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