Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/04/12 - Agenda Packet - Adjourned CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY APRIL 12, 1995 8:00 P.M. WORKSHOP RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER DE ANZA 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) and Building 27 (theater) and related parking requirements for the above noted buildings; modifications to Building 1 (Jiffy Lube); and screening of Jack in the Box drive-thru lane, 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 genet;al public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VI. Commission Business VII. Adjournment The Planning Commission will adjoum to a Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting at 5:00 P.M. on April 25, 1995, in the Tri-Communities Room. I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 6, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954. 2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP 'k CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RF. PORT DATE: April 12, 1995 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS - The design review of architectural elevations, site plan, matedal and colors board, and footprints for Building 18/19 (ice rink) and Building 27 (theater) and related parking requirements for the above noted buildings; modifications to Building I (Jiffy Lube); and screening of Jack in the Box drive-thru lane, which were conceptually approved by the Planning Commission, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest corner 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. ABSTRACT: This workshop is a review of architectural design, footprints, and elevations for Building 18/19 (ice rink) and Building 27 (theater) as well as the related parking requirements. If, after review, the Commission is ready to approve these components, a resolution of approval will be available at the meeting and the applicant could submit for plan check which could lead to building permits. All other applicable conditions that the Planning Commission imposed at the public hearing on January 25, 1995, still apply as would any additional conditions added at this workshop. BACKGROUND: This project was last reviewed at a Planning Commission Workshop on February 22, 1995. Minutes from that meeting have been attached. At that meeting the Commission reviewed the theater architecture and site plan, Building 1 (Jiffy Lube) modifications and screening of the Jack in the Box drive thru lane. The applicant has addressed the issues discussed at that meeting as noted below. The applicant has also provided the revised site plan and elevations for the proposed ice rink (Building 18/19). The ice rink elevations were last reviewed by the Commission on January 11, 1995. Minutes from that meeting also have been attached to this report. BUILDING 27 (THEATER~ Site Plan: 1. The theater entrance has been maintained in the same location as shown in the previous plans reviewed on January 11; however, a passenger drop-off now has been provided and the seven parking stalls which were adjacent to Masi Drive have been eliminated. The drop off is 67 feet in length, which could accommodate a maximum TT]E~ A PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS April 12, 1995 Page 2 of three cars. The elimination of the parking stalls and the addition of the passenger drop-off addresses two of the Commission's main concerns. 2. The site plan has been corrected regarding the exit doors and the relationship between the walkways and landscaped areas on the west side of the building. Areas sufficient for tree planting have been provided adjacent to the west side of the building, which mitigates the Commission's previous concern. A landscape plan has not been provided for this portion of the project yet, but a condition of approval will be included in the resolution that would require tree and vine planting in this location. The Edison vault, last shown along Masi Drive in front of the theater, has been deleted from the plans. 3. The double trash enclosure remains in the front of the building which was allowed by the Commission at the previous workshop. It should be noted, however, that the design of the trash enclosure has yet to be submitted by the applicant. This is a condition of approval which must be met prior to the issuance of building permits and could potentially hold up permit issuance if not addressed in a timely fashion. 4. The hardscape area north of Building 11 has been provided with outdoor seating, potted plants, and shade trees. Exposed aggregate paving has been provided on the ground plane. Staff believes this is a good use of the space and could take advantage of the business generated by the proposed coffee house north of the theater. The trees proposed (California Pepper and Gleditsia) will become too large for the allotted space and should be replaced with some other smaller and cleaner species. It should also be noted that no plans have been submitted for the design of benches, free standing pots, light standards, trash receptacles, bollards, etc. This is a condition of approval which requires the City Planner to review the design of the above features prior to issuance of permits. This is another issue which could potentially hold up issuance of permits, if not addressed by the applicant in a timely fashion. 5. Special paving has been proposed around the entrance of the theater in the form of exposed aggregate with a saw cut pattern. 6. As noted in the last workshop, 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 with the original Conditional Use Permit. This has not been noted on the plans and will be added as a condition of approval. 7. The proximity of the northeast comer of Building 27 to the curb face was noted at the last workshop. The applicant has addressed this by deleting a portion of the building and creating a 6-foot space next to the column where pedestrians can pass. 8. Planter areas have been provided on the south (front) side of the building to soften the facade. It is not clear whether or not these are raised or flush planters. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS April 12, 1995 Page 3 Architecture 1. Material samples have been provided for the 12- x 12-inch tiles which are proposed on the front of the building. However, the 6- x 6-inch tiles have still not been detailed. At the last meeting, the applicant indicated that they were actually glass block. 2. A scaled dimension of the cornice detail at the top of the building has still not been provided. 3. The entry sign which was previously located in the front of the building has been deleted. 4. Potential signage locations have been provided and seem reasonable. 5. The applicant has provided two alternatives for the front elevation. Staff prefers Scheme One since it is more in keeping with the remainder of the center. Scheme Two provides a facade which appears "tacked on" and would look odd from the side elevations. BUILDING I (JIFFY LUBE~ AND BUILDING 2 (JACK IN THE BOX~ 1. A walkway has been added between the sidewalk and the entrance to the Jack in the Box as previously indicated. The applicant has attempted to screen this through the use of berming and screen walls. The information provided is not sufficient to determine whether or not the stacked cars will actually be screened from view. A section should be provided which indicates that this will be addressed. Additionally, the screen wall should extend further south to be even with the pick-up windows. 2. The screen wall located between Foothill Boulevard and Building 1 should be extended southward in a similar manner as the Jack in the Box wall. This will provide a symmetry to the entrance and will also screen the drive-thru lane for the car wash. BUILDING 18/19 (ICE RINK~ 1. The building has been sited so that it now meets the 30-foot setback from Rochester Avenue and the 25 foot setback from Sebastian Way. 2. The drop-off in front of the building has been eliminated. A 2-foot wrought iron fence on top of a concrete seat wall has been provided along the front of the building to define the queuing space and also to discourage jaywalkers. A privet hedge has been provided between the seatwall and the street to further separate the entry way from the street and to discourage shortcutting and graffiti. Additionally, a large exposed aggregate plaza area helps to further define the proper place to enter the rink. 3. The massing of the building has been altered significantly to eliminate the boxiness of the previous design and is now more in keeping with the rest of the center. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS April 12, 1995 Page 4 4. The applicant is still proposing to utilize the insulated metal panel material for which the Commission has expressed concern even after viewing in the field. To date, the applicant has not provided any additional information that would address the Commission's concerns regarding durability and construction techniques. 5. A cross-section from the Sports Complex has been provided which indicates that all roof mounted equipment will be located on the northern portion of the building and not on any portion of the roof over the ice rinks. PARKING 1. A revised parking study was conducted by Justin Farmer and Associates which indicates that there is adequate parking on site for two sheets of ice totaling 17,000 square feet. The study indicates that, under normal conditions, there will be adequate parking for public skating at the east rink and team activity at the west rink. If a "full house" special event is scheduled in the east rink, the study indicates there will be adequate parking for only limited activity in the west rink (i.e., that will not generate a demand for more than 36 parking spaces). The consultant indicates that the above forecasts are based on the presumption that 100% of all seats are occupied. He believes, that from a practical standpoint, this will not happen. He recommends that bleacher seating be limited to 266. There are 164 parking spaces available for the ice rink. 2. Parking calculations for the remainder of the project have been provided on the attached sheet (see Exhibit "A"). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval subject to all of the noted issues being addressed by the applicant and that, where necessary, revised plans be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of building permits. City Planner BB:BL:sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Parking Calculations Exhibit "B" -January 11, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "C" - February 22, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes SHOPPING CENTER (AREA 1) Bldg. Floor Use Parking Spaces Spaces No. Area Ratio Required Provided 3 2,770 lack In The Box 5/1000 14 4 10,600 Mix: · 5,000 Restaurant 5/1000 25 · 5,600 Retail 5/1000 25 5 13,000 Old Spaghetti Factory 5/1000 65 6 4,978 Dermy's Restaurant 5/1000 25 7 7,739 Retail 5/1000 39 11 17,486 Retail 5/1000 87 12 14,800 Retail 5/1000 74 13 20,688 Retail 5/1000 103 14 11,980 Billiard Hall (34 tables) 2/table 68 15 14,300 Health Club 1/150 95 27 20,405 Theater (1300 seats) l:4seats - 330 Total 138,746 953 4,936 + Restaurant over 15% 1/100 49 Total 138,746 1,002 AUTO COURT (AREA 2) Bldg. Floor Use Parking Spaces Spaces No. Area Ratio Required Provided I 4,322 Txff~Lube(6bays) 3 +2/bay 15.0 2 2,400 Gas Station 3 + 2/bay 52.5 Car Wash 2.5 8 5,132 Auto Service (S bays) 3+2/bay 19.0 9 7,791 Auto Sen, ice (20 bays) 3 + 2/bay 43.0 I0 4,736 Auto Service (8 bays) 3+ 2/bay 19.0 Total 24,381 103.5 EXIqlBIT "A- 1" SOUTH SIDE OF SEBASTIAN WAY (AREA 3) Bldg. Floor Use Parking Spaces Spaces No. Area Ratio Required Provided 18/19 64,200 Ice Rink Special 156 Parking Study 25 20,825 Industrial {multi-tenant) 1/400 52 26 12, 103 Batting Cages, etc. Varies 18 Total 97,128 226 PROJECT GRAND TOTAL Area Floor Use Parking Spaces Spaces No. Area Ratio Required Provided 1 138,746 Shopping Center 1,002.0 2 24,381 Auto Service Court 103.5 3 97,128 South Side of Sebastian W. 226.0 Total 260,255 1,331.5 1,391 I:XFINALLO426PARI~WPD EXHIBIT "A-2" D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS The development of an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18 and 19; a multi-screen theater in Building 27; revisions to previously approved Building 1; new elevations for Buildings 25 and 26; and a parking study addressing required parking ~or the ice/roller rink, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (the site Of previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. Chairman Barker observed that at the Dece~0er 28 workshop, the Planning Commission had agreed to allot 30 minutes to the matter so that the applicant could present plans reflective of direction given at the workshop. Brad Bullet, City Planner, noted that at the December 28 workshop, the applicant had indicated they would bring back revisions to the plans to address the issues raised at the workshop. Me reported the plans had been received by the City on January 10 and had been delivered to the co~unissioners that evening. He said staff had not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the plans. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. John De Frenza, 20301 S.W. Birch St., Suite 101, Newport Beach, stated he had not artended the December 28 workshop and had made his best effort to translate the meeting notes. He reported he had been told by his client and Mr. Bullet that the drawings submitted were not in concurrence with the general consensus of the Commission. He said he had two other revisions for review tonight if the Commission wished to view them. Be said Mr. Scandiffio felt the two new revisions are more in line with the comments from the December 28 workshop. Chairman Barker felt the front elevation depicted on the plans presented the day before was not what had been requested. Mr. De Frenza suggested the revised elevations be reviewed in a workshop setting. Chairman Barker asked if the Commissioners would prefer to move to a workshop setting. Commissioner Melcher Objected to being asked to make a snap judgement, particularly on this project which had been before the Commission many times in many forms. He felt it was unfair on the part of the applicant to make such a request. chairman Barker asked to see the revised elevations and Mar. De Frenza rolled them out. Commissioner Lumpp stated his understanding was that the project had been scheduled to be heard on this evening's agenda, but because the applicant was not prepared the Commission agreed to look at plans submitted and give further direction based on conversations at the December 28 workshop, with action to be taken at the January 25 meeting. He said that was to allow the applicant to make further revisions if necessary. He did not think the Commission had agreed to approve the plans tonight. Chairman Barker said it was his understanding that the applicant would provide revised drawings for tonight's meeting to try to reflect what had been discussed at the workshop and the applicant would have 30 minutes to make a presentation if they so desired so that the Commission could provide direction without an additional workshop so the applicant could move forward. Planning Commission Minutes R January 11, 1995 Ccfmnissioner McNiel commented that staff was supposed to have had time to review the plans. He asked if staff had an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Buller replied that they arrived yesterday right before being delivered to the Con~nissioners and staff had not had an opportunity to properly review them. He said it was staff's understanding that the Commission would look at the plans this evening and offer suggestions on conditions of approval that might be applied to the project so that a resolution could be prepared for the January 25 meeting. Chairman Barker asked if staff had seen the plans presented this evening by Mr. De Frenza. Mr. Buller replied staff had not. Mr. De Frenza stated he had just finished the revised elevations this afternoon and no one had seen them as yet. Chairman Barker felt the revised plans were closer to the direction that the Commission had given on December 28. Commissioner Melcher felt such a conclusion could not be drawn because the new exhibits were not supported by plan views. Mr. De Frenza said he had a plan view available, but he had not rolled it out. commissioner McNiel felt the plans should be reviewed in a workshop setting so the commission could suggest conditions so that staff could move forward. Chairman Barker noted the Commission had allotted 30 minutes which should have been enough to move forward. He asked if the remainder of the Commissioners wished to continue the matter until after tonight's meeting and scheduled workshop. Co~niseioner Tolstoy felt the project has been dragging along for some time and each time a new user presents itself, the city scrambles to make changes and approve new concepts. He agreed the plans would better be looked at in a workshop setting where they could be all laid out. He did not feel the applicant had preeented enough information. He asked if a materials board was available. Mr. De Frenza said no. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the applicant was prepared. Motion: Moved by L~m,pp, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to continue the matter to the end of the agenda after the scheduled workshop. E. MODIFTCATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-49 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - A modification to the development of an integrated shopping center, Town center Square, consisting of 13 buildings totaling 225,316 square feet on 25 acres of land in the Con~nunity Commercial District of the Tetra Vista community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. Related file: Development Review 94-19. Planning Conunission Minutes ~ January 11, 1995 Western Development CO., provide that the works of art be placed upon of the plazas, and delete the Home Express sign on the west carried by the following vote: AYES= COMMISSIONERS= BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES= NONE ABSENT= NONE Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission s not have required additional architectural treatment for the north the west elevation of Building 1 because it will make the west elevation different from the south elevation and they will both be viewed at the time. Co6laissioner Lumpp stated the allows staff to work with the applicant to come up with a design work well and look good. There public comments at this time. Planning C~,..ission recessed from 9=34 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. for a workshop on ation Review 94-05. D. CONDITTON~ USE PEPJ~IT 94-~6 - MASI P~RTNERS Brad Bullet, Cl~y Planner, gave a brief description of ~he December 28, 1994, Pla~ing ~lssion Workshop. He ~dica=~ ~ha= ~he ~p off was ~o ~ reloca~ed 100 f~t to the east ~r ~ Enginar~ng Division, a wal~8~ arcade was re~lred from ~he eas~ side of the building ~o ~he fron~ door ~o crea~e an ent~ stating, and ~ugh~ ~on was ~o be provided in locations a~ the fron~ of the elevation =o discourage Jay walking. He c~en~ed tha~ ~he ~erial and color s~ple ~ard had no~ ~n eu~i=~ and =hat the floor plan and elevations still have some inconsis~encies. He no~ ~ha~ ~he parking layou~ adjacent ~o Rochester Avenue will re~re a variance, because l~ is less ~han 30 feet fr~ the face of the curb. John De Frenza, 20301 S.W. B~rch St., Suite 101, Ne~rt Beach, presented the revis~ elevations. He ~ ~ha~ ~hey c~ld lose 5 f~ ~ ~he building =o ~ke up for ~he lack of parking setback along Rochester. Michael Sc~diffio, 1510 Rl~rlide Drip, Burb~, ~es~lon~ whether or n~ ~hey could get a variance. co~iseioner ~elcher cobended there was no justification since ~he S~r~s Complex provided a 30-foo~ setback. Mr. De Frenza indica~ed he could clear up =he d~screpancLes in =he floor p~an since he had received =he necessa~ lnfo~e=ion fr~ ~he ~ce rink manag~n~ company. He noted ~ha~ he had ~ried to address ~he concerns ~he C~iselon expressed a~ ~he DecOr 28 ~rkshop regarding the en~ 8~ ~he northeast corner, bu~ i~ was difficul~ Ncause he had no~ ~n a= ~he ~e~ing. He said he Planning Con~nission Minutes ~15 January 11, 1995 had simply forgotten to move the entry drop off as requested by the Engineering Division. Mr. Suller indicated that originally the Engineering Division'required that the drop-off area be extended 100 feet, but now there is a question as to why there would be a drop-off area where patrons cannot get into the building. He thought the dro~-off area should be relocated to relate to the entry and the applicant should work with the Engineering Division as to the length of the drop off. Con~nissioner Melcher noted that the building had changed and he felt the front of the building now resembles a box. Mr. De Frenza presented new drawings to the Commission. The first alternative had an arcade in front Of the building with wrought iron fencing in front. An arcade structure was feintreduced and a small entry was provided with additional glass. The second alternative had additional windows with two entries, one on either side of the colonnade. This provided more visibility into the front of the facility with additional glass. Mr. De Frenza noted that the distance from the front curb face to the fence is 21 feet. He noted that there is 10 feet 6 inches from the edge of the drop off to the building face. Following a discussion regarding the depth of the drop off required by the Engineering Division, Corm~issioner Melther said he felt a dictate from the Engineering Division was spoiling an opportunity to create a plaza space at the front of the building. Cormnissioner McNiel noted that he was afraid the uses proposed in the center would all peak at the same time and he thought the parking areas should be separated as much as possible. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the Engineering Division opposes providing a crosswalk from the north side of the street to the ice facility. Ccm~nissioner Melcher noted that the I inch * 40 foot scale was hard to visualize. He thought the applicant should make a comprehensive attempt to solve the problem at a workable scale. Mr. De Frenza agreed and said that, given more time, he would do that. commissioner Melcher suggested that the space between the building and the curb be blown up and a section provided so that the City could see what is actually proposed. He requested an integrated design, so that the foot print, site plan, floor plan, and elevations all fit together and are consistent. He said the bus bay, curb face, and related parking should be shown An an understandable way. commissioner Lumpp felt the building messing was getting there, but that the materials were all wrong. He felt the applicant was just trying to embellish a metal box. He noted the need for an integrated entry. Mr. De Frenza said that the box shape was a function of econ~mice. Re noted that the building was set back 25 feet from the curb. Mr. Buller noted that a variance would be required if an arch or colonnade is less than 25 feet fr~ the face of the curb, even if the arch or colonnade is not attached to the building. He felt that a variety of alternatives could be used to make the project work. He said there was the possibility of a fence at the right-of-way line, with an area of landscaping between the curb and the fence, and a plaza area behind that. Planning Commission Minutes 16~/0 January 11, 1995 The Commission commented that they need a firm design concept and the working drawings could come at a later date. They also wanted to see a cross section of what could be seen in terms of roof mounted equipment from the Sports Complex. Mr. Scandiffio stated that he needs approval by January 25 and that they were very anxious to get started. He said he would work out all the details later. Chairman Barker noted that the footprints for the Jiffy Lube and the theater had changed from what was originally reviewed. Mr. Scandiffio stated that the theater entrance had merely been flipped and said he hoped to receive approval for this over the counter. The Commissioners all observed that this was a major change which could not be simply worked out over the counter. Mr. De Frenza said that the change resulted from recent information received from the theater consultant who expressed concerns that having the entry too close to the driveway would not be desirable. He felt that this alternative also worked better with the site, pedestrian flow, and floor plan. Ne also stated that a retail shop with glass would be added at the rear of the building at the corner, replacing the originally reviewed blank wall. Mr. Buller noted that the theater did not meet the required 25-foot setback. He said it would either have to meet the setback Or the applicant could apply for a variance. After much discussion, the Planning Commission agreed to approve the uses subject to the architecture, parking, landscape, and site plan changes being reviewed and approved at a full Planning Conxnission workshop prior to the issuance of building permits. They stated a Color and materials sample board must also be provided. Commissioner McNiel noted that he did not believe in prefab buildings. Mr. De Frenza noted that it was not a prefab building but rather metal with polyetyrene and stucco over all. Commissioner McNiel commented he still had a concern with the material and he expressed a desire to see it in person. The applicant noted that the theater has more square footage and has been increased to 1300 seats and a restaurant has been deleted. H. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ITEMS Chairman Barker noted that no suggestions been turned in as o~ yet. I. SIGNS CITY OF PJ~NCHO CUC~a4ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 22, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner There were no announcements. A. CONDITION~ USE PEPa4IT 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 corner 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. The Commissioners and the applicant agreed to take Comments No. I and 2 of the staff report regarding the Site Plan of the theater building together. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the drop off was necessary. John De Frenza, 20301 S.W. Birch St., Suite 101, Newport Beach, requested that the Commission give their opinion on this issue before he respondj Chairman Barker felt the proposed entry was unsafe. commissioner Tolstoy thought there should be a larger drop-off area and the parking along the northern tier should be deleted. Michael Scandiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, questioned whether or not the drop off could be to the rear of the building. Chaiz~nan Barker and Corm~issioner McNiel indicated they thought people want to be dropped off as close to the front entrance as possible. Mr. De Frenza remarked he had looked into whethe~ or not he Should realign the drive aisle into the theater parking area from Sebastian Way. He acknowledged that there might be problems with the circulation in the parking lot due to the new uses and building types introduced. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the drop off is too small and patrons have to have easy access into the building. Mr. Scandiffio stated he felt they were receiving vague comments and he wanted to know what they should come back with. Cor~nissioner Melcher stated that it should be designed as a drop off and not as an obstruction. Mr. De Frenza wanted to know if one car length was long enough. Commissioner Lumpp stated he felt the applicant was asking the Commission to design it for them and that was not thee Commission's job. Regarding Comment No. 3 of the staff report, Mr. De Frenza remarked that they would revise the site plan to indicate landscaping between the walk and the building. Brad Buller, City Planner, questioned the location of the Edison vault in full view of the public street. Regarding Comment No. 4 of the staff report (location of the trash enclosure), Mr Scandlffio stated that if it is too far away from the entrance to the building, there will be problems with "grease trails." Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to see the trash enclosure relocated to the back of the theater. Mr. Scandiffio responded that Rancho Disposal had already approved the locations and wanted them along the main drive aisle. Chairman Barker and Commissioners Tolstoy and McNiel stated they really did not care where the enclosures are located so long as they are attractive and convenient to users. Commissioner Lumpp requested that the applicant bring in the approved plans from the disposal company, and stated that he did not feel the location of trash enclosures should dictate the design of the center. Regarding Comment NO. 5 of the staff repor~ (bardscape north of Building 11), the applicant responded that a retardant finish with shiner bands consistent with the rest of the center will be provided. Regarding Comment No. 6 of the staff report, the applicant stated that the paving at the theater entrance will have special paving presented on the next submittal. Regarding Con~ent No. 7 of the staff report, the applicant noted that they will include the design of the corridor along the east side of Building 11 in their nex~ submittal. Regarding Comment No. 9 of the staff report, Mr. De Frenza noted that the area between Building 27 and the curb is the end of the pedestrian experience~ therefore, he felt it does not need to be very wide, since there will be no one walking in the area. Mr. Scandiffio suggested that the corner between the column and the building be eliminated and a 45 degree angle used. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the column be eliminated completely and that at least 6 feet be provided for pedestrians. Commissioner McNiel concurred with this idea. Cor~nissioner Melcher stated he felt there were too many compromises made on the site. Mr. De Frenza stated they could not reduce square footage from the building, since the client stated he needs at leas= 1,800 square feet. He thought vine pockets are needed to soften the look of the south side of the theater. In order to have a more inviting space in front of the theater, it was agreed that 16-foot parking stalls would be allowed with 2 feet of overhang. The applicant indicated they would provide the dimensions of the cornice treatment of all the buildings. Commissioner Melcher stated that the curved facade over the entry has a flat radius and he felt there will not be any sharp definition where the slight curve meets the flat portion of the building. He suggested projecting it out more to get a more definite line. The Conciseion noted that the directory sign located in the front of the entry to the theater will be in the way of the entrance and will be too crowded The applicant indicated that it was eight feet in height. Commissioner Melcher stated he did not want to see it in its present location. Regarding the tiles which are called out on the front elevation, Mr. De Frenza indicated that they will actually be glass block. He did not know the color, size, shape, or color of grout, but said he would try to have it for the next meeting. The Co~nission indicated that the signage for the theater is an integral part of the architecture and should be thought of in the early stages of design development. Regarding the Jack in the Box drawings, Mr. Buller and the Commission indicated that the issue is screening of the drive-thru aisle and that even if there were to be a walkway to the Jack in the Box from the sidewalk, screen walls and berming must be provided. There were no public comments at this time. PC Adjourned Minutes (CUP 94-26) -3-~ February 22, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 95-07A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ELEMENTS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26, INCLUDING THE DESIGN REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, SITE PLAN, MATERIAL AND COLORS BOARD, AND FOOTPRINTS FOR BUILDING 18/19 (ICE RINK) AND BUILDING 27 (THEATER), AND RELATED PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ABOVE NOTED BUILDINGS; MODIFICATIONS TO BUILDING 1 (JIFFY LUBE); AND SCREENING OF JACK-IN-THE-BOX DRIVE-THRU LANE, WELCH WERE CONCEPTUALLy APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, LOCATED ON 27 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, AND 26 THROUGH 28. 1. Masi Commerce Center Partners has filed an application for specific design approval of the items described in the title of this Resolution. Eereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of April 1995, the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho cucamonga conducted an adjourned meeting on the application and concluded said adjourned meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. ~. NOW, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced adjourned meeting on April 12, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, with a street frontage of 1,250 feet along Foothill Boulevard and a lot depth of approximately 950 feet along Rochester Avenue, and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant; the property to the south consists of the Sports Complex; the property to the east is developed with the Aggazzotti Winery; and the property to the west is vacant; and c. The property is designated "Industrial Park" by the Industrial Area Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-07A CUP 94-26 - MASI April 12, 1995 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced adjourned meeting, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions Of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: 1) All pertinent conditions Of approval contained in City Council Resolution No. 92-240 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-07 shall apply unless specifically modified below. 2) A revision to the original parking study for the ice rink has been prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. This study, completed by Justin Farmer of Transportation Engineers, and dated February 21, 1995, has been submitted to and approved by the City Planner. A slight revision to the report, dated April 5, 1995, has also been submitted to the Planning Department and accepted by the city Planner. This study concluded that 156 spaces are required for the dual ice rink. Any further revisions to the dual ice rink in terms of size, location, or programs/special events provided, which in the Opinion of the City Planner, impact the amount of parking required, shall necessitate the preparation of an updated parking analysis to be performed by a licensed traffic engineer. 3) A landscape plan for the area west of the theater building ( No. 27) shall be submitted to and reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits for this building. The plans shall indicate the use of vines and trees in the location between the pedestrian walkway and the building. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-07A CUP 94-26 - MASI April 12, 1995 Page 3 4) All ground-mounted utility appurtenances, such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) A revised tree species shall be provided in the patio area north of Building 11. The revised species shall be wind-tolerant and clean, provide shade, and be small enough not to outgrow the area. 6) Decorative paving shall be provided at the intersection of Masi Drive and the aisle in front of the theater, consistent with the approved retardant-finish, gray-color concrete initially approved with the original conditional Use Permit. 7) The planter areas in front of Building 27 shall be sufficiently detailed to note whether they are raised or flush with the ground. If they are raised planters, they shall be constructed of a decorative masonry material which is complementary to the theater building. Planter details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 8) Details of the 6- x 6-inch tiles, located at the front of Building 27, shall be reviewed and approved by the city Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 9) A scaled detail of the cornice element shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 10) Additional information shall be submitted which indicates that the drive thru-aisle for Jack-in-the-Box is adequately screened from the street. The applicant shall provide sections which address this issue. The screen wall shall be extended southerly to be even with the pick-up windows along Masi Drive. Details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 11) The screen wall located between Foothill Boulevard and Building I shall be extended southward in a similar manner as the Jack-in-the-Box wall. Details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 12) Unless additional information is provided by the applicant which would mitigate concerns of the Commission and staff regarding durability and construction techniques, the insulated metal panels proposed for the ice rink (Building 18/19) shall not be used and an alternate material shall be provided which is acceptable to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-07A CUP 94-26 - MASI April 12, 1995 Page 4 13) The location of all roof-mounted equipment for Building 18/19 shall be over the northern portion of the building as noted in the submittal. 14) Scheme One for the theater (Building 27) is specifically approved with this application. 6. The Secretary for the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 1995. BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary for the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucmmonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planner Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at an adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of April 1995. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: