HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/02/22 - Agenda Packet - Adjourned CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1995 7:30 P.M.
WORKSHOP
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher
Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy __
Commissioner Lumpp
III. Announcements
IV. Old Business
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS. - The design
review of architectural elevations, site plan, material and colors board, and
footprints for Building 18/19 (ice rink) Building 27 (theater) and related
parking requirements for the above noted buildings and modifications to
Building 1 (Jiffy Lube), which were conceptually approved by the Planning
Commission, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest comer of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through
28.
V. Public Comments
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to
be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VI. Adjournment
I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
hereby certiaS/ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on
February 16, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
Section 54954. 2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 22, 1995
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Beverly Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERIV~T 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS - The design review of
architectural elevations, site plan, material and colors board, and footprints for
Building 18/19 (ice rink) Building 27 (theater) and related parking requirements for
the above noted buildings and modifications to Building 1 (Jiffy Lube), which were
conceptually approved by the Planning Commission, located on 27. acres of land at
the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue in the Industrial
Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10,
19, 21, and 26 through 28.
ABST~CT: This workshop is a review of the architectural design, footprint, and revised
elevations for Building 27 (Theater). After review at the workshop, if the project receives approval,
the applicant can submit for plan check which could lead to building permits. Applicable conditions
that the Planning Commission imposed at the public hearing on January 25, 1995, still apply as
would any conditions which may be added 'at this workshop.
BACKGROUND: A condition was required at the January 25 Planning Commission meeting
(Resolution 95-07) that plans for this workshop be turned in three weeks prior to the date of the
workshop and that a revised parking study for the ice/roiler rink, completed by a licensed traffic
engineer, be submitted one week prior to the Planning Commission workshop. The first set of plans
was submitted to the Planning Division on Thursday, February 2. The applicant was contacted on
February 8 to inform him of staffs initial concerns with the inconsistencies in the submittal. At that
point, the applicant noted that the ice rink representative had some concerns with the redesigned
front elevation submitted to the City on February 2, and indicated that revised plans would be
resubmitted on Monday, February 13.
Revisions to the plans were not received until February 15 (one day prior to distribution) and the
parking study was also not received by the required deadline. For this reason, staff and the applicant
agreed to postpone the review of Building 18/19 (Ice Rink) until March when an additional
workshop could be held. Written comments and an analysis of the parking demand forthe ice/roller
rink will be presented to the Commission at that time. Because the applicant's submittal package
for the theater included plans for the Ice/Roller rink, the Commission received both. However, no
action should be taken on the ice/roller rink until the March Planning Commission workshop.
ITEM A
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CLIP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
February 22, 1995
Page 2
Following is a list of staffs comments regarding the Theater Building (27):
1. The location of the theater entrance has been relocated further to the east than the original
concept. The relocation of the entry places seven parking stalls immediately adjacent to the
intersection of Masi Drive and the entry drive aisle. This presents added conflicts between cars
backing up into the drive aisle and cars turning in fTom Masi Drive as well as with general auto
circulation in f~ont of the theater. Staff does not support the new site plan and believes it needs
to be rethought.
2. The site plan as proposed does not provide a safe or convenient drop-off area for theater
patrons. The area immediately in front of the theater entry steps off into the main east/west
drive aisle. Staff believes a drop off area is very important for a successful theater.
3. Exit doors have been added on the west side of the building. These are required for life safety
purposes, but according to the Building and Safety Division, they must exit onto a minimum
44-inch concrete surface, which must be connected to a public way. The doors, as noted,
empty onto a landscaped area according to the dimensioned site plan. The landscape plan is
not consistent with this plan and does indicate two walkways, but does not indicate that all exit
doors are connected to a hard surface. Revised landscape plans showing the required
walkways and sufficient security lighting must be submitted.
4. The Irash enclosure is located directly in front of the building. It should be relocated to a less
visible portion of the site.
5. Plans do not clearly identify what is being proposed in the bardscape area north of Building
11. Additional notes or information should be provided before this area is approve&
6. Plans do not reflect any type of special paving treatment at the enU'ance to the theater. Some
type of special paving such as exposed aggregate, retardant finish, banding, or color should be
added at this location.
7. Neither the landscape plan nor the site plan address what is happening in the corridor along
the east side of Building 11.
8. Decorative paving shall be provided at the intersection of Masi Drive and the aisle in front of
the theater consistent with the originally approved retardant finish, gray color concrete
approved for the center.
9. The northeast comer of Building 27 is too close to the curb face and does not provide adequate
area for pedestrian circulation.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CLIP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
February 22, 1995
Page 3
1. The style of architecture proposed is the same theme as what was approved for the other
buildings on the site. Considering the fact that there will probably be hardscape along the
majority of the west side of the building, some type of trellis and vine treatment should be
added to break up the long linear facade. Also, the south side of Building 11 should be
provided with vine planting or landscaping to break up the facade.
2. Color schedule #3 indicates the color "Nightfall" but it is not clear where it is located on the
building.
3. Dimensions of the prefabricated cornice, which occurs around the entire building, should be
provided. A thick enough dimension should be provided to produce a shadow line.
4. A material and color sample of the 6 x 6 inch tile detail at the entry must be provided.
5. The applicant has not indicated a potential location for a marquee or any other signage for the
theater. Because signs for a theater play a major part in the architecture of the building, staff
believes it is important that at least the sign area and location be identified with this review.
PARKING
The applicant has provided capacity for 1,300 patrons. The code requires one parking space per four
seats for multi-screen theaters, with five additional spaces for employees. This requires that 330
spaces be provided. The required number of spaces have been provided.
An overall parking analysis for the entire center will be provided at the meeting.
BUILDING 1 (JIFFY LUBE)
1. The originally approved plan indicated a 3-foot screen wall and berms in from of the Jack-in-
the-Box to screen the drive-thru aisle from Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive. This has been
deleted f~om this plan and a walkway installed from the entrance of the facility to Foothill
Boulevard. Conversations with Building and Safety indicate that this walkway is not needed
to satisfy ADA requirements as stated by the applicant. Staff feels it should be deleted, in that
it precludes screening of the drive-thru aisle and creates an unsafe condition where a
pedestrian walkway is crossing over a vehicular lane.
2. Decorative paving shall be provided at the intersection of Masi Drive and the aisle leading to
the Auto Court, consistent with the originally approved retardant finish, gray color concrete
approved for the center.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
February 22, 1995
Page 4
3. The layout of Building 1 (Jiffy Lube) has been modified by reorienting the parking and
reducing the number of service bays to six. The 7-foot wide planter just east of the bays
should be heavily landscaped with evergreen trees and shrubs to screen the service bays. The
4-foot planter should be increased in width to 6 feet, in order to provide room for screen
planting as well.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that all of the noted issues be addressed by the applicant and that revised plans
be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of building permits.
BB:BL/jfs