No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/08/23- Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 23, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:00 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: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer • NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 00-10—EAGLE CASPIAN ENTERPRIZES—A review of a master plan for a 12.26 acre site with approximately 93,000 square feet of commercial building area, within the Regional Related Office/Commercial(RR) District of the Victoria Planned Community, ' on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between the 1-15 Freeway and the future Day Creek Boulevard. Brad Buller, City Planner, gave a brief introduction. Randy Jepson, Nimes Peters Jepson Architects, asked for clarification of the City's expectations for a master plan on the adjoining 7.2 acre parcel fronting Day Creek Boulevard, which is under separate ownership, and the implications for his client. He indicated that his client is in escrow to purchase the easterly 5 acre parcel fronting the I-15 Freeway onramp. Oscar Etemadian, Eagle Caspian Enterprizes, stated that he felt this site was suitable for a gas station and fast food restaurants due to freeway proximity. He said that he is not in a position to acquire the westerly 7.2 acre parcel at this time. Chairman McNiel explained the master plan process. He indicated that it is a conceptual plan only; hence, is not unchangeable. Mr.Jepson stated that his client is in active discussions with national fast food restaurant chains who have expressed strong interest in locating at this site. Mr. Etemadian said that gas stations desire to be across the street from regional malls, but dose by. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated that staff believes this site is an important gateway to Rancho Cucamonga and is suitable for freeway related commercial and service uses. He summarized the major design issues, as follows: Streetscape — The project should be designed consistent with the adopted Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation Corridor Master Plan. The Master Plan calls for a"Regional City Gateway,"at the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, consisting of a large plaza, enriched pedestrian zone, and special landscaping. Copies of the Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation Corridor Master Plan were given to Mr. Jepson. Mr. Coleman stated that the plan proposes that 89 percent of the frontage along Foothill Boulevard be devoted to parking or drive aisles, and 76 percent along Day Creek Boulevard. He indicated that the parking should not dominate the streetscape. He suggested that buildings should be pushed up to the front setback line whenever possible, with parking behind buildings. Access/Circulation — The City's General Plan limits median island breaks to 'V4 mile spacing; therefore, no median island opening will be allowed on Foothill Boulevard between Day Creek Boulevard and the 1-15 Freeway onramp. Only one driveway, for right turn egress,will be allowed on Foothill Boulevard with a 300-foot minimum spacing from Day Creek Boulevard. The median island break proposed on Day Creek Boulevard complies with the required 700-foot spacing from Foothill Boulevard. Only one driveway, for right turn egress, will be allowed on Day Creek Boulevard between the median island opening and Foothill Boulevard, with a 300-foot minimum spacing from Foothill Boulevard. Without left tum ingress from Foothill Boulevard, it may be appropriate to shift gas station and fast food users over to Day Creek Boulevard. The central on-site circulation spine has potential as a unifying element; however, the extreme serpentine reverse curves,combined with multiple intersecting drive aisles, creates a potentially dangerous traffic pattern for motorists and pedestrians. Major Focal Element—The plan lacks any major internal focal point, such as a strong architectural element or plaza. The central circulation spine does not visually lead to any significant feature, and in fact, in some areas is aligned with undesirable views of drive aisles or drive-thru lanes. Site Plan Relationships—The plan lacks a strong unifying element to organize the various land uses. The buildings are scattered without a clear relationship to facilitate customer movement between buildings. There are three distinct islands which turn their backs to each other. 1) strip retail at northwest corner, 2) hotel at southwest corner, and 3) freeway service at northeast corner. He felt confident that a master plan can be developed which ties the entire block together, yet still accommodates the different ownerships of the two parcels. The goal is to create a design which appears as a single project. He indicated that there are important views into the site from the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, and the onramp. Because of public views from all sides of the project, 360 degree architectural treatment should be provided. Shared Parking—The plan proposes shared parking; however, staff needs more information about which uses, how many spaces, and where the sharing would occur. Mr. Coleman indicated that the Development Code does allow shared parking in very limited circumstances where it can be shown that there is an offset peak demand hours. Mr. Buller said that the purpose of the Pre-Application Review process is to provide direction on design. He asked the Commissioners if they would support the proposed cluster concept of service uses, such as a gas station and fast food drive-thru restaurants. He felt the site plan appears too fragmented. Commissioner Macias indicated that the site plan was confusing, too disjointed, lacks a focus. He supported the concept of a village of service uses. He agreed with staff comments; therefore, could not support the proposed design. Commissioner Stewart agreed with staff comments. She indicated that the Engineering Division access requirements were critical to redesigning the site plan. She felt that a master plan for both parcels is essential. She questioned how the project would be phased and stated that she did not want to see a couple of fast food restaurants built first and the rest of the project never happen. She expressed concern with the viability of a hotel use. She said that the quality of this project will set the tone for what happens in the area; hence, her expectation is very, very high level of design. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- August 23, 2000 Commissioner Mannerino said the site plan looked quickly thrown together without sufficient thought. He felt the project concept was clearly not ready for Planning Commission review. He stated in his experience restaurants need more freeway visibility than a car wash. He did not support dusters of fast food drive-thru restaurants because of traffic congestion he has observed where it has been tried. He indicated that a hotel was probably not viable until occupancy rates are higher in the existing hotels in the area. There was consensus among the Commissioners that a gas station was viable land use. Chairman McNiel agreed with the need to master plan both parcels. He indicated that both parcels should be developed as a single development. Commissioner Macias stated that no architecture designs were presented by the applicant;however, the architectural design must be high quality. Chairman McNiel said that Class 'A' architecture was necessary for this important site. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjoumed at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ...• erV - ary PC Adjoumed Minutes -3- August 23, 2000