HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/03/27 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
' Adjourned Meeting
March 27, 2002
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 8:00 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: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart,
Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Alan Warren,
Associate Planner
NEW BUSINESS
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2002-00178—CRAIG SCHEU-A review of a master plan for
two single-story office/industrial buildings totaling 49,875 square feet on 3.5 acre site located in
Subarea 7 of the Industrial Park District on the southwest side of White Oak Avenue, north of
Elm Street. The proposed tenant spaces range in size from 4,750 to 1,630 square feet, but
could be expanded up to 12,000 square feet—APN: 208-352-92.
Brad Buller briefly introduced the project and explained the workshop process.
Charles Buquet, representing the applicant, spoke first and expanded on the type of tenants that the
project would attract,those professional organizations that need varying degrees of storage capacity.
He stated that development companies, architects and civil engineers like to have offices with
storage bays for field equipment, materials, etc.
Next, the project architect provided comments regarding the site and building design.
Alan Warren, Associate Planner outlined staff comments as follows:
1. Expand/improve the site's linkage to the master plan's pedestrian system and between buildings
on-site.
2. Provide a significant office structure on which the project's street presence can focus(suggest a
multi-story element).
3. Move the buildings closer to street frontage (remove majority of parking between building and
street), provide a significant pedestrian plaza between the street and the building near the
center of the street frontage.
4. Obscure view of rear loading areas from street and surrounding properties through the use of
buildings, walls, and dense landscaping (avoid creating blind intersections for drivers).
5. Provide planters in the central parking/loading area and allow for some pedestrian linkage
between buildings.
6. Reserve the front building primarily for office uses, en�t;Sigh industrial uses for the rear
buildings.
7. Provide 360 degree architecture. The building elevations that face the surrounding properties
should be the front of the to ,At spaces and emulate the"office"features of the front building.
8. Engineering had concerns regarding the lines of sight for drivers exiting the two driveways
because of the continuous curve of the street. Engineering also recommended that each
driveway be "joint use"with neighboring properties.
Commissioner Tolstoy preferred limiting the amount of parking located directly along the street
frontage and agreed with the two-story concept, if possible. He expressed opposition to mixing retail
commercial outlets with such an office/industrial center. He thought there should be a significant
outdoor lunch patio.
Commissioner Mannerino would like the building to conform to the curved shape of the street
frontage. He recognized that office buildings of this type with condominium ownership seem to work
well for businesses that want to own their site. He thought most of the parking should be in the rear
of the buildings and also supported an outdoor eating area.
Commissioner Stewart encouraged lush landscaping with a pedestrian friendly site plan. She felt
enhanced architecture that will impress visitors to the area is important.
Commissioner Macias concurred with the comments of fellow Commissioners and staff. He favored
a more formal office architecture and asked that the parking be concealed in the middle and rear
areas as much as possible. He felt a strong landscaping concept is important to this site.
Chairman McNiel wanted the architecture to be enhanced from a quality light industrial concept to a
prestigious formal office style. He liked the two-story potential.
City Planner Buller consolidated the comments to the following significant issues:
1. It is important to consider how a project fits on the site and its relationship with the surrounding
properties via a pedestrian circulation network.
2. The engineering concerns related to lines of sight and joint use driveways need to be
researched.
3. Generally many features of the conceptual site plan were viewed favorably with the following
improvements:
a. Do not locate parking along the entire frontage.
b. Upgrade the architecture and provide a second story or similar height building feature.
c. Provide a pedestrian courtyard as a place for employees/visitors to use as a lunch patio.
d. Provide an improved landscaping concept
4. The development on this site needs to set design standards for the surrounding area.
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- March 27, 2002
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
is�
fa f
Se - ary
I
PC Adjourned Minutes -3- March 27, 2002