Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/12/14 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiMONGA WORKSHOP MINUTES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2016 - 7:00 PM* Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center **'RAINS ROOM**' 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call 7:45 PM Chairman Oaxaca X Vice Chairman Macias A Munoz X Wimberly X Fletcher X • Additional Staff Present: Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary, Dominick Perez, Associate Planner: Donald Granger, Senior Planner: Candyce Burnett, City Planner; Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer; Albert Espinoza, Asst. City Engineer. Rob Ball, Fire Marshall; Jennifer Palacios. Office Specialist ll. 11 II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. No communication from the public was received. (It was noted that although both items are being heard simultaneously, and an opportunity to comment on each individual project will be given. The final comments for both projects follow the discussion comments at the end of Item B.) Candyce Burnett, City Planner noted that both sites are on the Haven Overlay and relate to a • gateway of the City. She referred to the intent of the Haven Overlay and how the designs should reflect this and also how they relate to Empire Lakes as well. She spoke of pedestrian connectivity, a walkable living lifestyle. giving the appearance of office development and how PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP s MINUTES O 2016 DECEMBER 14 , 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 2 to work with the hotels with tall massing on Haven Avenue and the City's desire to match the massing. 11 III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-00826— PDC OC/IE LLC—A Pre-Application Review of a proposed industrial development consisting of three(3) industrial buildings with a combined floor area of 305,745 square feet on a parcel of about 14.02 acres, that is part of a vacant property consisting of 3 vacant parcels with a combined area of 25.6 acres (not including street dedications which will be vacated), located at the northwest corner of Utica Avenue and 4th Street in the Industrial Park (IP) District. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-00626 — THERALDSON HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT (THD) — A Pre-Application Review of a proposed commercial development consisting of two (2) 5-story hotels with 115 rooms each and one (1) restaurant with a floor area of 8,340 square feet (including an outdoor dining area of 2,000 square feet) on a parcel of about 297,000 square feet(6.8 acres), that is part of a vacant property consisting of 3 vacant parcels with a combined area of 25.6 acres (not • including street dedications which will be vacated), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street in the Industrial Park (IP)District, Haven Avenue Overlay District; APN: 0210-081-21. Dominick Perez, Associate Planner, facilitated introductions of the Design Teams for the applicants. He gave a brief description of the project proposals and general site characteristics. He noted that the staff report indicated the Panattoni site had a portion in the Haven Overlay. Staff has since determined that was not correct. A 235,000 square foot industrial building is also under review at the northeast corner of 4`^ Street and Utica Avenue. Exhibit F of Item A (page 20 of the packet) indicates a Lot Line Adjustment which will be heard by the Council tomorrow. He noted that the Haven Overly should reflect: a prime office corridor, high quality development that is progressive, urban, appealing and eye catching design. He said the restaurant pad is 8,340 square feet and the elevations will be reviewed at a later time. He said Exhibit C for the hotels was only a conceptual design (page 8-15). He said staff has already noted revisions needed in the staff report including decorative veneer suggesting tower elements, glass, glazing and glass accents on all elevations, metal features. trim/accents, metal features and bolder high-contrast colors to emphasize different areas of the buildings. He said the Panattoni development consists of-3 buildings: staff reviewed the square footages and access described on page A-2 of the agenda packet. He said the architecture has been revised and improved with a large amount of glazing. He said the • material of the exterior has not been specifically called out but staff suggested a � ►� PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAYCHO DECEMBER 14, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 3 sandblasted surface rather than the proposed stone veneer. Commissioner Fletcher asked why the sandblasted finish is better than stone veneer. Canyce Burnett, City Planner said the stone tends to look more residential. She indicated that the City wants something more sleek/urban. Jacob LeBlanc of Panattoni said they will work with staff to blend in the design. Mr. Perez noted the employee break areas are indicated, but not specific as to what is included in them. He mentioned Turf parking is also indicated, but this material/concept does not currently exist in City standards and should be discussed. Ms. Burnett noted it does not hold up well depending upon the frequency of traffic on it. She said other materials can be used. Mr. LeStance said they used it to help meet the landscaping requirement. • Mr. Perez noted the dock screening area on the north side-wall is required to be on the outside of the building — the setback should be larger for maneuverability and what is shown is very tight. Commissioner Fletcher asked what is proposed for Section 1, north of the Theraldson site. Ms Burnett said nothing is proposed yet. Don Cape of Theraldson Hospitality said they currently have 3 hotels in the City running at 100% occupancy. He referred to the conceptual site plan and said the Hotels are now parallel to the street as requested by staff. Jacob Le Blanc of Panattoni said their work is primarily industrial. He said their proposed design has architectural features and they added glazing and massing. He said they want multiple tenants and with a quasi-retail—tenant mix. He said they broke up the massing for this along with outdoor areas. He said E-Commerce is changing things and the industrial market is very strong. He said they envision this as owner/user retail being absorbed by higher quality industrial. He said they are not opposed to an "Amazon"type facility; a plus is it provides lots of jobs. Carol Plowman of Lee &Associates said there is no other product like this in the Inland Empire and it will present a very upscale image. • Jacob LeBlanc noted that on Archibald Avenue where QVC is located could have used more-it looks plain. He said this is different. He said they took this same approach in PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ` MINUTES �l- HA„L:,,o DECEMBER 14, 2016 C ' MONGA Page 4 Anaheim and it has been very successful. Mr. Perez referred to the hotels. He said the report discusses a Development Code Amendment required to allow us to push the buildings up to setback line. He said the amendment would allow them to have the maximum height at the setback line whereas the current Code is a more stepped/graduated approach with less height at the setback but increasing to the interior of the site. He said the idea is to bring them closer to the street for a more urban feel. Mr. Cape asked what the setback would be if the hotel along 4"Street was lined up with the southernmost industrial building on the Panattoni site. He suggested they move the hotels back to allow more parking during the day for the restaurant. He said the current configuration will make it difficult to lease out because of the limited parking close to the restaurant pad. He said they have a similar situation across the street and it has not been leased for years. He said he needs about 34 feet to allow for one row of parking with a drive aisle along 4th Street. Mr. Perez invited the Commissioners to comment on the Haven and 4th Street site. • Commissioner Munoz noted there was no architecture submitted to look at (the applicant provided a sample from a recent Temecula development) but the sample indicates nice articulation Mr. Cape said the room mix will determine how much articulation is achieved—double queens create the big "bump-outs". Chairman Oaxaca asked if these proposed hotels will be similar to sample hotels. He said if that is the case, it looks like they are moving in the right direction. He emphasized a desire for a sleek/modern design. Ms Burnett said with respect to design: Staff looked at conceptual plans and our initial comment is that it is not enough for this location, the City wants higher quality materials. She said the articulation is fine. Mr. Cape expressed cautioned on storefront glazing as it is too costly for this room rate. Ms. Burnett said we are looking for a happy balance and where you place these elements is key-quality materials in the right place makes a difference. Commissioner Munoz said the architecture could be punched up. Commissioner Fletcher said it must be upscale and modern for a gateway. He said he is not opposed to setting buildings back off of the street because of the height and if it • helps with the feasibility of the restaurant. He said he would like it to come back for a PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES .O RANCHODECEMBER 14, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 5 workshop prior to going to the DRC. Mr. Cape said they need to get their civil design (site layout)done before investing in the building design. He said they are happy to come back. Commissioner Munoz said he is concerned about the viability of the restaurant. He asked the applicant to work with staff to make it work there in the corner. Chairman Oaxaca agreed. He said they are proposing a significant structure. He said he wants the consistency on Haven Avenue but he would be amenable to pushing back some along 4th Street to allow for parking for the restaurant. Ms. Burnett reported that staff pushed the applicants. She confirmed the entire site is in the Haven Overlay and is a City gateway; a main corner with one chance to do it right. It is a high profile area and there is no chance with office development. She said staff worked with our DOIT team to do this massing study to get perspective to get it right. She asked the Commission for comment on the setbacks. • A general discussion occurred whereby the Commissioners considered a possible site layout that considered the one row of parking and also a prior concept that would place one hotel perpendicular to 4th Street rather than the building being placed parallel to 4th Street-the parallel arrangement was requested by staff. Commissioner Wimberly commented on the layout and viability of a restaurant and usable parking. He said he prefers the layout found on B-11 (denotes the 4th Street hotel flipped perpendicular with its short end to 4th street), Commissioner Oaxaca said he is open to an alternative to maintain the current orientation and push it back some (building on 4th Street would remain parallel to 4th Street). He said it is more important to him that both projects look consistent architecturally. Ms Burnett asked about the building adjacent to Haven Avenue. Commissioner Munoz said he is not opposed to what was proposed. He said the applicant should work with staff and keep to the regulations for the Haven Overly and work out the 4`" street building orientation. Commissioner Wimberly concurred that they meet the Overlay regulations. He said the Commission will weigh in after the standards and requirements are met. Commissioner Munoz said he likes the layout that parallels the street but he is not • opposed to pushing back the buildings. He asked hotel#1 along Haven could stay the same but make hotel# 2 perpendicular to 4th to allow for more parking. He said keep PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP } ~�4 MINUTES • (ZAncFiG DECEMBER 14, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 6 the Haven building close to Haven and work with staff. Ms. Burnett summarized by noting page B 11 -Hotel 1 along Haven to remain as shown but flip Hotel 2 on its end perpendicular to 4th Street. She then asked for final comments on the Panattoni development. Commissioner Munoz said it looks good, the elevations are pretty good. Mr. LeBlanc said their next step could be to submit. He said the eyebrows and columns will be stainless steel: they are trying to get away from earth tones. Commissioner Fletcher said it looks nice and gives an office appearance. He suggested it be more modern: he asked for more glazing on the west side of the building. IV. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 PM • 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 8, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. • It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are • „40"_ PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO DECEMBER 14, 2016 C,CCA.NONGA Page 7 generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under 'Public Comments." . Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS • Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of S2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us •