Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/04/14 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 14, 2004 Chairman Macias called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Cris McPhail STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Mike Smith, Assistant Planner. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2004-00336 - HPJ ARCHITECTS - A Pre-Application Review to consider a conceptual design for the development of two office/warehouse industrial buildings that have a total floor area of 123,940 square feet on a lot of 5.9 acres in the Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial District, Subarea 9, located at 11096 Jersey Boulevard - APN: 0209-145-08. Related files: Development Review DRC2003-01174 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16760. Brad Buller, 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's overall design and its relationship to the surrounding area. Randy Jepson, of Nimes, Peters, Jepson (HPJ) Architects, 3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 140, Tustin, California, introduced his development team and described the project. Mr.Jepson noted the project did not consider, nor provide opportunity for, incorporating rail service in the site and building layout as required by the City's Development Code. He reasoned that the railroad companies would not service buildings of this size because the demand for service did not justify the expense of providing it. Furthermore, Mr. Jepson indicated that because of an existing grade difference between the existing spur along the north side of the project and the site itself, any adjustments made (for example, in grading) that would facilitate the routing of a rail spur on to the site would not be practical. Mr.Jepson acknowledged the City rail service requirements but hoped the Commissioners would recognize the merit of his position. Mike Smith,Assistant Planner, gave a brief overview of the project. He stated that during the initial review period of the formal application, the proposal was determined to be inconsistent with the City's rail service requirements. Mr. Smith pointed out that the site layout should be revised so that access to the rail line through a dock door or equivalent is available. He indicated staff was willing to consider an area along the rail line reserved for rail-related activities unencumbered by structures, truck/auto parking, or storage. Mr. Smith noted that the applicant would not be required to construct the rail spur or any of the rail service improvements. He stated that a secondary concern was the location of parking along the single interior drive aisle that would also be used by trucks transiting to the rear of the buildings. He observed that staff and the applicant recognized that because of the rail service issue, and to a lesser extent, the drive aisle alignment, the project would be significantly altered. Mr. Smith then asked the Commissioners for their comments. Commissioner McNiel noted that this development district, and the site specifically, is suited for rail service oriented development. He indicated that perhaps this was not the location for what the applicant was proposing. He believed rail service oriented properties are identified in the General Plan and Development Code as important. Furthermore, he said that if the City allowed such non- rail-oriented development on a rail-oriented site, a significant opportunity would be lost. Finally, he commented that allowing the proposal as submitted would set a precedent for the vacant property located directly to the east of the site and other properties where rail service exists. Commissioner Macias concurred with Commissioner McNiel. He also felt that this non-rail served project was contrary to regional transportation planning efforts to shift freight traffic to trains. Commissioner Stewart did not believe that the site layout was taking full advantage of the rail line. She believed that the applicant could reasonably revise the proposal. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with the other Commissioners' positions. None of the Commissioners were overly concerned about the drive aisle and, since the site would have to be changed as noted, the issue would be resolved during the redesign. Mr. Jepson thanked the Commissioners for their time and comments. He stated that would have to discuss the project's changes with the property owner and that he would resubmit the application dependent on the outcome of their discussions. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B uller Secretary • PC Adjourned Minutes -2- April 14, 2004