future phases will be built. He felt the 95 spaces would not have to be on the Home Depot lot so long as they are provided. Mike Lasley, Lewis Development Co., 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, suggested that a condition be included that the 95 spaces will be constructed within a certain time frame if the second phase of construction does not move ahead. Chairman Barker stated that if the parking ratios are accurate, Home Depot patrons will need a place to park when the store opens even if other phases of the development have not begun construction. He was not sure the Planning Commission would have any option other than to require the parking under the Development Code. Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 13, 1995 Mr. Lasley stated they would have applied for a Variance if they had been aware that such parking would be required. Commissioner McNiel felt the requirement should not have been a surprise to Lewis. He thought that if the Code requires a certain amount of parking for construction of the facility, then perhaps the lot line should be adjusted. He saw no reason to defer the parking requirement and felt that if the building is to be open, the required parking should be provided. He thought the tenant would be hindered if enough parking is not provided. Frank Coda, Greenberg Farrow Architects, 17941 Fitch Road, Irvine, stated that he heard that the City has required all outdoor area garden centers to be parked at the full retail rate. He said they would contend they do not need the full parking and could provide studies to support their contention, but suggested that in the interest of moving forward, they provide the required parking spaces but leave the parcel line at its present location, so that some of the parking would be built off the Phase One parcel. Mr. Buller indicated that staff would not object to that solution. Chairman Barker thought that should be acceptable. Commissioner McNiel observed that the parking should be provided in a full scale, finished condition, not as a temporary parking area. Mr. Coda stated they had also intended to clarify that the noise levels would be measured at the property line. He indicated the final design of the customer pick-up lane in front of Home Depot had been provided to staff today and he questioned if that would satisfy Planning Condition No. 36. Mr. Hayes said the condition refers to the final combination of the colored paving materials, paint striping, etc. that have been discussed on a number of occasions. Mr. Coda noted that Planning Conditions No. 18 and 40 both refer to outdoor display areas. He thought the agreement had been that they would be allowed to display merchandise under the roof canopy and he feared Condition No. 18 might be construed to prohibit such displays. Chairman Barker felt the issue could be clarified with staff. Mr. Buller suggested that Planning Condition No. 18 could be eliminated as Condition No. 40 is more specific. Mr. Hoxworth reiterated that the timeliness of addressing the parking issue created a business issue in the deal that had been previously negotiated. He said they would work it out over the next two weeks. Chairman Barker commented that the Commission and staff have been moving the project forward very rapidly. He asked if there were any other problems that would stop the Home Depot project. Mr. Hoxworth replied there were other issues that do not relate specifically to Home Depot. He requested clarification as to what was desired regarding additional enlarged landscape planter areas and said he felt they had already made the necessary changes. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant had asked staff for clarification. Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 13, 1995 Mr. Hayes stated there had been several discussions regarding the matter. Commissioner Melcher said it appeared to be a difference of opinion. Mr. Lasley said that the site plan had been discussed at the workshops. He commented the site plan on display was not the most recent one. He stated there had been discussions that their proposed landscape plan does not create a similar type of grove effect that is in place in Terra Vista Town Center. He said they went through the plan and removed some of the parking throughout the whole project. He remarked they took out the parking at the end of the entry drive aisle on the Home Depot parcel instead of going through the whole parking lot and creating additional landscape islands. He thought they had already satisfied the condition and suggested that the plan as now submitted represents what they propose. He said they had brought uncolored copies of their revised landscape plan to the workshops. Mr. Hoxworth suggested they meet with staff and clarify the matter before the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Barker suggested that if the applicant meets with staff and can not agree, then the specifics should be forwarded to the Commission so the Commission can make a decision. Mr. Hoxworth said they would like to list the potential issues for the record. He stated that Planning Condition No. 5 indicates that trash enclosures must be designed before they obtain any building permits. He said there are no trash enclosures in Phase One and he suggested that they not be required to submit the design until a future phase. Commissioner McNiel asked where Home Depot's trash will go. Mr. Hoxworth replied that trash facilities will be built into the Home Depot building. Commissioner McNiel commented that it would be sufficient to identify the location on the site plan. Mr. Lasley said they merely wanted to indicate that the trash enclosure design requirement is for subsequent phases rather than Home Depot. Mr. Hoxworth noted that an expanded Design Guideline Supplement is requested under Planning Condition No. 10. He said they had submitted an expanded one at the last workshop and he asked that they be advised if that is acceptable. He questioned if the requirement for a security patrol is a City ordinance. Mr. Buller replied that the security issue is not a code requirement. Mr. Lasley felt security is the responsibility of the developer and such a requirement should not be included in the resolution. Mr. Hoxworth felt security is an operating decision and Lewis should have full control over the extent and frequency of patrols. Mr. Lasley commented that the City had previously opposed security grills at a store and had indicated there is not enough crime to warrant such steps. He said he had never seen such a condition on any of the projects he had ever worked on. Commissioner Melcher agreed it is the responsibility of the developer but stated the City frequently reminds developers of that responsibility. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 13, 1995 Mr. Hoxworth requested that the bus shelter design for Terra Vista be permitted with a change of materials and colors to match this project. He said they did not want to redesign the shelter. Mr. Lasley stated that when Central Park Plaza was approved, Lewis agreed to use the same bus shelter design throughout all of Terra Vista with a change of colors, roof tile, and wainscot tile, where applicable. He said those drawings would be incorporated into the site development package. Mr. Hoxworth requested clarification that their current landscape plans will meet Planning Condition No. 30, requiring replacement planting for removal of existing mature trees. He said they were not willing to commit to any additional landscaping. Mr. Lasley stated they are adding a number of trees. Commissioner Lumpp said there is only one tree on site. Mr. Lasley said there is also a small grove of almost dead eucalyptus trees along Foothill Boulevard. He noted the Tree Removal Permit requires a certain number of trees for every established tree that is removed. He felt they had met the landscape requirements for the project. Mr. Luque said the matter was moot because the eucalyptus trees have to be removed for the widening of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Hoxworth mentioned that Planning Condition No. 32 refers to the design guidelines mentioned in Planning Condition No. 10. He requested that Planning Condition No. 42 be modified to allow more time to install the art piece at the activity center. He said they may have a committee and he did not want the artist to have to build a sculpture before the space is ready. He suggested they install the art piece within 180 days after Home Depot opens. Mr. Hoxworth acknowledged that staff had previously discussed incorporating features and landscaping that depicts the heritage of the citrus industry but he stated he was surprised to see that requirement included in Planning Condition No. 48. He said they have designed something different and their plans do not call for reflecting the citrus industry. Chairman Barker recalled the discussions regarding the corner. He said it had been noted that the project across the street would include a Vintner's Walk and he thought it was agreed that citrus would be spotlighted on this corner. Commissioner Lumpp also recalled the discussions. Mr. Hoxworth acknowledged it had been discussed, but said their concept had been that the design should relate to the old vineyards. Chairman Barker said he understood staff's inclusion of Condition No. 48 because he thought that was the understanding. Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel concurred that they thought it had been agreed to by the developer. Mr. Buller said that the condition does not require changing the design of the Activity Center as proposed by the applicant but simply that the landscape architect incorporate plaques or some other elements that would recall the history of the citrus business in Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Lasley thought it could be dealt with in Phase Two. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 13, 1995 Mr. Buller observed that portions of the Activity Center are in Phase One. Mr. Lasley felt there would not be any room for that kind of element within the Phase One development. He said they are basically replicating what is going on in the Masi project, which does not include a citrus theme. He thought the matter could be addressed in workshops for future phases. Mr. Hoxworth requested that Engineering Condition No. 2 be modified to indicate that their driveway align with the future Masi Drive as it is currently proposed and not require that they change their plans if the location of Masi Drive should change. Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel thought that was a valid point. Mr. Hoxworth requested that Engineering Conditions No. 9 and 10 be modified to require installation of the traffic signals and Orchard Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Church Street only when warrant studies indicate such improvements are required rather than tying the installation to specific phasing plans. He requested clarification regarding the parkway landscaping theme on the east side of Rochester Avenue. Mr. Buller said the landshaping is to have similar plant materials to that which is installed north of their parcel. Mr. Lasley requested that Engineering Condition ld be modified to allow them to abandon in place the 18-inch corrugated metal pipe which crosses Foothill Boulevard so they would not have to tear up Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner McNiel asked if the pipe would have to be filled. Mr. Lasley suggested it be abandoned in place to the satisfaction.of the City Engineer based on whatever fill conditions are required. Commissioner McNiel said that sometimes a slurry is pumped in to avoid cave ins. Mr. Lasley asserted it would be easier to fill it than to remove it. Mr. James observed the pipe is in Caltrans right of way so Caltrans would have to process the permit. Mr. Hoxworth requested that Engineering Condition No. 20 be revised so that the in-lieu fee for future undergrounding of utilities on the opposite side of Rochester be reduced by the cost of any facilities they put in when undergrounding on their property. Mr. James said the condition is consistent with the Underground Utility Policy. Mark Bertone, Madole and Associates, 10601 Church Street, #107, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Lewis is installing conduit and appropriate vaults along the west side of Rochester and they are requesting credit for that conduit and vaults. Mr. James said that currently there are only overheads on the east side of Rochester. Mr. Bertone said that was correct, but Southern California Edison has requested that Lewis Homes install the conduit facilities and vaults as part of the on-site system and the curb and gutter on the west side of Rochester. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 13, 1995 Mr. James suggested that staff and the applicant work to clarify the issue before the next meeting to keep the requirement consistent with the Underground Utility Policy. Commissioner Melcher noted that Church Street is not mentioned in Standard Condition M3. He questioned what street improvements will be required with Phase One. Mr. James replied the Conditional Use Permit is for the shopping center. He said the Parcel Map going with the project has an improvement certificate on it for Church Street to be constructed with the residential complex. He noted Phase One of the shopping center is responsible for Rochester Avenue from Poplar south to Foothill Boulevard, Poplar across the project frontage, and Foothill Boulevard across the frontage of the entire site between Rochester and Orchard. He said they will not construct Orchard with Phase One nor Church Street. He stated installation of Orchard from Foothill connecting to Church Street will be required with future phasing of the site. He commented that Church Street currently exists from Milliken east to Orchard. He said the loop would thus exist with construction of Phase Two even if the residential is not built at that time. Commissioner Melcher asked if the requirements are consistent with the Terra Vista Street Improvement Plan that was adopted several years ago. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Commissioner McNiel asked if the street phasing could be displayed at the next meeting. He felt that Terra Vista has had too many unfinished streets throughout the duration of the project. Mr. Hoxworth said they had requested that they not be required to build Orchard Avenue with Phase Two because their current phasing plan calls for Phase Two to extend only between Rochester Avenue and the middle drive. He commented there will be three to four phases. Commissioner Melcher asked if Lewis had shared their phasing plans with the City. Mr. Hoxworth thought they had. He said it will be a project which is built one to two buildings at a time, moving from Home Depot toward Church. Mr. Buller commented that the Commission had worked diligently primarily on the Home Depot. He did not think the Commission had discussed the phasing plans during any of the workshops. Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant should share the phasing information in a graphic form that would be conditionable. Mr. Hoxworth said they would be happy to do so. Chairman Barker asked if the TIA issue would be dealt with by the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hoxworth said it had been submitted to SANBAG today and should hopefully be back to the City within a week or so and hopefully City staff would have an opportunity to review it prior to the next meeting. Mr. Buller said that City Traffic Engineer Paul Rougeau was available if the Commission should have any questions. Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 13, 1995 Chairman Barker noted that it is the developer's responsibility to have the TIA accepted. Mr. Hoxworth said it had been submitted but was sent back to them for corrections. He said the corrections have been submitted and SANBAG and the City should now be able to sign it off. Vasanthi Ramahthan, Greenberg Farrow Architects, 17941 Fitch Road, Irvine, stated they had submitted an interim plan for the partition between the future retail building and the Home Depot Garden Center. She noted they propose constructing a temporary 20-foot high wrought iron fence for security reasons. Mr. Hayes said the plans had been submitted last Thursday and he had not had a chance to analyze them. He thought it should be acceptable for an interim situation. Ms. Ramahthan said the fencing will match the other fencing of the garden center. Mr. Lasley said Home Depot wanted to build the fence out of wrought iron in lieu of a temporary chain link fence for security reasons. He thought the proposed fence would be appropriate. Chairman Barker said the City appreciated the wrought iron fencing. He noted the items were to be continued. Mr. Buller said the Commission could discuss the items brought up by the applicant or could merely receive the testimony and continue the matter. Commissioner McNiel suggested that staff and the applicant discuss the concerns raised. Chairman Barker felt most of the issues could be worked out between staff and the applicant. Mr. Buller suggested that if any Commissioners had strong objections to any 0f the applicant's requests, that they contact staff. He noted that the project had been placed on the October 4 City Council agenda. Commissioner Melcher observed that the proposed text amendment calls for only a 20-foot minimum setback for the adjacent residential project from the back of this proposed commercial center. He noted there was a lO0-foot setback from the Shell station and said he could not support such a low minimum. Mr. Luque pointed out that Figure IV-18 in the proposed text amendment shows a minimum 100 feet as the buffer between High Residential and Community Commercial buildings. Commissioner Melcher responded that the number in the text remains unacceptable. He felt that if the text remains at 20 feet, the developer would ask for 20 feet. Mr. Luque commented that if they decide to build a single family, detached project, they would propose a 20-foot back yard setback. Commissioner Melcher felt that would not be sufficient. He said there is not a similar impact anywhere else in Terra Vista. He commented he had expressed that sentiment to Mr. Luque on several occasions. He indicated he would not support the Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment with such a low setback. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 13, 1995 Mr. Luque said Lewis had that figure set for some time and he would take Commissioner's Melcher's comments into consideration. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to continue General Plan Amendment 95-01B, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, Conditional Use Permit 95-11, and Parcel Map 14022 to September 27, 1995. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-22 - WILCOX - A request to convert a 600 square foot workshop into a second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential designation (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 10802 Hillside Road - APN: 1074-401-08. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that the applicant had withdrawn the application and no action was necessary on the part of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission Business at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. 8:47 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 13, 1995