Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/05/25 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 25, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:00 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: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher ABSENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer OWNER/DEVELOPER Gary Luque, Lewis Homes; Dave Newsome, Western Properties; Jim Keisker, Keisker & Wiggle Architects, Inc.; Rick Major, Lewis Homes; Elaine Carbrey, Gruen Associates. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Ae PRE-APPLICATION 94-02 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - A request to review the streetscape design concepts for Church Street and the proposed development plans for the 25-acre shopping center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Gary Luque, Lewis Homes, introduced his professional team to the Commissioners. Dave Newsome, Western Properties, gave an overview of the proposed project as to the context of the project and the different types of land uses along Church Street. He stated that the project was designed in response to a segment of the retail market and was not designed for speculative type of retail boxes. He said the buildings are organized to orient toward Foothill Boulevard. Jim Keisker, Keisker & Wiggle Architects, Inc., described the architectural program for the project, the Church Street streetscape, and the specific building design for Best Buy, one of the major tenants. Brad Buller, City Planner, reminded the Commission that the purpose of the workshop was to review the design concepts for this 25-acre parcel aS to its relationship to Foothill Boulevard and the Terra Vista Community Plan to the north. Chairman Barker opened the discussion to the Commissioners. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to briefly comment on the history of the Community Plan. He appreciated the fact that Gruen Associates is involved in this proposed amendment since they are the original planning consultant firm that designed and developed the Community Plan. However, he mentioned that there had been battles between the City and the developer as to how best to develop the stretch of land along Foothill Boulevard in the future. He noted it was Gruen Associates that introduced the Foothill Boulevard Centers Concepts and he thought this parcel had been scheduled to provide a broad, open vista into the community. He questioned whether this concept is still valid today. However, he believed that the proposed design has moved away from it in a major way. With the change from office to commercial use, he felt the view corridor is greatly reduced and the project will now have a back side that faces Church Street. With respect to the site design, he felt that the buildings at the western portion of the site are set back too deep and do not relate to the buildings across Spruce Avenue in the eastern portion of the Terra Vista Town Center. He thought that it was premature to address the architecture. Chairman Barker commented that he is concerned with the view and the vista from Foothill Boulevard to the foothills and the community towards the north as well as the residents' view into the center. He stated that he is particularly concerned with the streetscape along Church Street where there will be a back side of a project that faces it. Commissioner Melcher agreed with Chairman Barker and also stated that he found no creativity in the design of this project when compared to Terra Vista Town Center. Rick Major, Lewis Homes, responded that it is not feasible to build an office project. He went on to state that the buildings were oriented toward Foothill Boulevard because of the linear nature of the site and the required field of parking (accessible parking spaces) for the users and the commercial uses. He explained to the Commission that the proposed project is a strategy for strengthening the east side of Terra Vista Town Center since it is the weakest in the generation of sales tax. He stated that the proposed project will complement Tetra Vista Town Center as the users are within the range of 10,000 to 25,000 square feet in size. He felt that the Commission's concerns regarding the streetscape along Church Street could be mitigated with architecture and landscaping but the orientation of the buildings and the field of parking could not be changed. Commissioner Melcher felt the proposed amendment was written to suit the project. He said the proposed design criteria does not show or explain to the Commission how the original intent of the objectives for the Community Plan will be met. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- May 25, 1994 Mr. Major indicated that the pedestrian connection from Church Street to the Center was eliminated as directed by Engineering staff which is contrary to the recommendations from Planning staff. Chairman Barker responded that the Commission could be a facilitator in resolving the conflicts between the requirements from different City Departments. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the connection could be a visual link instead of a pedestrian connection. Mr. Buller suggested that the design of the commercial project carry over some of the elements of the office park. Because it was almost time for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting to start, he recommended that the Commission take a recess and reconvene after the regular Planning Commission meeting. The Commission recessed at 7:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting. The Commission re-convened the adjourned meeting at 9:55 p.m. Elaine Carbrey, Gruen Associates, explained that at the time of developing the Community Plan, the City had a concern with the strip commercial look. She said they addressed that concern by developing the center concepts that consists of a series of centers along Foothill Boulevard with a few curb cuts, deep parcels, and special character for each center. However, she stated that with the change of the land use, together with today's retail trend of large users, the requirements for a commercial site have to be changed as well. She stated that they tried to keep the key elements of the original office park concept within the design of the proposed project by providing the view corridor, the pedestrian circulation, the trails, etc. She felt that the language in the Design Guidelines for the site could be strengthened to ensure these key elements are kept intact. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the design of the concept centers is related to Church Street. Mr. Keisker explained the streetscape concept along Church Street. Commissioner Melcher also asked how the streetscape along Church Street is designed to meet the arbor and window effect called out in the Community Plan. He pointed out that the site design does not provide for easy pedestrian access toward the north. He still felt that the proposed plan is significantly different because there is a loss of the wide, open view corridor and the east/west pedestrian connection. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the usefulness of the traffic signal at the "T" intersection of Town Center Drive and Spruce Avenue. Mr. Major stated that this is a pre-existing condition which has to be designed into the project. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- May 25, 1994 Commissioner Melcher suggested that the applicant study the options of providing a raised median along Spruce Avenue and eliminating the signal. Chairman Barker suggested to the applicant that they revise the design to address these concerns; that is, the pedestrian connections, the entries design, the visual link, the breaking up of a long continuous storefront, etc. Commissioner Lumpp felt the applicant should address the concerns of pedestrian and visual linkages, the usefulness of the concentric ring pavement design on the drive aisle for connecting the plazas, the back side of the project, etc. Mr. Major stated that they are willing to work with the Commission and staff in addressing all the concerns. The Commission directed the applicant to revise the graphics and the text and submit them for their review again at a workshop on June 8, 1994. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT 11:00 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on June 8, 1994. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- May 25, 1994