No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/05/22 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 22, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the 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. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 96-03 - WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY/MIMI'S - A request for direction for development of a Master Plan for a Community Commercial retail Center, including the first phase Mimi's Restaurant, on a 14.45 acre site generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenue - APN: 208-386-62 through 69. Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that there not be a time limit for this review because of the size and importance of this project. The Commission concurred so long as the order of presentation was maintained. Peter Desforges, Wohl Investment Co./Mimi's, stated that the Mimi's representative planned to attend the meeting but had not yet arrived. He introduced Tom Bond, project designer, who gave a brief presentation of the project. Mr. Buller presented staff's issues and concerns under the umbrella question of whether development should be consistent with the facing Tetra Vista Community Commercial setbacks, amenities, and architectural design. Mr. Buller presented the following topics: 1. Auto Circulation a. West and east entries b. Two access drives off Eucalyptus Street c. Shared access with the hotel d. Closed aisle adjacent to hotel to protect hotel parking e. Ultimate access alignment with Phase I (Mimi's) 2. Pedestrian Circulation a. Access from street b. Internal circulation plan 3. Setbacks a. From curb (town center square: building; landscaping; & parking - 45 to 50 feet; ISP: building & landscaping - 45 feet, parking - 25 feet) b. Interior (i) Front promenade (ii) Building to parking (iii) Building to service area 4.Parking (5:1,000 required for center) a. Allocation b. Delivery spaces c. Service access 5. Plaza Location and Size 6. Art Location and Size 7. Ddve-thru Policy 8. Architecture a. Consistency with hotel b. Consistency with town center square/town center c. Use of signature architecture for Mimi's d. Articulation sides and rear of buildings e. Landscape treatment sides and rear/conflict with delivery access f. Entries 9. Mimi's Commissioner Melcher said the central buildings should be rethought in light of the vacancies at similarly situated stores within Terra Vista Town Center. He noted that stores which face Foothill Boulevard appear to do better and have fewer vacancies. He thought the food court idea was invalid. He supported a pedestrian promenade at least 10 feet wider in front of the stores and suggested that 40 of the excess 80 parking spaces could be traded for the amenity. He supported signature architecture for Mimi's, but liked the Upland product better than the proposed product. He preferred a distinctive architecture on the south side of Foothill Boulevard rather than a reflection of the Terra Vista architecture. He did not object to the driveway openings proposed for Eucalyptus Street. He added that the site exits should be designed with as much attention as entrances. He supported matching the drive entry throats for the east/west access points. Commissioner Lump said that in general he concurred with the remarks of Commissioner Melcher. He supported the added depth of a pedestrian promenade. He thought the Terra Vista architectural design themes should be generally mirrored, but not duplicated. He also preferred the Upland Mimi's. He thought the proposed signs are not acceptable. He felt the front perimeter setbacks should be the same as for Town Square. He wanted increased landscape treatment on the east and west sides. He stated that the asphalt in the southeast parking area is too massive and the area should be redesigned.,. He supported a strong pedestrian circulation plan. He stressed the need for architectural articulation of the side and rear elevations, as well as attention to the rear setbacks. He noted that the rear of the buildings at Terra Vista generally have deep setbacks and face a wide street divided by a median in contrast to Eucalyptus Street which is narrow with future development fronting the street. He thought the plazas at Terra Vista have not worked as planned. He was not troubled about the size of the proposed plaza and expressed a willingness to consider a plaza which is designed for the unique characteristics of the site. He liked the east-west drive access. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the architecture should mimic Town Center Square; the backs and sides of the buildings should be articulated; the front promenade should be wider; the plaza design should be well thought out; internal pedestrian pathways should be functional with particular attention to the connection to the hotel; the southeast parking area presents too much asphalt and should be redesigned; and the west side auto drive access is well done. P.C. Adjourned Minutes -2- May 22, 1996 Commissioner McNiel said he agreed about the southeast parking area. He thought the easternmost building could be pulled back and made wider to reduce the asphalt area. He requested the level of architectural detail provided at Tetra Vista Town Center rather than at Town Center Square which has less detail. He said they should spare no pencils when it comes to articulating the side and rear of the buildings. On the question of whether the main entry to the site should align with the Town Center Square entry, he did not think it needs to because there will be no break in the Foothill Boulevard median. He said the roof top equipment should be screened so that it will not be visible from the upper floors of the hotel. He did not think a drive-thru would be appropriate along Foothill Boulevard in the context of existing development. Commissioner Barker stated that Eucalyptus Street is a narrow street and must not be treated as an alley. He said the design of the south building elevations and the plan for deliveries must be sensitive to the future development which will face Eucalyptus Street. He was concerned that the phasing of development occur in two phases, with Mimi's being the first phase and the remainder in the second phase. He supported sensitive design in relation to the hotel with a plan for pedestrian flow which would draw the guests to the site and encourage them to walk in the area. He felt the architecture should build on the theme, flow, and synergy of the Terra Vista Community Commercial Development. He said he wanted to avoid "cheap" and expressed opposition to a drive-thru because he felt it would cheapen the site. Commissioner Tolstoy said he did not want to see a drive-thru. He observed that the drive-thru policy states that no cars should be visible in the stacking lane and he felt satisfying that condition would be difficult. He added that the Mimi's signature architecture is okay, but said he would not support roof or parapet signs. He stated that when a center is being developed, future signs should be incorporated into the design. Mr. Buller suggested that before the next meeting on the project, the applicant, the hotel owner, and the City consider the issue of the large truck/trailer and bus parking for the hotel. Mr. Desforges thanked the Commissioners and staff for their comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission Business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjoumed at 10:15 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on May 29, 1996, for a City Council/Planning Commission workshop. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary P.C. Adjourned Minutes -3- May 22, 1996