Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/12/21 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting December 21, 1993 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 DeAnza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: APPLICANT: OLD BUSINESS PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner Jack Masi, Owner; Michael Scandiffio, Developer; John DeFrenza, Architect A. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A request to modify an approved industrial master plan on 27 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan in the following manner: 1. Review of a proposed ice/roller skating rink (Building 21) of 53,070 square feet and the associated parking study. 2. Review of proposed architecture of Building 5 (Old Spaghetti Factory). 3. Review of Revised site plan and architecture for Buildings 14 - 18. 4. Review of revised architecture and a theater use for Building 11. APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. The Commission reviewed issues which were brought up at the December 14, 1993, Design Review Committee meeting. Chairman Barker indicated concern regarding the rear elevations of the proposed buildings along the south project boundary. He felt they should tie in with the architecture of the Sports Complex and offer an acceptable view from the stadium. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented a history of the project to date and explained that an administrative approval had been granted for the northern portion of the site which altered the site plan and some architectural elevations from the originally approved Conditional Use Permit. Michael Scandiffio, developer, indicated that they now wished to change the nature of their request and to only go forward at this point with Design Review modifications to Buildings 5, 14, 15, and 16. Commissioner Lumpp questioned why only those buildings. Mr. Scandiffio replied that these were more integral to the first phase of the project and also had to do with the financing for the entire package. He also indicated that a General Plan Amendment would be presented to the Commission in January 1994 and approval of a General Plan Amendment would enable them to more easily obtain financing. Discussion followed regarding Building 14, which will have an 8-inch recess along the west wall and a 12-inch recess along the east wall. Commissioner Melcher indicated he felt the tower element parapet should wrap completely by use of an additional wing wall that would serve to conceal any roof-mounted equipment and ensure that the tower did not appear as a plant-on. He thought vine pockets along the Rochester Avenue elevation should be planted with thorny vines. Discussion regarding Building 15 covered the following items: No colonade and less glazing is proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the north facing facade is too plain. He noted that there is only a 3-foot wide planter which would be appropriate for planting vines or a tall linear plant such as Podocarpus. He thought vertical plants should be used adjacent to all doorways. The Commissioners felt that Building 13 should be built before Building 15, or at least they should be constructed concurrently. If this is not possible, they indicated the Building 13 pad should be landscaped in order to block views from Foothill Boulevard to the north side of Building 15. The applicant stated that Building 15 would be provided with knock-out panels on the north side if a user required it. Regarding Building 16, the Commission thought the return element should be given greater depth, the planters on the north side of the building should remain in place, the parapet wall of the tower element should also wrap around, and an 8-inch pop-out should be provided on the north side of the building. Regarding Building 5 (Old Spaghetti Factory), the applicant indicated that the west elevation would have climbing vines along the wall with 1-inch pop-outs and 4-inch columns. He stated a raised dock for deliveries will be located on the south side and the striped parking spaces in front of the loading area will be deleted. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- December 21, 1993 The Commission did not feel that the entry from Foothill Boulevard was acceptable. Mr. Scandiffio indicated that tree grates would be located in the sidewalk. He noted the sidewalk is 6 feet in width and the landscaped area is approximately 4 feet in width. He stated 4-inch pop-outs/reveals are located on the west side of Building 5. The Commission indicated that the west side of Building 5 could be treated differently from the east side of Building 4, since this is a unique building. They suggested a trellis with grape vines might be appropriate since it would relate to the historical context of the site. The Commission felt the project was generally acceptable with the conditions noted, except that the drive aisle entry treatment from Foothill Boulevard and the west side of Building 5 need to be upgraded. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dan Coleman Acting Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -3- December 21, 1993