Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/01/28 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting January 28, 1998 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALl. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 97-07 - HMC GROUP - A request to construct two 10,000 square foot dental office buildings on 2 acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Haven Avenue nodh of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-491-08. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review prooess. Milford Harrison, representative for Hospitality Dental Associates, presented the reasons for requesting one story buildings rather than mu[ti-story. He indicated that the subject property had been foreclosed on twice in the recent past because other developers had been unable to meet the multi-story requirement. He stated that, in his experience, dental patients do not like to have to use stairs to access upper floors of a dental office and would rather visit a one story office. He said one of the buildings would be occupied by his dental office and the other is intended to be leased to an orthodontic outfit. He felt that multi-story development is not feasible since the site is not a typioal corner lot with left hand turn access off of Haven. Paul Lentz, Architect, indicated that the design intent is to provide a multi-story appearance even though the buildings are actually one story by raising the parapets to 26 feet and lhrough use of a 35 to 40 foot high lower element. He thought the site is too small to reasonably accommodate multi- story development. He said other parcels to the south are also too small for multi-story buildings because it would be cost prohibitive to construct small footprint, multi-story buildings. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, commented on the intent of the Haven Avenue Overlay to encourage a high-quality, multi-story, corporate style of development along Haven Avenue, given the gateway function of the Haven comdor linking Rancho Cucamonga with the freeway and Ontario Airport. He indicated that, in staff's opinion, the applicant's proposal does not fully meet this intent and may not be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposed architecture was unacceptable for Haven Avenue. He said that locating the parking towards the rear of the site is a positive design concept. He was not comfortable with the concept of designing a one-story building to look like a two-story building. He thought that a one-story development could be viable as there has not been much development activity on Haven Avenue and the corridor is not turning out the way it was originally envisioned. Mr. Bullet added that the multi-stoW provision in the Haven Overlay is a policy statement rather than ar~'actual code requirement and, as such, is subject to the Commission's discretion. Commissioner Bethel thought the proposed architecture is out of place and the Iow buildings would n.0t fit well with, and would be dwarfed by, the existing multi-story buildings to the north. He commented he has visited dental offices in five-stoW buildings so he was not certain that dental · . patients necessarily prefer single stoW offices, as stated by the applicant. He thought a mid-block location without left turn access off of Haven Avenue would not necessarily restrict development of the site to single story buildings. He felt a one-story building should be designed to look like a one- stoW building rather than attempting to mimic a two-stoW structure but that one-stoW development of this particular site would not be appropriate. Commissioner Macias asked what the phasing of the buildings would be. Mr. Harrison stated that the intent is to build both buildings at the same time. Commissioner Macias indicated he is not opposed to a one-story development program for the site but felt the proposed architecture is too institutional in appearance, that it looks like a school rather than a professional office building. He recommended use of more glazing and other elements similar to the multi-stow offices to the north. Commissioner Barker said he has also been to multi-story dental offices and is not sure that dental patients prefer one-stow offices. His primary concern was compatibility and fit with the Haven Avenue streetscape. He thought the proposed architecture does not appear to be compatible with the rather high quality multi-stoW offices to the north and he recommended architectural redesign. Mr. Bullet summarized the concerns raised by the Commissioners: the multi-story provision of the Haven Avenue Overlay is policy and is not necessarily mandatory, a one-stoW development is possible but that is will take very high quality architecture to "self the concept, parking in the rear is a desirable feature, development of the site must fit into the context, the existing multi-story office buildings to the north set a precedent for high quality of design that should be matched by development of the site, phasing of the development is critical, and architecture is critical. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -2- January 28, 1998