Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/01/26 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting January 26, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:15 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; Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 00-01 — LEGACY PARTNERS — Review of conceptual plans to • develop four office buildings, totaling 280,000 square feet on 19 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Sixth Street between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue — APN: 210-081-07 and 15. Michael Morris, Legacy Partners, introduced himself and the project by stating Legacy Partners was formerly Lincoln Property Company, and that the General Dynamics Corporate Center is currently managed by Legacy Partners. Mr. Morris was joined by his associates, Eric Hanson from Legacy Partners and Jim Williams and Julie Yang from Ware and Malcomb, Architects. Mr. Morris commented that there is a "sense of approach" to the project as the drive along Haven Avenue provides a window into the project area and the same effect occurs driving west on Sixth Street. He also noted that he believes the overall design of the project is considered "contemporary classic." The Commissioners provided positive comment and feedback to the applicant regarding the overall project design and concept with the following specific suggestions and comments. Commissioner Mannerino suggested the applicant avoid the "pill-box" approach to screening the roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Stewart noted " there is a large amount of parking along the rear elevations of the buildings with no apparent building entry. She asked the applicants to explain the entries that would be used by both employees and customers or clients of the building tenants. Commissioner Macias indicated the need for a pedestrian link between Building 4 and the cluster of Buildings 1, 2, and 3 (i.e. as in a walkway through the parking landscape median). Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be walkways for pedestrian movement from a parked car to the building entry without having to traverse through landscape medians or planters. Commissioner Macias felt the building elevations that face Sixth Street and those rear elevations that face the parking lots should include an appealing facade with access/entry features appropriate to the building design. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with Commissioner Macias. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested providing public art within the project at an appropriate focal point. He continued by suggesting the project capitalize on the "campus-like° concept by providing walkways, landscaping, plaza spaces with outdoor furniture, and similar amenities. He stated Commission policy for industrial/office projects calls for the incorporation of a second building material. He noted a variety of ways this could be accomplished, such as using sandblasted concrete, stone, or tile for example. Chairman McNiel thought sandblasted concrete could be a satisfactory secondary material. He also suggested they consider moving Building 4 up to the streetscape setback line, as well as increasing the building height to 3-stories. He agreed that the Sixth Street elevation and the elevations facing the parking lots are in need of a more appealing access and entry. Commissioner Mannerino suggested they consider the building placement as it relates to episodes of Santa Ana winds because the prevailing direction of these winds is northeast to southwest; therefore, an altemative building arrangement to protect building entries and plazas from severe wind conditions to the extent feasible would be advised. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 99-07-A request to review possible street closure of Roberds Street for future additional parking in the Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street—APN: 202-092-008. John Melcher, Architect, AIA, was present along with the owners of the property, Syed Iftikhar and Lora lftikhar. Mr. Melcher gave an overview of the letter of justification. He stated that the reason for the Pre-Application Review was an action brought by Code Enforcement and that the main issue is that the building does not have enough parking for the current use. He said a previous Conditional Use Permit allowed the owner to use half of the building for a warehouse and the other for a wholesale use. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, summarized staff recommendations as to the closure of Roberds Street and the general direction given by staff to ensure that the project would include contact with the adjacent property owners. She strongly recommended the creation of a "village center"feel with landscaping, parking, and pedestrian walkways. She offered the following areas for the Commission's consideration: 1) Master Planning —The Master Plan should encompass the entire block between Base Line Road, Amethyst Avenue, and the abandoned Southern Pacific Railway right-of-way and it should be developed in a way that is cohesive with the site. Support for the Master Plan should be sought by all affected property owners in this block. 2) Pedestrian Space—The area encompasses an odd shaped layout with no definable pedestrian walkways. Part of the Master Plan should encompass walkways and landscaping for pedestrian use. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- January 26, 2000 3) Cluster Parking—As shown on both options of the site plan, the parking spaces extend to the back of the property, leaving a strip of parking which does not tie into the Bargain Center. Staff recommends a cluster type of parking to use the area more efficiently. 4) Tenant Concerns—Staffs recommendation is for the property owner and the architect to focus on keeping the other owners, tenants, and surrounding homeowners involved in the Master Plan process for the center. Ms. Wimer then presented two site plan options: 1) Close off the street at Amethyst Avenue adjacent to the property, leaving a portion of Roberds Street open, but'racated. 2) Close the street at the front of the residential properties and allocate the excess property (a portion of Roberds Street) to the two single-family homeowners on either side. Mr. Melcher stated that the applicant did not have a preference. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that staffs preference is to close off Roberds and allocate the excess property to the homeowners on either side. He also stated that it is staffs preference to use a comprehensive master plan that would get all of the property owners involved, including the gas station on the corner. He commented some orientation of the center should focus on the pedestrians, giving a "village center feel. Commissioner Tolstoy did not see the need for access that currently exists on Roberds Street and thought the road could be closed. He felt the problem mainly exists because of the passersby and people who frequent the liquor store, who use it as an"escape route." He agreed that a Master Plan should be prepared for the entire block. Commissioner Mannerino stated that his office is quite close to the site and he is familiar with the present activities around Roberds Street. He felt the street should be closed. He believed there is no access onto Amethyst Avenue from the mini-market located on the corner. He agreed with staff that the small retail businesses in this center should be notified and kept informed as to the process. Commissioner Stewart indicated that the Master Plan idea is what she would push for and that the future of the center should lean toward the pedestrian walkway for the customers and also for the senior citizens because of the senior center that will soon be under construction. Commissioner Macias stated that the street vacation is necessary, and expressed concem with the turning radius for fire trucks and the end of the closure. He also supported the concept of a Master Plan for the entire block. Mr. Buller stated that he understands that the Commission unanimously feels the street should be vacated and recommended that the applicant meet with staff in the future to ensure the best possible plan. Mr. Buller stated that staff would work with the applicant in an attempt to help resolve the outstanding issues. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- January 26, 2000 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, isms" •ulle V - retary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- January 26, 2000