Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/02/22 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 22, 2006 Chairman Stewart called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Pam Stewart, Larry McNiel, Richard Fletcher, and Christine McPhail ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner; Mike Smith, Assistant Planner A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW - DRC2006-00094 - MICHAEL CHAI: A Pre- Application Review of a proposed master-planned retail and office complex comprised of two 2-story office buildings of 28,000 square feet (each), three single-story retail buildings of 17,500 square feet (combined), and three single- story restaurant pad buildings of 17,000 square feet (combined) on three parcels (combined area = 8.4 acres), located in the Industrial Park (IP) District, Subarea 7, at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue; APN: APN: 0208- 961-05, -06, -07. Dan Coleman, Acting 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 overall design and its relationship to the surrounding area. The development team began by introducing themselves. Then, the architect, Kenji Nomura of Nadel Architects, described the proposed project as a commercial development that will include two office buildings, a drive-through bank, and a variety of restaurant and retail tenants. He described the architecture and provided colored renderings and a color board for the Commissioners to review. Cynthia Bell, representing the property owner, explained that they wanted 'feedback' on the architecture before committing themselves to a formal application. Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, gave a brief background on the project. He explained that the applicant submitted a Preliminary Review for this project about 2 months ago and, following the City's review, comments were provided to the applicant outlining technical requirements, development standards, and general responses/recommendations. To ensure a successful project, Staff recommended to the applicant that they submit a Pre-Application Review to discuss the architecture as it was considered to be bold and unique. Mr. Smith stated that there is no established Planning Commission Workshop Minutes 1 February 22, 2006 architectural theme along Foothill Boulevard and cited the Panattoni project under construction to the east and the existing Mercury Insurance building to the west as examples. Staff did not have any concerns with the site layout; many of the issues such as distribution of parking and landscaping deficiencies could be resolved. He stated that adequate screening of the roof-mounted equipment is essential (it was not clear if the angled roofs allowed for parapets) and that signs must comply with the City's Sign Ordinance. Commissioner McNiel stated that he did not like the architecture. He thought it was too 'trendy', would not age well, and would not 'blend-in' well with the surrounding developments. He did not think that the architecture was of sufficient quality for Foothill Boulevard. He had no concern with the proposed land use although parking distribution needed to be revised as it appeared that the northwest corner of the site would be under-parked. Commissioner Fletcher had mixed feelings about the design. On one hand he did not like it but thought it was interesting. Although he was not opposed to something different along Foothill Boulevard, he stated that the quality of the architecture must be equal to surrounding developments. He agreed with Commissioner McNiel regarding the parking lot layout, adding that the parking lot should also not dominate the site as viewed from Foothill Boulevard. - Commissioner McPhail stated that the landscaping along Foothill Boulevard must be substantial in its design. She agreed that the architecture was too bold, particularly the colors proposed, and was not acceptable. She stated that it was okay to be unique and bold, but she was not satisfied with this. She echoed the other Commissioners' comments regarding the parking lot (distribution and apparent dominance of the site) and also added that the pedestrian connections need to be improved. Chairman Stewart thought that the architecture was 'not that far off and that it could be revised during the design review process. She also stated that the colors were too bold. She thought the angled roof lines and wall planes were unique and creative. She agreed with the others' concerns about the parking lot. The applicants thanked the Commissioners for their input on what was still a conceptual project. They appreciated the Commissioners' feedback and that he and his company and where staff and the Commissioners were coming from a d that they would seriously consider the issues that were brought up by the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS None x + rs ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Planning Commission Workshop Minutes 2 February 22, 2006 - a:pe idly su• e•, e% Dan Coleman Acting Secretary Approved: March 8, 2006 1 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes 3 February 22, 2006