Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/05/11 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 11, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:32 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: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Matt Everling, Planning Intern; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, adopted 4-0-1, to approve the minutes of April 13, 1994, as amended. CONSENT C~LENDAR Ae VARIANCE 94-02 - ORTIZ - Resolution of approval for a request to construct a 6-foot high solid fence within the front yard setback of an existing single family residential parcel in the Very Low Residential designation (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5333 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1074-231-08. (Heard on April 27, 1994.) Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 94-02. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that the public hearing had been closed at the previous meeting, and the staff had been directed to prepare a resolution of approval for formal adoption at tonight's meeting. He observed that the neighbor was in the audience this evening. James Tohey, 10139 Vista Grove, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he would like to talk about the project. Chairman Barker observed that the vote had already been taken and the project had been approved. He asked Mr. Tohey if he had contacted staff regarding a separate application for his wall so that the Commission could consider the matter. Mr. Tohey replied he had not. Chairman Barker responded he should talk to staff. Mr. Tohey stated the common wall is on the property line. Me said the wall would be 6 feet high on the Ortiz side but only 4 feet high on his side. Commissioner Lumpp noted staff had been informed that an agreement had been reached between the two neighbors. He observed it had been suggested that block be placed between the pilasters. Mr. Tohey said that would be fine. Chairman Barker said he would not need to return to the Commission unless there is a change. Mr. Buller said staff would need to review the plans for the wall. Chairman Barker stated that Mr. Murphy would tell Mr. Tohey how to proceed with a variance on his own property, process building permits per his agreement with the Ortizes, or appeal this decision if he should chose to do so. PUBLIC HEARINGS Be ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01A - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation from Office to Community Commercial for 25 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Spruce Avenue on the west, Church Street on the north, and Elm Avenue on the east - APN: '1077-421-58 and 63. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 94-01. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - A request to amend the land use designation for a 25 acre piece of vacant land from Office Professional District to Community Commercial District bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Spruce Avenue on the west, Church Street on the north, and Elm Avenue on the east - APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 94-01A. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report regarding General Plan Amendment 94-01A. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 11, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy noted the area immediately to the north of the project site is designated as Medium Residential with High Residential to the.west of the Medium. He asked if there had been any consideration regarding changing the Medium Residential and whether Medium would be appropriate adjacent to Community Commercial. Mr. Warren replied there had been no consideration of changing the designation to High Residential. He thought the development standards should be able to accommodate any negative impacts and noted that if the adjacent property were changed to High Residential, that would mean that more people could be impacted. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when the original General Plan was laid out, the buffer appeared to be in land use stages from Commercial to Office to Residential. He noted that since that time, a majority the street frontage of the northern property has been changed to a Park designation. He said that it is not unusual to have Residential adjacent to Commercial. Commissioner Tolstoy noted concerns have previously been voiced regarding Neighborhood Commercial being adjacent to Residential. Mr. Bullet remarked that generally those concerns deal with Low Residential single-family developments rather than Medium Residential projects. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant had prepared air quality and traffic analyses. Mr. Warren replied that the applicant had provided a detailed project analysis and prepared the Initial Study and staff completed an air emissions inventory utilizing the California Environmental Quality Act handbook. He noted that all emissions were determined to be under the permitted increased emission amounts. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that traffic analyses are based on peak hour trip generation figures. He stated staff had compared the Commercial uses to the previously designated Office and Professional uses. He said office uses tend to have concentrated peak hours of opening and closing whereas a Commercial use generally opens in the morning and generates trips throughout the day until closing in the evening. Commissioner Lumpp asked if additional traffic studies would be requested when the individual projects are submitted. Mr. James replied additional traffic analysis would be required regarding internal circulation and local access from Spruce, Church, and Elm Avenues because an office park would typically have an office in the center with parking evenly distributed around the center and access being. more evenly distributed onto the surrounding streets whereas there would be limited access from Spruce because of limited parking available in the rear of a commercial center. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 11, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp asked if a more detailed analysis and modeling would be required when the applicant submits a specific project. Mr. James replied more detailed analysis would be required but no modeling would be required because there are no regional concerns. He said the applicant had already met with the traffic engineer to determine what would be required. He said there may be concerns regarding stacking on Spruce Avenue at Town Center. Commissioner Lumpp asked if an action on the General Plan Amendment would mean the Commission was also taking action on the marketing analysis. Mr. Buller replied that the analysis was provided only as background material. Commissioner Lumpp {ecalled that when Urban Research Associates prepared a marketing study for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, they reported there was no need for any additional Commercial. He noted that the applicant's study indicated there is a demand for more Commercial and the City's consultant appeared to agree that more Commercial would be appropriate. He asked what had changed since the initial report. Mr. Warren replied that when the initial study for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was completed, the City was just starting to see a great increase in residential build out and the comparison was to other cities in Southern California. He said that the second study took into account the tremendous residential growth which had taken place, not only in Rancho Cucamonga but also in surrounding cities, and concluded that additional Commercial could be supported. Mr. Buller stated the market study provided by the applicant indicated there is a market for specific types and sizes of users that is missing in Rancho Cucamonga. He said the applicant is trying to focus on those needs. Commissioner Lumpp said he was glad to see that Mr. Young had modified his thinking on the need for additional Commercial. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report regarding Tetra Vista Community. Plan Amendment 94-01. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the City should designate the width for the landscaped area bisecting the site. He felt "wide" was too ambiguous. Ms. Fong replied that staff felt that should be determined when a specific project is submitted. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated their original intent had been to submit the conditional use permit application in time to have a workshop with the Commission before the hearings on the general plan and industrial specific plan amendments. However, he said there had been significant changes to the project and they hoped to have a Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 11, 1994 workshop as soon as possible. Mr. Luque said that when the project was first approved as Office/Professional, 600,000 square feet of office buildings had been planned from two to six stories high. He stated that the northwest corner of the project is below the street grade and he said there will be significant landscaping to mitigate the effects to the residential property across the street. He said they had been approached by specific users to build the buildings they now propose so they feel the project is viable. Rick Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they had developed Terra Vista Town Center in several phases over many years with approximately 503,000 square feet completed to date. He said the the pad buildings currently under construction are leased and there is a vacancy factor of only 5 percent in the entire project. He stated that the smaller stores are less desirable than larger shops in today's economy. He said they were requesting the rezoning in order to reinforce the market share of Tetra Vista Town Center. He felt it would augment the center and make it a stronger commercial complex. He presented a letter of intent from Best Buy Electronics for a 58,500 square foot store which they wanted to open on November 11, 1994, in conjunction with other stores in California. He stated that they propose building approximately 225,000 square feet in phases with the first phase of approximately 100,000 square feet to be completed and open by March 1995. He said they had received commitments for all but 6,000 square feet of the first phase. He felt the new project would generate an additional $50 to $60 million in sales per year. He stated that Project Manager David Newsome, Senior Marketing Manager Paula Dempsey, and Paul Vogel, President of Realty Development Research, were available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher noted Mr. Mager had said he hoped to reach about $100 million in sales at Town Center with the 503,000 square feet. He asked how the new center of 225,000 square feet could then be expected to do between $50 to $60 million. Mr. Mager said that Best Buy currently does approximately $20 million in each store that they operate with the average store size less than 45,000 square feet. He said this new store will be approximately 60,000 square feet and should generate approximately $30 million in its first year of operation. Paul Vogel, President of Realty Development Research, Inc. 542 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, stated they had prepared a study in 1990 which they updated in November 1993 and March 1994. He presented a company brochure and a memorandum which briefly reviewed the analysis prepared by the City's consultant. Mr. Vogel stated that even when using the lower numbers generated by the City's consultant, there is still a current deficiency of 400,000 square feet of Commercial space in the City. Commissioner Melcher noted that the City's consultant concluded that the additional Commercial space should be devoted to a limited number of types of retailers. He asked if Mr. Vogel agreed with that premise. Mr. Vogel did not agree, but felt there is a need in the total department store type merchandise area. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 11, 1994 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing Commissioner Melcher noted that the original design concept for the corporate park was to have open landscaped areas within the site providing a view into the community. He noted that Church Street is a major thoroughfare and would now likely look onto a more solid back side of a commercial center. He preferred to have the topic addressed at the Commission level before acting upon the community plan amendment. He did not object to the use and favored proceeding with the General Plan change. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the change makes sense but he noted that the City has a number of small businesses in the community that are hurting and he feared adding more Commercial space of larger users would hurt the small businesses even more. He also noted that the Masi project also added Commercial uses along Foothill Boulevard and the City seems to be doing patchwork planning rather than following the plan the City has in place. He thought the Commission should take a good look at the additional Commercial property still available to be developed and the rest of the designations along Foothill Boulevard to determine what other uses might be appropriate. He thought this particular application makes sense but he wished the City could tell the developer to trade this additional Commercial for another site already designated as Commercial so that new Commercial property would not be added. Commissioner Lumpp felt the general plan amendment is appropriate based on staff's analysis. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that areas in the community are suffering but he was not sure that prohibiting a project such as this would help. He thought users will relocate more readily in today's economy leaving older centers with less business. He felt the design standards section of the community plan amendment should be further reviewed before approval. He particularly felt that "wide" landscape area should be better defined. Chairman Barker felt the public votes with their purchasing power and the small shops are a victim of the way people shop. He thought that people shop where it meets their needs, whether it be for cheaper goods or a wider selection, and they will continue to shop where it meets their needs no matter where that particular store may be. He said the City is now starting to have a wider selection of stores. He did not think turning down this application would save the smaller stores which are hurting. He supported the General Plan amendment. He echoed Commissioner Melcher's concerns regarding the view from Church Street as he felt it appears to be a giant alley behind the project and he wished to see a little more detail before recommending approval of the community plan amendment. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a negative declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 94-01A. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 11, 1994 Mr. Buller stated that the applicant would like to fast track the project because of their commitment to Best Buy. He suggested that the Commission could take action on the concept but defer acceptance of the text regarding streetscape design and how the project fronts onto Church Street. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission could cooperate with the applicant in continuing to move towards the applicant's long range objectives as they work through the project. He felt the community plan may have to reflect the actual development more than predicted. He thought the comments that had been offered tonight were in an effort to help to shape the project. He suggested the community plan amendment and the project move forward together. Chairman Barker agreed that he would prefer not to come up with language before seeing what is proposed. He wanted to be sure his concerns could be addressed. He again opened the public hearing. Mr. Mager stated he had worked in the City for almost five years and he felt their track record speaks for itself. He said they were committed to working with the Commission as partners to satisfy its concerns relative to the streetscape and other aspects of the project. He noted they have significant time constraints with regards to the Best Buy. He suggested changing "wide" to "significant," which he felt is a stronger word. Me acknowledged that the Commission's concerns were valid. He observed that the Commission will have to approve every proposed building and he requested that the Commission move forward with the community plan amendment. Chairman Barker acknowledged that each building will have to be approved by the Commission, but he felt uneasy with the sketch which is included as an exhibit to the community plan. Mr. Buller noted that since the Commission had taken action on the General Plan Amendment, that portion could go forward to the City Council without action on the community plan amendment. Ms. Fong stated the applicant had only last week submitted new design plans and she anticipated the project could not come before the Commission until the second meeting in June. Mr. Buller noted that the Community Plan Amendment would require City Council approval whereas the Conditional Use Permit would not need to go to the City Council unless appealed. He suggested the matter be continued for two weeks to try to address the concerns regarding the exhibit and text. Ms. Fong suggested a pre-application review of the project preceding the design review of the actual project. She thought that would give an advance look into the project design. Commissioner Melcher thought the City and developer have enjoyed a long relationship in development of the project. He felt the developer could proceed on the development plan and act on good faith that the City would approve the plan when the Commission's concerns are satisfied. He noted the applicant could be in plan check with the working drawings before the City Council finalizes the change to the community plan. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 11, 1994 Mr. Buller said that would be correct with the consent of the Building Official. He suggested the matter be. continued for two weeks to allow staff and the applicant to work on addressing the concerns. Mr. Luque felt the actual project and the community plan are tied together and he supported the pre-application workshop suggestion. Chairman Barker asked if the Commission could have the pre-application review prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Buller felt that could be accomplished. Commissioner Melcher felt that could be a workable solution because he thought a pre-application review may result in the development of sufficient changes to the community plan. Chairman Barker noted that the hearing was still open. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 94-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried , , , · , D. VARIANCE 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request to increase the sign area for the Project Identification Monument Sign from 24 to 49 square feet; increase the sign area for the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from 24 to 49 square feet; and increase the maximum number of tenant names on the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from three to five per face, for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenues - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related File: Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 88. OLD BUSINESS AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 88 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Sign Program to allow a Project Identification Monument Sign, internally illuminated Tenant Identification Monument Signs, and various changes to the sign criteria for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related file: Variance 93-05· Chairman Barker noted that staff was requesting a continuance to May 25, 1994. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Commissioner Melcher noted that the staff report had not yet been heard and should be heard when the item is returned. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 11, 1994 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Variance 93-05 and Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 88 to May 25, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried , , , , NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-02 - CRHO ARCHITECTS, INC. - A request to construct an 8,540 square foot restaurant on a 2.2 acre parcel in the Office Park designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-58. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 27, 1994.) Chairman Barker asked if staff had made contact with the restaurant. Mr. Buller stated that the restaurant had not as yet returned the calls, but staff had not yet received a letter of withdrawal. Chairman Barker requested public comment. Rick Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, thought the applicant would like to seek a continuance for approximately 30 days. Mr. Buller stated that staff would support that request. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 94-02 to June 22, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried , , · , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS STREET NAME CHANGE 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the street name "Pierson Court" to "Pearson Court," located east of Johnston Place. Matt Everling, Planning Intern, presented the staff report. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution initiating the process to rename "Pierson Court" to "Pearson Court." Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 11, 1994 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE MCNIEL -carried , , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the rest of the Commission felt that development along Foothill Boulevard should be considered. Chairman Barker felt the industrial area also needs to be considered. He agreed that piecemeal planning may take place as developments are proposed. He was not sure what the priority should be. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission and Design Review would have a reduced number of projects to review once the streamlining is in place. Mr. Buller felt there would be a matter of transition. He anticipated the Commission would see a difference in the items on the agenda. He stated however that staff would have to put in the same amount of time preparing a staff report for consideration prior to action by the City Planner and that he would have to spend the same amount of time the Commission now spends on hearing those matters. He felt it will be even tougher for staff to complete the analyses and reviews the Commission may wish to have because the number of staff has been decreased. He felt the Commission needs to establish priorities. Commissioner Melcher noted the Commission had not finished discussing the work program and there is an increasing number of planning issues that need to be addressed by the Commission. He worried about positions being lost through attrition' but he was unwilling to give up the idea that Rancho Cucamonga is a City with a plan. He felt planning remains important for the present and the future of the City. He said it was unclear why the budget money could be found if the individuals had not elected to leave but when they leave, it is suddenly no longer available. He felt the Commission should turn to the Council and indicate the positions need to be replaced when staffing levels have fallen so low. He said he was willing as a Planning Commissioner to stick his neck out because he felt planning in the City is hurting because positions are not being refilled. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that remaining staff is also being burnt out. Chairman Barker suggested the Commission discuss the work load and schedule for the year and prioritize what needs to be done and is important to the City and indicate what can be done with the available funds and staff. He noted Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 11, 1994 that each time a position is lost, there are fewer things which can be done. He thought the Commission should alert the City Council if the Commission determines that what needs to be done can not be accomplished because of a lack of staff so that the Council can make a knowledgeable decision. Commissioner Melcher agreed that was a good idea. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Foothill Boulevard is the City's primary shopping area and the window to the community for a lot of people. He thought there will soon be more pressure to add more Commercial property to Foothill Boulevard; therefore, he thought the Commission should discuss what it thinks Foothill Boulevard will turn out to be. Chairman Barker noted there is a Foothill Boulevard Plan and he thought it may not take a lot of staff time for the Commission to read it over and determine what the recent changes have meant to it. He thought the Commissioners should have a workshop on the work program as soon as possible, possibly on June 22. Mr. Buller suggested the Commissioners could also call individually to discuss the work program. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, to adjourn. 9:25 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on May 25, at 6:00 p.m. for a Pre-Application Review on the proposed 25-acre shopping center at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 11, 1994