Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/04/28 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 28, 2004 Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:09 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director; Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Robert J. Howdyshell, Council Member; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that Item A should be a Consent Calendar item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1-1 (McNeil absent,McPhail abstain, to approve the minutes of April 14, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF CENTER AVENUE (V-186) — CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, L.P. - A request to vacate a 66-foot easement for streets, highways and related purposes,located south of 6th Street, west of Trademark Parkway—APN: 0210-072-16, 17, 35, and 43, 0210-441-29 and 0210-381-08. Related Files: Development Code Amendment DRC2001-00534, Development Review DRCDR00-41, and Lot Merger 578. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to move Item A from the Public Hearing section to the Consent Calendar section of the agenda and to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McNIEL - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16480-LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS-A request to subdivide 26.13 acres of land in the existing Terra Vista Town Center shopping center into 14 parcels from 2 existing parcels within the Community Commercial land use district of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue- APN: 1077-422-26 and 70. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Stewart asked the purpose of the parcel map. She also asked that the applicant explain the parking situation; i.e. if parking is per individual parcel. Ms. Wimer responded the center is over parked and CC&Rs will cover shared parking. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Mark Wendel, Lewis Retail Centers, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the application is to subdivide the eastern half of Terra Vista Town Center. He said the parcel is currently over 26 acres and they are trying to create smaller parcels to allow individual investors to buy a building or portion of in-line shops. Commissioner Fletcher asked if they anticipate a few investors or 14 separate ownerships. Mr. Wendel responded it is structured for up to 14; however, most of the interest they have received so far is from investors wanting 2 to 3 parcels. He said the CC&Rs will tie the access and parking together and the property will be maintained as it is currently being maintained. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there would be a central management. Mr. Wendel replied that Lewis Operating Corporation currently manages the center and the CC&Rs are being amended so that if individual investors purchase a majority of the center,a central property management agency would be retained so that maintenance and property management would be handled through a single entity and the owners would share the cost. He said they want to be sure the design and operation of the center is maintained at the high standards that are currently in place. He indicated he understood the City is also concerned and that is why they are amending the CC&Rs. Chairman Macias asked if the Commission could approve the amendments to the CC&Rs. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded affirmatively that the Commission could modify the resolution to require Planning Commission review prior to them be forwarded to the City Council for approval. Chairman Macias asked if the other Commissioners wanted to review them. He was concerned about having a number of different owners. Commissioner Stewart understood why the applicant wants to split the parcel, but she was not convinced it is good for the community. She was concerned there may be a loss of good tenants because of actions by new owners. She wanted to avoid having a number of vacant buildings. Mr. Wendel pointed out that one of the conditions of approval requires the CC&Rs be reviewed and approved by the City and City Attorney. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, confirmed that the condition is currently worded to require review and approval of the Planning Division and City Attorney prior to map recordation Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 28, 2004 Chairman Macias suggested that it be reworded to require approval of the Planning Commission in lieu of the Planning Division. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the applicant considered subdividing into a fewer number of parcels. Mr. Wendel said they initially considered having fewer parcels but they want to subdivide the parcels so that it would not be limited to only one or two larger investors. He reaffirmed that the amendment to the CC&Rs will provide for a central property management agency to maintain the entire shopping center as it is currently maintained. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher stated that at first glance he thought it was a simple subdivision with few problems providing that staff and the City Attomey approve the CC&RS. He felt they should rely on staff and the Attorney to be sure the CC&Rs are strong enough to protect the City's interests, including the comments raised this evening. Commissioner Stewart thought there are a lot of challenges. She wanted the CC&Rs are brought back before the Commission because she felt it is a more complex problem than merely subdividing 14 parcels. She wanted to be sure there are safeguards for the City. Commissioner McPhail agreed with Commissioner Stewart. She said the subdivision may be fine for 2004, but it is important to consider what the center will be like in the future and the recourse to ensure it is maintained and not full of vacant, unkempt buildings. Chairman Macias concurred with Commissioners Stewart and McPhail. Motion: Moved by McPhail,to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16480 with modification to require review and approval of the CC&Rs by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stewart asked if the CC&Rs would be approved before the project is approved. Mr. Buller stated the motion reads that the Commission would approve the Tentative Tract Map and the CC&Rs would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Attomey prior to map recordation by the City Council. Commissioner Stewart said she would second the motion. Commissioner Fletcher asked what additional controls the CC&Rs would provide that the City does not already have over the project. Mr. Buller responded that currently the center is under one developer, Lewis, and they have a reputation for maintaining the center. He said that if Lewis sells off the parcels and there are independents owning the separate parcels, the City needs assurance that there will be cooperation between independent pad owners when issues arise in the future or the center wants to go through rehabilitation or modification. He presumed the Commission would want the CC&Rs to have language to ensure that the quality remains and there are no changes unless it is a unified change. He assumed the desire is to maintain the quality that currently exists. Commissioner Stewart confirmed that was correct. Commissioner McPhail indicated they also want a unified management. Chairman Macias stated there was a motion by Commissioner McPhail and a second by Commissioner Stewart to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 2004 Parcel Map SUBTPM16480 with modification to require that the Planning Commission approve the CC&RS. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McNIEL - carried • C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16089-DOWDING-A request to subdivide 2.135 acres of land into 3 single-family lots in the Very Low Residential District(.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Wilson Avenue, approximately 330 feet east of Hermosa Avenue- APN: 1074-261-03. Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00529. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Carl Kobbins, 8880 Benson Avenue, Suite 100, Montclair, stated he was the engineer and represented the applicant. He agreed with the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Stewart asked what would happen to the existing house. Mr. Kobbins replied they are rehabilitating it and he thought the applicant intends to live in it. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart felt the application was very straightforward. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16089. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McNIEL - carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16648-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to subdivide 7.77 acres of land into seven single family residential lots totaling 1.64 acres and one remainder parcel of 6.13 acres for the purpose of developing a public storage facility located in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp-APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files:Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00850 and Variance DRC2004-00050. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE—A request to develop a public storage facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the managers office and apartment, on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp-APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01 (a portion). Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050. F. VARIANCE DRC2004-00050 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request for a reduction in setback to 0 feet along the south and east boundaries, related to the development of a public storage facility on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and the eastbound Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 2004 210 Freeway on-ramp - APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01 (a portion). Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00850. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias stated it was his understanding that the Commission was being asked to approve the project but not the proposed signage. Mr. Le Count affirmed that was correct. He said the resolution contained a condition prohibiting signs on the north elevation. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are existing fences on the east and west side. Mr. Le Count replied there is a block wall about 6 feet high. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Aim All Storage. He noted it is the same developer who constructed the project at the comer of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue. He recalled that the City was skeptical about compatibility when that project was built but he felt it proved that such a use is compatible with residential areas. He stated this project will only have indoor storage and people will not be able to work in the units. He believed the design of the project creates a buffer between the freeway and the existing residential area. He stated the hours will be limited and the only access to the storage area will be from Haven Avenue. He said they propose single family residential along the east side of the project to complement the houses across the street. He noted the north elevation will be seen from the freeway and said they were trying to work with planning staff to create a quasi feeling of a City entryway. He indicated his client proposed one sign on the north elevation with his first choice being on the tower and his second choice further east. Mr. Buquet said the site is depressed and they are exporting 30,000 cubic yards of soil from the site to lower the buildings to a maximum of 2'h feet above the existing walls. He indicated they agreed with the conditions of approval other than Planning Condition 8 prohibiting signs facing the freeway and said that no issue was raised about the signs until the second Design Review Committee meeting. He showed an exhibit that depicted the relationship of the building to the freeway on-ramp, showing that a sign 29 feet high at the top of the sign would only be 12-14 feet above the freeway grade. He asked that Planning Condition 8 be deleted to allow them to work with staff regarding the signs and said they were merely trying to identify the building for the convenience of their customers. He said they are not asking for a median break and noted that people exiting the freeway will have to go south and make a u-tum to enter the project. He stated there is freeway signage along the 210 Freeway. He indicated they were asking to be able to place a tasteful architectural sign of an appropriate size that would be visible from the freeway. Mr. Buquet stated his client and the civil engineer were present and available to answer questions. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there would be enhancements to the neighbors' walls. Mr. Buquet replied their building walls will be next to the residents'walls but they have lowered the site as much as possible. He said they are working with the neighbors and are willing to put in an extra course or two of blocks on the existing walls if the wall structure will support it. Commissioner Fletcher noted the plans show four signs including the monument sign. Mr. Buquet replied the drawings are incorrect and they know they are limited to a monument sign and two building signs. He said they are not requesting a sign facing the residential on the east or south, but rather want a monument sign, a sign on the tower of the west elevation and one on the tower on the elevation facing the freeway. He said they would work with staff. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 28, 2004 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail stated she had seen the project in several iterations. She said she has been reluctant about the project since the beginning but will tolerate it because it has been pointed out that it makes a good buffer from the freeway. She was not impressed with the street frontage along Haven Avenue and felt the architecture is satisfactory. She did not want any signs on the northern elevation facing the freeway and said it had been discussed in Design Review. She agreed it is a good land use. Commissioner Stewart felt it is a good project and a great use for the land because it provides an excellent buffer and she liked that the existing homes would have homes across from them. She shared staffs concerns regarding the signage on the elevation facing the freeway. She feared that if signs are permitted on this project, it will open Pandora's box and there will be an issue of where the line should be drawn. She thought the use is community oriented, rather than freeway oriented. She believed people will not be traveling on the freeway looking for some place to store items, but rather people from the community will go there for the service. Commissioner Fletcher agreed the building is architecturally strong and aesthetically pleasing. He liked the fad that it buffers the existing residential use from the freeway. With respect to freeway- oriented signage, especially along the 210 corridor, he felt it is important for the community and for business that are lucky enough to locate along freeway frontage to have brand identity. He felt the signs proposed are subtle and the location identity will serve both the project owner and consumers who want to get there. He did not think the prohibition for freeway-oriented signs is contrary to the Code but felt it is rather a policy issue. He felt it was tastefully done and observed it is on the side of the building. He was willing to approve a sign facing the freeway and thought there should be further discussion regarding signs. Chairman Macias felt it is fundamentally a good project and provides a good buffer. He believed the applicant has improved the project. He was concerned about signage along the 210 Freeway corridor and opening up Pandora's box; however, he did not have a problem with the signage as shown on the north side. He indicated he trusted staff to work with the applicant and believed the applicant has a good record of doing tasteful development. He noted that would mean a 2-2 tie with respect to the signage. Commissioner McPhail asked if it was possible to approve the project without approving the signs and bring the signs back. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission could approve the project and bring back the sign issue when there is a full Commission. He confirmed it is a policy, not the Code, which prohibits • signs facing the 210 Freeway. He reiterated that staff has been approached by other businesses and churches asking for signs when they have frontage or even a wall facing the freeway. He stated staff would need direction from the Commission to make an interpretation as to what types of uses may be allowed to have signs; i.e., a housing project, church, business, service to the community, etc. He said staff would need direction overall because it is likely there will be more requests once there is an interpretation that the freeway is a street frontage, therefore permitting signage. He suggested Planning Condition 8 could be dropped and Planning Condition 9 could be modified to require that signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Macias suggested the Commission move forward and have discussions regarding that policy issue. He agreed with Commissioner Stewart that the use is a community based function but he felt the freeway has a different function from the community. He said he would potentially consider some alternatives to the current policy on freeway signage but he did not want it to lead to a sea of neon signs along the freeway. In the interest of being business friendly he did not oppose some tasteful signage along the freeway because he did not think that would have a major impact. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 28, 2004 Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT1648, Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00850, and Variance DRC2004-00050 with modification to require the signs be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McNIEL - carried Commissioner McPhail left meeting at 8:03 p.m. NEW BUSINESS G. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2004-00201 - FRED SANCHEZ - An appeal of the City Planner's decision denying a request for the removal of a Mexican Fan palm tree at 7638 Pepper Street-APN: 0208-711-13. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias invited public comment. Fred Sanchez, 1512 North Glen Avenue, Ontario, stated his tree needs to be trimmed and there is only one other such tree in the neighborhood. He said he spoke to the neighbor who has the tree, and he indicated he would like to remove his tree but he cannot afford to do so. Mr. Sanchez commented he wants to put in a slumpstone wall and the tree is in the way. He said he wants to beautify the house that has been vacant for 5 years. He reported it would cost between $500-$700 to trim the tree and he did not believe he should have to pay that amount of money to maintain a tree he doesn't even like. He said all the neighbors agree he should be able to remove the tree. He noted that when he applied for the Tree Removal Permit, he obtained a listing of contractors and he thought the tree could be transplanted to an industrial area. He said he was willing to cooperate to have a builder move the tree. He indicated he would like to place a shade tree elsewhere on the property. Mr. Coleman indicated that the Tree Preservation Ordinance is very specific that the tree should be preserved in place if it is healthy. He said the Ordinance also allows the tree to be transplanted on site as a second alternative and the last resort is removal of tree and/or transplanting the tree off- site. He noted a replacement tree would be approximately$2,000. Commissioner Stewart said she deeply respects the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, but she felt it is incumbent to consider it on a case-by-case basis. She indicated she visited the site and the owner wants to put in a block wall fence and he does not want to substitute wrought iron in order to save the tree. Because the applicant stated he was willing to have a construction crew remove the tree for use elsewhere, she said she favored allowing removal of the tree in this instance. She did not feel the tree is very attractive. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with Commissioner Stewart. He said he drove to the site and it is evident the applicant is improving the property and the streetscape. He thought there would probably be a market for the tree. He said he did not agree with staffs findings with respect to Criteria 2 and 3, the lack of necessity to remove the tree in order to construct improvements and the effect the removal of the tree would have on the established character of the area. He noted the tree is close to the house and he did not wish to force the applicant to use a wrought iron fence where he wants a block wall. Commissioner Fletcher observed there was only one other such tree in the block Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 28, 2004 and he felt they look more out of place rather than being an enhancement to the street. He said he would also be in favor of the neighbor removing his tree. He believed the Tree Preservation Ordinance conflicts with personal property rights. He encouraged the applicant to find someone to relocate the tree to another site. Chairman Macias thought the tree is good looking but he did not object to its removal. He stated that staff did exactly what it is supposed to do with this application, in that staff evaluated the application on the basis of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. He suggested the City might want to look at the policy at some point in time as he felt there are certain instances where there is a burden on homeowners. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that it appeared the Commission favored allowing the applicant to remove the tree. He suggested it would be appropriate for the Commission to continue the matter to allow staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal. He noted that typically, the granting of a tree removal permit includes a condition requiring a replacement. He suggested mitigation for removal could be replacement with a 24-inch box tree of the applicant's choice. He stated the resolution could be placed on the Consent Calendar of the May 12 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Fletcher stated it was not his intent to imply that there should be a policy change. He merely did not agree with staffs findings with respect to this application. He thought approval of the permit would allow the applicant to select an appropriate tree for his lot. Mr. Buller stated the matter might warrant further Planning Commission discussion on what it would like staff to consider on future Tree Removal Permit applications. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff to retum a resolution granting the appeal for the May 12, 2004, Planning Commission Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McNIEL, McPHAIL - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road-APN: 0225-084-08(portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. I. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre)to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road—APN: 0225-084-08(portion)and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 28, 2004 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias invited public comment. There were no comments. Commissioner Stewart felt the application was necessary. She supported it. Commissioner Fletcher agreed. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to direct staff to initiate General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Motion carried by th&following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McNIEL, McPHAIL - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:27 p.m. to 8:31 p.m. J. LEWIS HOMES PRESENTATION ON TERRA VISTA UPDATE AND FUTURE PROJECTS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated staff has been working with the Lewis Company on several applications they recently filed. He said when they began to discuss two current applications; he felt it would be important to give Lewis a chance to talk about the status of Terra Vista and to talk about why they are venturing outside the confines of Terra Vista. He stated he would then like to conclude with some policy questions because their requests are similar to a lot of requests the Planning Department is currently getting. He observed there seems to be a very strong housing market in Southem California and Planning is receiving questions about General Plan Amendments and zone changes on a weekly basis throughout the City. He indicated that after the Lewis presentation, he would show other sites where developers have approached the City to discuss potential zone changes. David Lewis, Lewis Companies, stated he was accompanied by Randall Lewis; Mark Bertone and Aaron Steers from Madole and Associates; and Melanie Smith from the Windrows Partners, who worked in the background for the Planning Center on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan in 2001. He said he wanted to cover two topics: activity in Terra Vista and Haven Oasis,which is their vision of the former La Mancha Golf Course site. He noted the golf course has been vacant for a long period of time and the site has been used for dumping and the trees on site are diseased. He commented it is a good location, located near City Hall. He indicated they believe it has good residential characteristics and the Haven Avenue frontage has good office characteristics. He noted the site is currently designated Industrial Park in Subarea 6 and part of the site is in the Haven Avenue Overlay District, which goes from Foothill Boulevard south to approximately 4th Street, and is designed to stimulate higher intensity office users and what the General Plan describes as prestige office users. He stated they propose preserving the Haven Overlay, but they propose a change in land use designation from Industrial Park on the westerly portion of the site to Low Medium Residential. He showed slides of the type of homes they propose. He acknowledged they are not in the home building business, so they have teamed up with William Lyon Homes. He stated they provided packages listing a variety of communities in Rancho Cucamonga that William Lyon Homes developed. He said they envisioned a gated residential component similar to homes on the Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 28, 2004 west side of Center Avenue. He indicated there would be a homeowners'association to maintain the open space and streets within the gates. He showed a proposed site plan with connected green spaces and an alley loaded concept for a portion of the single-family, detached houses. He noted 111 the alley-loaded houses would have front doors lining a grass courtyard. He said they plan for greenbelt linkages and showed a preliminary sketch of proposed recreational amenities. He showed a master plan for the site and adjoining properties from Humbolt Avenue to Civic Center Drive. On the Oasis Master Plan, he showed residential properties to the west with Haven Avenue Overlay uses along Haven Avenue including a master plan for offices along Haven Avenue for the neighboring properties. He believed the General Plan Advisory Committee envisioned corporate offices along Haven Avenue but he thought a residential component would respond to the housing demand and fit better with the existing neighborhood than either light industrial or office. He said the proposed Oasis residential component is surrounded by Low and Low Medium housing to the south, Medium and Medium High to the west and north. Mr. Lewis noted that slightly over 400 apartment units are planned on the Burnett project with a series of apartments and condominiums to the south. He said thither proposal to Low Medium would reconcile to surrounding uses. He felt there is a defined pattem of residential along the westerly portion off Haven Avenue. He said one of the concerns they heard about the condominiums that were built in the mid 1980s along Civic Center Drive was that the remaining land to the east along Haven Avenue is too shallow for significant office users. He believed the Oasis plan allows enough land to fit any office building currently in the Ontario Center or along the I-10 Freeway in the Ontario corridor, which includes some six-story buildings. He said an approximate 17-acre site would accommodate any of those types of users. He showed various housing types that they propose from '1,900-2,400 square feet. He felt it would appeal to young professionals looking for a lower maintenance lifestyle. He said the alley-loaded concept is prevalent in Ladera Ranch, Irvine, and Valencia and also exists in the Windsor community in Terra Vista. He showed elevations of proposed more conventional single-family detached homes similar to what Lyon Homes is building in Glendora and on the Tustin Airbase in Ladera Ranch. He believed it was in the style and level of architecture expected in Rancho Cucamonga. He indicated they included the two-pack concept with one garage set back and a neighboring garage set forward. He said they spent a fair amount of time studying having the site integrated with the office and residential areas working together but determined the office component could be better marketed if there is a buffering between the two uses. He thought the office users would want the office buildings aligned along Haven Avenue with a parking field in the back and he thought the parking field would be a nice buffer from residential uses to the west. He suggested there would then be a line of parking and a recreational component on the inside of the gated residential portion to further expand the buffering area. He believed the Oasis project would stimulate growth along Haven Avenue and make the area more appealing for office users. He said they propose their full parkway and a high architectural wall with a gated component. He noted they were working with staff and planned to have a neighborhood meeting most likely in the second week of May. He felt Oasis would enhance the neighborhood with their proposed home sizes being large relative to surrounding home sizes and their extensive amenity package and the residential component would stimulate office development. Mr. Lewis then gave a brief overview of Terra Vista. He said Home Depot has been very successful at that location and wants to expand their store by approximately 60,000 square feet. He indicated that Home Depot has expanded stores to the larger size in only three places so far but they feel the demand is here and there are terrific incomes and demographics. He indicated they are also exploring the relocation of Wal-Mart from Foothill Marketplace to the west of Home Depot, which would mean almost 400,000 square feet between the two stores. He said they have discussed the matter with staff and they are looking at implementing a residential component that makes sense near this type of retail use. He remarked there are a variety of commercial pad users along Foothill Boulevard including Banner Mattress and Washington Mutual and there are a variety of restaurant users going further west. He said they are trying to determine how close the residential area should be brought to Foothill Boulevard. He noted that Victoria Gardens Mall is scheduled to open in October and it has also created a new synergy around it that has changed the demand Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 28, 2004 characteristics for Foothill Boulevard frontage. He thought the City had been approached by other developers with plans to reduce the commercial land along Foothill Boulevard and redesignate portions as residential. He said that redesignation process is part of an overall process being seen in a lot of places in Southern California that reflects smart growth that takes advantage of the fortitude of corridors like Foothill Boulevard that can handle a lot of traffic. He noted that the opening of the 210 Freeway has drawn a lot of traffic from Foothill Boulevard and therefore developers are exploring the option of residential in lieu of formerly designated commercial. He noted that redesignations are occurring mostly in the western end of the City. He thought there might be a sensible way to bring residential uses to Foothill Boulevard in those areas where there is not as much commercial viability. He indicated they would not want to preclude having upscale restaurants or a bank locate on Foothill Boulevard, but felt there will be excess space along Foothill Boulevard. He said they have been approached by restaurateurs near Milliken Avenue. He stated they envision some form of housing north of the Terra Vista Commons and the area has always been designated in the Terra Vista Community Plan to have approximately 175 homes. He noted there is a high density residential area north of Target and they envision apartments at 24-32 units per acre in approximately 2-3 years. He said they anticipate the development there would be highly innovative with an urban feel. He pointed out the location of the Homecoming apartment homes with its 1,400 square foot clubhouse and felt that will be an exciting project. He noted there is one last portion of Medium High and High Residential property between Brighton Town Homes and Homecoming and they envision that will be a housing project averaging in the low 20 dwelling units per acre. He said that Terra Vista was originally approved for 9,200 dwelling units and they now figure it will be between 8,700-9,200 units, but most likely around 9,000. He felt they have addressed some of the school and park issues. He noted they reviewed the parks in Terra Vista and that summary was presented to the Commission in 2003, which he believed concluded they have adequately provided for parks. He said they are studying the matter with the School Districts to be sure there are adequate schools for the area that does not stress the community parks. Mr. Buller said he felt it was important to have a workshop with the Commission because there are bigger policy questions as to what the City wants to do with the numerous requests for changes corning forward. He indicated the predominance of requests for changes to the General Plan have to do with providing additional housing. He provided a map showing 28 various locations where the City has been approached to change zoning to residential from various uses including General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, General Industrial, Industrial Park, Office, Open Space, Utility Corridor, and Mixed Use. He indicated there have been suggestions to use Foothill Marketplace for some creative adaptive reuse for housing because many large tenants have moved and the City suspects the center will go through some transition. He noted that when the City amended the General Plan in 2001 Mixed Use designation was added and locations throughout the City identified. He said the City has always believed that when the regional mall opens,there may be too much commercial there to sustain all the commercial along Foothill Boulevard;therefore,many of the mixed use ideas were along Foothill Boulevard. He stated it was believed adding rooftops along Foothill Boulevard would add a synergy into the success of some of the commercial centers there. He observed that every time commercial or industrial land is redesignated as residential, the City loses potential job sites from the City composition. He said it is true that another commercial site may be intensified to recapture some of the lost jobs, but it is a policy issue. He asked for direction from the Planning Commission as to whether the City wants to begin opening up the General Plan to determine where and how many more houses we want in the City and where and what kind they should be. He said he suggested Lewis may want to look at parcels in Terra Vista that are already zoned for residential before rezoning other types of land. He indicated policy issues include the balance of land use in the City and the need for more housing. He said that staff acknowledges that Southern Califomia needs more housing. Chairman Macias stated that SCAG is always looking for someone to pick up additional residential. Commissioner Stewart stated there are a lot of complex issues. She noted there are almost 30 places where there have been requests to amend the zoning. She felt the City needs to take a real Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 28, 2004 hard-core look at those areas specifically. She said they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. She asked at what point should the City begin to say there is only so much availability and there should be no more rezoning from commercial to residential. She indicated she looked at areas where the City is already giving up commercial and noted redesignations have already taken place along Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue and 4th Street, and the General Dynamics site. She wondered where the point is that the City takes a strong stand that properties remain office or commercial until some future time when the City begins to see what synergy there will be based on the mall and the other things happening in the City. With respect to the Oasis project, she asked the size of the proposed residential lots. Mr. Lewis responded they are 42 x 70 feet and 45 x 90 feet. Mr. Buller indicated they are 40 x 70 feet and 40 x 80 feet on the plans. Mr. Lewis thought the larger ones are 40 x 90 feet. Mr. Buller stated the plans call them out as 40 x 90 feet, but they scale to 40 x 80 feet. Commissioner Stewart remarked she has listened to the Oasis presentation twice and there was new material before the Commission this evening. She said she could not make a decision on that proposal this evening. She wanted to see economic studies outlining the benefits. She noted that one of Mr. Lewis' opening statements was that the parcel is located by City Hall and she felt that should make it all the more valuable for office product in the future. She was concerned about the lot sizes and thought what they were proposing may not be the best product. She suggested that if residential product is to go there, perhaps it should be live/work or condominium or apartments above an office product. She said she was not really anxious to move forward with the present proposal. She thought that parcel should be discussed by the full Commission and the City Council at a workshop. She felt it was good to expand Home Depot and bring Wal-Mart to the Home Depot 1 center but she acknowledged it would make another problem for the Foothill Marketplace. Commissioner Fletcher stated there are more residential or proposed residential projects than he was aware of. He said the name Oasis implies a special place in a wasteland, and he did not think it is a wasteland. He stated he has an open mind about it. He indicated when he first looked at it, he thought the residential portion was transitioned well with the rest of the residential in the area but he is not certain it is the particular product. He recalled that Randall Lewis gave a presentation to the Commission, at which he said the future would have more high density residential. He said this particular project had references to Ladera Ranch. He observed the Commissioners toured Ladera Ranch and said there were some things in the development he liked and others that he did not like. He said he really liked the live/work home-base business concept with a frontage street with ADA accessible professional offices in front of living quarters. He believed those in Ladera Ranch were 3,400-3,500 square feet at $850,000 and their 29 units were sold out. However, he thought their situation was different wherein they took a chunk of land out in the County and worked from scratch. Mr. Fletcher said he did not like the alley loading in Ladera Ranch because it was too tight. He noted the Commissioners observed a garbage truck having to back down the alley to pick up the trash and he feared there might be conflicts with children in the area. He thought high density residential within a mixed use project might be a good use along Foothill Boulevard. He believed high density projects should allow people to walk to restaurants or retail within a few blocks of their homes and he noted that would not be the case at the Oasis location. He thought a 1,900-2,400 square foot product sounds like it may be affordable and he observed that children of City residents have to buy outside of the City because they cannot afford anything within the City. He felt the City needs some affordable units for younger families. He was concemed about replacing the office area along Haven Avenue and noted it was always planned to be a sophisticated, upscale office corridor. He stated there are more residential projects coming into the City and he hated to give up office space where people could live and work in the community so people don't have to commute. With respect to office product along Haven Avenue, he was not sure that the project on the southwest comer of Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 28, 2004 Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard was the right project to put there when looking in hindsight. He observed there have been problems with marketing the property east of the apartments north of the proposed Oasis project. Mr. Lewis thought it was staffs perception that it is a difficult site for office use because of its depth but said they feel it would be sufficient for the types of offices that are currently being approved along the Haven corridor. He did not feel the landowner is interested in selling it. Mr. Fletcher asked the size of the building on the rendering shown by Lewis. Mr. Lewis indicated there are offices being approved from 5,000-15,000 square feet. He said there is a 5,000 square foot medical condominium being constructed across the street from the Oasis property. He thought the property north of them could accommodate up to a 15,000 square foot project. Commissioner Fletcher said he was intrigued with the residential aspect but the density proposed was not what he had envisioned. He felt the City needs office condominiums and he believed there is a big demand for them. He observed office condominiums give Rancho Cucamonga residents an opportunity to own the site of their business within the City. Chairman Macias said he would reserve judgment regarding the Oasis project. He indicated he was not overly excited about the layout as it stands and he is not convinced it is the best land use but he would leave the door open to see where it goes. He commented he lives in the middle of Terra Vista and it has turned out exceptionally well. He said he has been there 15 years and they are extremely happy and comfortable there. He thought the trail system is magnificent because you can get to every park and the trails are heavily used. He remarked he was on the General Plan Task Force and he thought they did a good job of looking at what the future holds and what can be expected. He said he was somewhat perplexed and mildly concerned that things have changed since the Plan was adopted in 2002. He recognized that times have changed and the economy has changed but he was surprised about all the inquiries staff has received for land use changes and the demand for housing. He thought the City needs to determine what this means for the City in the long run and the City needs to determine if it is necessary to re-look at the General Plan and the demand for housing. He wondered if the City would then be looking at another issue in three years. He was reluctant to make changes to the General Plan. He said that if the City does look at those issues again, he proposed that there should be a socioeconomic focus on the costs to the City in the long term if residential units in the City are increased. He asked the cost benefit. He questioned the long-term effect of reducing commercial and adding residential. He said in his mind, the General Plan was reviewed with a vision in an attempt to balance jobs and housing. He thought this might be a step backwards. He was not sure if that balance is appropriate or inappropriate but he thought that if the City looks at additional residential units, the City needs to dearly understand what it is getting into and what roll it will play in the region as a whole. He preferred to try to maintain a decent jobs and housing balance or the City will otherwise be destined to be Los Angeles County's housing market and he was concerned about that. He said he realized there is a political reality and there are desires to change things but he thought it is important to look at the bigger picture and the whole cost of things in the long run before making adjustments. Randall Lewis thought that redeveloping Terra Vista will be years away and he asked what kinds of housing the Commission thought would be appropriate on the last parcels there. He thought they would be for sale units that are more urban and he thought some mixed use. He believed they are down to about their last five projects. He asked if the Commissioners had seen examples in other communities of things they would like to see. Commissioner Fletcher said there were some aspects about Ladera Ranch that he liked, but he noted they started with a clean slate. He said that if density is increased, he would like to see the projects in a mixed use setting that is pedestrian friendly so residents won't have to get into their Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 28, 2004 cars to go to a regional center. He said that was why there might be opportunity along Foothill Boulevard. With respect to the Oasis project, he thought the developer may wish to build the residential first and the office later, but he felt it would be best to build the office product first or at least concurrently with any residential so there would not be a request to abandon the office portion in the future. He said he talked to a friend who owns an accounting firm who wants to buy a building with approximately 30,000 to 60,000 square feet. He indicated his friend wanted to locate along Haven Avenue but is now looking In Ontario because there was nothing available. He did not want to lose the land we have available for upscale offices. Commissioner Stewart felt more senior housing is needed. She concurred that office condominiums are needed. She agreed the City should step back and look at the long picture and the economics of the proposed zoning changes. She said the General Plan was done in 2001 and noted that most communities only revise their General Plan every 10 years. She noted there were a number of people on the Task Force and she could not imagine that the group was so far off that there are now almost 30 projects that need rezoning. She observed that everyone is in it for profit and felt the City should not do something today that will hurt the City 10 years from now. She believed the City needs to look at the really big picture. Chairman Macias said he liked the comment regarding the senior housing. He said he would like to see a vested interest. He concurred with what.Commissioner Fletcher said regarding Foothill Boulevard. He was concerned about the magnitude of apartment complexes that have been built and said that the schools have taken a beating. He thought there should be lower densities in Terra Vista. Randall Lewis asked if Chairman Macias was looking for lower density or a lower child count. Chairman Macias thought it should be lower density in general. Mr. Buller said it would take some time for staff and the Lewis team to absorb what had been said in the meeting. He agreed it might be a good idea to have a workshop with the City Council. He said staff had discussed an idea with the Lewis team to have them perhaps tier off the fiscal report that was done for the last General Plan and look at the benefit analysis for the City. He said that is one of the components that might come back with the evaluation of the applications submitted. Randall Lewis stated that he walked the Terra Vista trail underneath the Milliken Route the previous Saturday for the first time. He asked Chairman Macias for his thoughts on ideas for the trail and what could be done to make it better. Chairman Macias stated that landscaping needs help throughout the entire trail system. He thought there should be a connection to Central Park. He felt the lighting is well done and the trails are wide enough for a good amount of traffic. He believed the landscaping is well done but thought it would be good to look at the placement of trees and some of the landscaping because there are a couple of areas where the landscaping is a little too dense and people may feel unsafe at night. He felt the trails are fairly well connected and it is easy to get to every park within a reasonable walking distance. Randall Lewis suggested that Mr. Buller walk the trails with him. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated he is the Trails Coordinator for the City. He said they get comments that from others that trail signage is minimal and people on the trail system do not know where they are or where they can go. He noted he said he had seen the plans for the Pacific Electric Trail System and he thought the signs were very interesting. He explained the intersections have arrows in a nice rock column to indicate what is located in each direction. He thought that it is important for trail users and also from a safety standpoint. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 28, 2004 Randall Lewis suggested they could be fun signs. Mr. Buller said he would be glad to take a walk. Chairman Macias indicated he would like to go along on the walk. Mr. Buller said he would have staff proceed with reviewing the applications and working with the applicant. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS K TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Motion: Moved by to Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to appoint Brian Zupke as the Bicycling Member at Large and to reappoint Laura Jarek, with their terms to expire in July 2005. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McNIEL, McPHAIL - carried Commissioner Fletcher indicated he would like the Commission to discuss recyclable waste containers. He noted the design and location of trash enclosures is subject to the design review process, but he thought there should be discussion regarding how many containers should be in a development and whether there should be a minimum number of recyclable containers. He stated he had a discussion with a representative of Burtec and he invited them to make a presentation to the Planning Commission to discuss the matter and they would be willing to do so and would also be willing to schedule a tour of their recycling facility following the meeting. He thought that might be beneficial since there is a State mandate to reduce the amount of waste going into landfills. Brad Buller, City Planner, thought that was a good topic. He stated staff looks at trash receptacles and where they should be placed but recycling is another concem. He noted that Code Enforcement has been called out in some instances because there is no place to put recycled materials since the trash enclosures were approved at a time when separation was not required. He said staff would work with Burtec and place the matter on an upcoming agenda. Chairman Macias recognized there have been staff reductions but he asked if staff was ever going to deal with the issue of multiple newspaper racks on many comers in the City. He asked what could be done to address the problem. Mr. Buller stated there is a provision in the Municipal Code covering newsracks and many are not in compliance. He noted that Commissioner Tolstoy had been most emphatic about why that issue Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 28, 2004 should be addressed. He said either the Planning Commission or City Council must indicate to staff that addressing the issue is a priority. He noted that when he made a presentation regarding signs to the Chamber of Commerce, he asked the threshold of tolerance for non-compliance with City Codes before the City decides to take action and put resources toward obtaining compliance Chairman Macias noted the racks are now in different colors. Commissioner Fletcher stated there will be more discussions about signs because the Chamber of Commerce has expressed concerns and plans to hold discussions. He noted that he went to a seminar at the Planning Commissioners Institute and was informed that a City went to court over magazine racks and spent over$150,000 and lost the suit. He thought the legal issues need to be considered. He commented that the panel suggested involving the regulated along with the regulators when drawing up the Ordinances., He hoped that getting others involved with the sign ordinance or any amendments to it and making them part of the process would hopefully lead to the removal of signs that are not in compliance. Commissioner Stewart felt the issue with respect to magazine racks, is that you must provide a place for them because of freedom of speech. She noted that in the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan, there are racks designed with a number of slots. She thought it could be cleaned up on Foothill Boulevard. Chairman Macias observed that there are multiple colored ones at Mimi's Cafe and the same ones are also located right across the street,with eight on one side and six on the other. He asked if the colors and designs of the racks could be regulated or if the City was just going to let them continue to proliferate. Mr. Buller said there is an adopted Ordinance that controls the design, color, and location. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, said there are some creative things that are not simple, but can be extremely effective if done correctly. He said it is necessary to make findings that it is necessary and not an attempt to restrict the ability to distribute. He thought the Route 66 plan gives the City an opportunity to address the issue. Mr. Buller indicated the Redevelopment Agency has acquired some funds to start putting in some of the amenities included in the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan, which may include newsracks. Commissioner Fletcher thought the City that went to court did so because the owners of the racks were chaining them to City light poles in public parks. He believed the distributors have a right to put them in shopping centers where people gather. Chairman Macias asked if that issue had been addressed in the new mall. Mr. Buller replied it is private property so the mall owners can do what they want. He said the City's Ordinance provides a process for obtaining a permit and indicates the type of materials, colors, and numbers for the racks in the public right of way. He noted there is still the matter of instituting and enforcing the law. Chairman Macias suggested that the Commission take a tour of Victoria Gardens while it is still under construction. Mr. Buller indicated staff would set up a tour. Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 28, 2004 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (McNiel absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nin Br Her V Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 28, 2004