No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/08/11 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 11, 2004 Vice-Chairman McNeil called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Serrano Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart, Rich Fletcher ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Donald Granger, Assistant Planner; Mike Smith, Assistant Planner; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, gave a brief explanation of the purpose of a Pre-Application workshop, noting that it is primarily designed to allow the applicants the opportunity to give a conceptual ' presentation to the Commission and to gain their input and comments on the projects presented. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2004-00717 - SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS - A Pre- Application Review to consider a conceptual design concept for the proposed phased development of a new two story ministry center totaling 78,140 square feet on 3.56 acres of land in the Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 0201-821-51. Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the item and gave an overview of the Pre-Application Review process. Larry Wolff, WLC Architects, gave a presentation of the project. Mr. Wolff discussed the proposed church project, noting that one of the key elements is to concentrate the key activities south of Banyan Street. He stated that the church is still pondering the potential use of the existing facility north of Banyan Street, perhaps as a daycare facility or to possibly sell the property to another church. Mr. Wolff introduced the phasing aspects of the project including Phase 1A, which will involve the development of a 125-car parking lot on the west side of the site with no structures as an interim to the expansion of the parking lot and the construction of Phase 1B. He said the proposed schedule completes Phase 1A by Easter, 2005. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, asked the Commission to consider in its discussion a proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing on Banyan Street and the safety of the same. He noted that staff would not support any mid-block crossing locations. He added that even with a control device like a pedestrian crossing light, a crossing would also need to be much farther from Haven Avenue to be safe. It was noted that pedestrian access control would work if there were a 4-foot fence along the length of Banyan Street funneling people to the crossing or if the bridge were grade-separated. He commented that the sports field needs some protection along the street to prevent balls and children from going out onto Haven Avenue or Banyan Street. Mr. Pomeroy reported that the phasing aspect of the proposal could leave a blank wall on the east elevation of the first phase facing Haven Avenue. He commented that the interior of the space is dominated by restrooms, so in addition to repeating the design elements found on the other elevations here without windows, some kind of a landscape solution will need to be found. He mentioned that the scale of the floor plan drawing makes determining the parking requirement very difficult. He noted that a very rough calculation shows a need for about 190 spaces and the proposal shows 206 spaces. He commented that all the spaces for the current proposal should be on the same side of the street to help reduce the pedestrian traffic across Banyan Street. He noted that the parking lot needs to be friendlier to the neighbors by increasing the landscape buffer along the south and, especially, the west property lines to 10 feet and providing lighting fixtures that are shielded. He indicated this might reduce the number of spaces somewhat. Mr. Buller responded to the request for input on the necessary improvements on Phase 1A by stating that full street improvements would be needed (curb, gutter, and sidewalks) as well as landscaping from the street to the property line and erosion control measures. Commissioner Fletcher asked if parking is currently a problem. Mr. Wolff replied affirmatively. He stated that landscaping is necessary on both Phase 1A and 1B and that putting in the landscaping now will allow for maturation for the later phases. He acknowledged there might be a problem with pedestrians crossing mid-block. Commissioner Stewart inquired about the scheduling of the different phases to get a scope of the project. She stated that the mid-block crossing should move as far west as possible and that all street improvements should go in with Phase 1A. She also stated that care should be taken when laying out the use of the interim sports field in Phase 1B to avoid unsightly lighting, backstops, and fencing. She added that for the parking lot, the lights should be decorative and the additional buffering would need to have more tree wells. Commissioner McPhail had concems that the two driveways between the two properties should line up. She believed the parking lot should have better buffering in terms of space and landscaping. She stated that Phase 1A should include full street-side improvements and have the landscaping into the property. She suggested that the bridge exit be closed off. Vice Chairman McNeil inquired about the number of services conducted and stated that the issue of overlapping parking demand from one service to another is an issue that needs to be addressed. He concurred that the driveways need to be lined up and the crosswalk should be moved to the far west end. He suggested that the center of the open field left in Phase 1A be improved with hydroseed or some other control measure. Mr. Buller summarized the responses to the issues raised by stating his understanding that: 1)the phasing is acceptable with Phase 1A by Easter 2005; 2)curb, gutter, sidewalk,and landscaping from the curb to the property line plus some extra landscape buffering is needed; 3)the driveways need to be aligned and the crosswalk should be to the far west end with appropriate controls; 4) an overly active sports field situation in Phase 1B should be avoided; 5) the buffering on the south and west boundaries of the parking lot must be improved; and 6) care must be taken in the architectural design of the east elevation of the Phase 1B building. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2004-00718 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A Pre-Application Review to consider a conceptual design concept for the proposed development PC Adjoumed Minutes -2- August 11, 2004 of worship sanctuary totaling 77,204 square feet on 10.1 acres of land in the Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Haven and Vista Grove Street, -APN: 1074-271-01. Mr. Buller recused himself and left the room for this item. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, introduced the item and gave an overview of the Pre-Application Review process. He noted that the purpose of the workshop was for the applicant to present the project and obtain input from the Planning Commission. Larry Wolff, WLC Architects, gave a presentation of the project. Mr. Wolff stated that Hillside Community Church is proposing what was originally the fourth phase of the Master Plan as the second construction phase. He stated that the proposed sanctuary will seat approximately 1,400 people and that the original sanctuary was proposed to seat 1,500. He indicated that the total floor area of the sanctuary would be about 78,000 square feet, including classrooms, kitchen area, storage areas, stage, and offices. Mr. Wolff emphasized the continuity of architecture and pointed out the efforts to place the highest portion of the sanctuary down-slope from Haven Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the north, thus minimizing the impact on views. He discussed how the ball fields had been compacted during the construction process (Phase 1), so that vehicles could drive on them thereby providing overflow parking. Mr. Wolff also noted that the church has a parking ministry/team that directs vehicles to available parking stalls in order to improve on-site circulation and minimize unnecessary traffic in the parking lots. Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, indicated staffs support of the architectural concept and noted how the proposed sanctuary is consistent with the existing family center building architecture. Staff asked the Commission to consider in its discussion the average landscape setback on Haven Avenue (45 feet) and how it impacts the 23 northerly parking stalls along Haven Avenue and the potential for a Variance request in order to allow the parking stalls to encroach into the required landscape setback. Staff also requested that the Commission discuss the issue of parking in the ball fields and turf areas, and the importance of functional parking stalls and drive aisles that can be negotiated by vehicles. Mr. Granger also gave an overview of the historic use of modular structures on the site since 1982 and 1988, noting that extensions were granted for modular structures in 1990, which expired in 1993. He indicated another Conditional Use Permit (CUP)was approved in 1996 for 5 years(expiring in 2001)for the modular buildings. He said another CUP was approved in 2001 for the modular buildings for 5 years, set to expire in June of 2006. He stated that there were four phases to the original Master Plan. He pointed out that the sanctuary would eliminate the need for three modular buildings (two classroom buildings and the administration building). Mr. Granger asked the Commission to comment on the idea of proposing and building the last phase; given the long span of temporary buildings. He asked the Commission to provide direction regarding the possibility of approving the sanctuary and leaving two modular buildings in place. Commissioner Stewart indicated support of the architecture, master plan, and parking layout. She indicated that she is willing to seriously consider supporting a Variance to allow a reduction in the required average landscape setback off Haven in order to net 23 parking stalls. She stated that a Variance would have minimal impact since the parking would be screened because of an adjacent slope along Haven Avenue. Commissioner McPhail complimented the overall architectural concept. She stated that she has concerns about the 27 parking spaces allocated in the graded pad/turf area. She noted that although the area had been compacted and designed to support cars, she stressed the importance of all parking areas being fully functional and being able to be negotiated by all types of automobiles. Commissioner Fletcher indicated his support of the architectural concept. He stressed the importance of providing as much on-site parking as possible, noting the present size and future growth pattern of the church. He expressed concerns that on-street parking in the immediate area PC Adjourned Minutes -3- August 11, 2004 has a real impact on the neighborhood and said should be avoided. He inquired if the ball fields could be modified to allow additional paved parking stalls. Mr. Wolff responded that Hillside has a legacy of a sports ministry program that involves hundreds of people in the community, and that the church made an investment at the time of construction to design the ball fields to remain as turf with the ability to support cars. Commissioner McNeil liked the project, and praised the architecture. He expressed concerns about the issue of going from an 800-seat worship center to a 1,400-seat sanctuary with the addition of approximately 100 stalls. He emphasized the need to mitigate the impact of street parking on the neighborhood. Commissioner McNeil noted that Hillside has clearly demonstrated a consistent pattem of growth, and he pointed out that the total number of parking stalls(390)did not seem to be adequate for a church with a seating capacity of 1,400 and other ministries (sports, Christian Education,Technology Center). He also noted that he was concerned about the need fora Variance for 23 parking stalls and the reduction of a landscape setback along Haven Avenue. He indicated his concern about how the granting of a Variance would remove the required amount of landscaping. He closed his comments by noting that he was reluctant to support a Variance at this juncture. Mr. Coleman summarized the Commission's points as follows: 1)The Commission is supportive of the overall architectural concept; 2) the Commission is undecided about whether or not a Variance for a reduction in average depth of landscaping along Haven Avenue is justified at this juncture; and 3)the applicant should explore ways to provide additional parking above the required minimum. He encouraged the architect to prepare renderings of the project as viewed from each neighbor's house and to continue communicating with the surrounding neighborhood. C. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2004-00425 - PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC -A Pre-Application Review to consider a conceptual design for the development of three office buildings, one retail building, and one stand-alone restaurant with a total floor area of about 46,000 square feet on a parcel of 5.15 acres in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7,located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue - APN: 0229-011-69. Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the item and gave an overview of the Pre-Application Review process. He emphasized that the purpose of the workshop was to look at the proposed project's overall design and its relationship to the surrounding area. Mike Latham and Jeff Pintar, both of Panattoni Development, 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 285, Irvine, California, described the project which contemplates two alternate layouts. They said the project is comprised of five single-story buildings and the project's first alternate site layout incorporates a mix of commercial and office users. They indicated commercial users would occupy a set of two buildings (one pad and one in-line retail unit) situated east-to-west along Foothill Boulevard while the office users would occupy a set of three buildings at the south side of the site along Milliken Avenue. They noted the majority of the parking stalls are located between these two sets of buildings with additional parking located south and west of the office buildings. Mr. Latham indicated that the project design was based on market demand. He said the second alternate layout is generally the same as the first except that it contemplates a set of three buildings for commercial use (two pads and one in-line retail unit) with a combined floor area similar to the first site layout altemative. He stated the third building in this alternative is a bank incorporating a drive-thru, located at the northwest comer of the site. Mr. Latham remarked that comments, particularly in regard to land use and site layout, were derived from staff in response to a previous proposal for the same location, and were considered in both altematives. He recognized that the City did not want a typical retail strip layout. He noted that the project was a new direction for Panattoni, as typically their projects are exclusively industrial. He stated that this project would be of a high standard similar to PC Adjoumed Minutes -4- August 11, 2004 other projects done in the City and elsewhere. He displayed examples of the site layouts and architecture of those projects. Mike Smith,Assistant Planner, gave a brief overview of the project. He stated the applicant originally had proposed a site layout that was inconsistent with the City's development goals for this significant site located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. He pointed out that the current proposal, although an improvement over the previous proposal, continues to reflect a division between the office and commercial uses. He added that the site is characterized by the massing of office and commercial buildings at the south and north ends of the site, respectively,with by a 300-foot wide parking lot between them. He noted that the massing of the office buildings is amplified by their relatively close proximity to each other and visibility of the office buildings is non-existent from Foothill Boulevard because of the orientation and location of the commercial buildings and visibility of the largest building(by floor area)from Milliken Avenue is limited by the two smaller buildings directly in front (east) of it. Lastly, he remarked that the drive aisle from Milliken Avenue terminates with no architectural focal point and there is no apparent pedestrian connection between the office and commercial components. Mr. Smith indicated that within the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7)the dominant land use would be office/professional. He noted that commercial users should have a secondary, supporting role where the daily needs of the office workers such as printing, dry cleaning, and food services are provided. He commented that attracting off-site customers is acceptable and encouraged, but should not preclude the patronage of the customers from the immediate, neighboring offices. He concluded therefore, the site layout must enhance this relationship and the architecture must reflect this land use hierarchy. He pointed out the primary concems with the drive-thru bank proposal included potential vehicle circulation conflicts between bank customers and vehicles entering/exiting the site, as the drive-thru empties directly into the driveway at the northwest comer of the property, and the relative proximity of the bank to the in-line retail building. He also expressed concem that there is the lack of a strong pedestrian connection across the site linking office tenants with the bank, restaurant, and service retail. Mr.Smith provided each Commissioner a copy of staffs version of the applicant's submitted site layout for their review. He pointed out that the layout proposes a reduction of the massing of the buildings by shifting the office buildings apart from each other, moving them closer towards the middle of the site and closer to the commercial buildings, re-aligning the parking lot drive aisles in a north-south direction, and redistributing the parking spaces more evenly throughout the site. He said the floor area of each office building and the plotting of the commercial buildings would remain unchanged. He stated these modifications would address the issues noted by staff. Mr. Buller expressed concern with the alignment of the site's northwest corner driveway, as it terminates in a bulb with no architectural definition and is shared with the vacant property to the west. This last point also led him to question the wisdom of designing the bank's drive aisle to terminate in this shared driveway. Commissioner McPhail agreed with staff and found staffs proposed layout more desirable. She indicated that perhaps two-story buildings could be considered. The other Commissioners questioned if that would increase the parking demand. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that parking demand would not increase if the total floor area were not changed. He gave the example of removing one of the three single story office buildings by simply combining two office buildings into a 2-story building. He reminded the Commissioners that the market has shown acceptance of 2-story office product. He observed the new 2-story office complex developed by G&L Commercial in the Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre sold out before construction was halfway completed, and that this same developer is now under construction on two other 2-story office projects on Haven Avenue. Commissioner McPhail concurred with staffs concems regarding vehicle circulation around the proposed drive-thru bank. She also agreed with staffs parking lot drive aisle realignment. PC Adjourned Minutes -5- August 11, 2004 Commissioner Stewart noted that the architecture displayed on the panels provided by the applicant was not acceptable. She, along with the other Commissioners, stated that the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue is extremely significant and that the architecture needs to reflect its importance — especially in such dose proximity to the industrial buildings to the south where the architecture is of a very high standard. Ms. Stewart stated that the inclusion of an outside eating area at the northeast corner of the restaurant pad building, facing the intersection, is ideal. She agreed with staffs revised site layout; she is not in favor of the drive-thru bank at its proposed location. She added that more focal points are needed and that the dominance of the parking lot along Milliken Avenue is not good. Commissioner Fletcher, in agreement with Commissioners Stewart and McPhail, preferred staffs version of the site layout. He also noted some concern with the dominance of the parking lot. Commissioner McNiel believed that the grouping of commercial buildings along Foothill Boulevard should be reduced by eliminating the middle in-line retail building and creating a view corridor between the bank and the restaurant pad. He thought this view corridor would enhance the visibility of the office buildings to the south. He also suggested perhaps shifting the Milliken Avenue driveway further south and shifting the office buildings to the north side of it. He noted another option is to switch the location of the drive-thru bank with the restaurant. Mr. Buller reminded the Commission that it in the past it has not favored a drive-thru of any kind at a major intersection. He recalled that staff has indicated that the drive approach location on Milliken Avenue had very little flexibility because of City standards for bus bay length and distance from the existing driveway at the south project boundary. Commissioner McNiel noted that the architecture is not very interesting, not acceptable at this intersection, and is more representative of buildings located in the more industrial-intensive districts of the City. Mr. Latham and Mr. Pintar thanked the Commissioners for their time and comments. D. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2004-00426 - PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC: A Pre-Application Review to consider a conceptual design for the development of one single-story retail building with a total floor area of about 8,000 square feet on a parcel of 1.9 acres in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located at the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Milliken Avenue and Mayten Street-APN: 0229-011-85. Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced and described the project. He reported that the proposal contemplates a single, one-story building facing Foothill Boulevard immediately west of Carrow's Restaurant. He said the building would be a shell building that could, as needed, be subdivided into retail and restaurant uses. He noted that the site layout is typical of the other pad buildings in the Lowe's shopping center with access provided by existing driveways. He stated that it also is consistent with the Master Plan approved for this site and the structure would architecturally match the surrounding buildings. The Commissioners generally approved of the proposal. PUBLIC COMMENTS ' No additional comments were made at this time. PC Adjourned Minutes -6- August 11, 2004 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Br- - 9�er S' Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -7- August 11, 2004