Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/02/10 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 10, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-03 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - A request to construct approximately 88,000 square feet of retail space within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard, west of 1-15 - APN: 229-031-41. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that there were a number of issues identified in the comments that could be worked out with staff. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, began the discussion by explaining the current situation with Circuit City, the tenant proposed for the large space at the east end of the phase. He felt that they had a verbal agreement with Circuit City but noted the tenant has also been talking with the owners of the Victoria Courtyard on the west side of 1-15. He is not certain of the current status of the lease agreement. He stated that the design proposed for Circuit City is similar to the design of the remodeling being done for the Circuit City in Fashion Island. He said the inset arches would receive a dark red ceramic tile to assimilate the red "plug" trademark of Circuit City. Jim Bickel, Architect, explained the changes from the typical Circuit City prototype. Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that discussions regarding Circuit City be tabled. He suggested the Commission could discuss the design at the end of the meeting, if time permitted, or at a future meeting. Mr. Wattson concurred with Mr. Buller's suggestion. Mr. Bickel began addressing staff's comments with a discussion of the "T" intersection near Pad 10. He said the landscaped area at the south side of the "T" would be angled to allow visibility, thereby creating a more visible focal point. The area around the "T" had been reviewed by the applicant's traffic and civil engineers and found to be acceptable. Commission Chitiea questioned the change in the collector road from the original design with the terminus at the buildings. Mr. Bickel responded that the new design creates a more efficient parking layout and helps to dissipate traffic rather than funneling it down to the building fronts. Commissioner Chitiea stated that a similar situation exists at the Ikea center in Fontana and makes for a frustrating circulation pattern. Mr. Buller suggested that the site plan issues be discussed.first. He stated that three main points should be considered by the Commission: 1) parking allocation, 2) the location and footprint of Pad 10, and 3) circulation. Mr. Bickel noted that the parking in the southwest corner of the building was accessible for pedestrians by the sidewalk along the west side of Sports Chalet. He said the entry was purposely located at the west end to limit the walking distance. This situation is similar to Price club with the large parking area to the side and rear of the entry. Mr. Wattson observed that Sports Chalet can not place a door at the rear of the building because it could not be secured. Mr. Buller felt that the parking in the corner was difficult to get to and not near the store entry and should not be credited toward meeting the parking requirements. He feared the area may become a nuisance because of its location. He suggested consideration be given to placing retail space at the rear of the building. Chairman McNiel noted that the design of Pad 10 had not been approved. He felt as soon as the Commission looks at circulation, Pad 10 would be created by the remainder. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Chairman McNiel. Chairman McNiel indicated that if Pad 10 is not part of the application, the Commission should review the circulation without regard for the pad. Mr. Wattson responded that he was not as concerned about the circulation as he wae about losing the parking at the rear as suggested by Mr. Bullet. He said the design submitted had been reviewed by Sports Chalet and they found it satisfactory. He stated they want to be next to the freeway and they want the design as submitted. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 10, 1993 Commissioner Chitiea suggested that adequate lighting and a surveillance camera should be placed at the rear of the building to secure the parking area. Commissioner Vallette felt that the land in the rear corner can only be used for parking and the applicant has done a good job in designing the area. Commissioner Melcher questioned if Pad 10 had always been shown. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel felt that if the circulation were realigned, the size of Pad 10 would decrease and the circulation would improve. Mr. Buller suggested that the applicant explore pulling the circulation south at the "T" intersection. Commissioner Melcher felt that the City was fortunate that the applicant was still pursuing this area of the site. He felt it is a difficult piece and noted the applicant has 2 good tenants to anchor the area. Mr. Murphy questioned if the Commission had concerns about extending the collector road to the south. The Commission had no objections. Mr. Murphy asked if the Commission was willing to defer the circulation to Design Review Committee. The Commission agreed. Mr. Wattson commented that if there was a circulation problem, they would be bringing it on themselves. Chairman McNiel believed that parking problems can lead to other problems such as increased signage area requests. He desired improved circulation and increased parking. Commissioner Melcher felt that the entire parking area would only be used 6 to 7 days during the year, usually at Christmas and the rest of the time it would be unused. Mr. Buller suggested that landscaping in the rear corner be limited to groundcover, low shrubs, and trees to allow visibility into the area. He did not feel high-growing shrubs should be provided. Mr. Murphy suggested the Commission discuss the connection to Wal'-Mart. Mr. Bickel remarked that the strongest elements across the entire site is the rhythm of trees and the same concept was being proposed for this location. Mr. Wattson stated that the trees 'and decorative fixtures would continue into this area from Wal-Mart. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 10, 1993 Commissioner Melcher asked how pedestrians would walk from Wal-Mart to the west phase. His opinion was that a connection was not needed. Chairman McNiel felt that the pedestrians would take the shortest distance between 2 points and cut through the parking area, regardless of connections proposed. Commissioner Chitiea thought the use of decorative paving and landscaping would provide a sufficient connection. Mr. Buller suggested that the westerly connection could be emphasized with a focal element at Pad 10. Mr. Murphy identified the next discussion item as the loading spaces in front of circuit City. Mr. Buller felt the location was not appropriate. He suggested that the entire building be reversed. Mr. Wattson responded that the building could not be flipped because of property line conflicts. Mr. Bickel added that property line clearances could not be met. He stated that in addition, Circuit City wanted the visibility offered by the proposed orientation. Commission Melcher suggested that the drive aisle adjacent to the loading spaces be closed off. Mr. Wattson and Mr. Bickel expressed their reluctance to close off the drive aisle. Mr. Buller suggested that the spaces be relocated to the west side of the building. Chairman McNiel felt that was a better option. Commissioner Vallette was opposed to parking on either side of the building. Chairman McNiel asked about parking in the back of the store as was done at other locations. Commissioner Melcher was sympathetic to prototype designs and felt the parking was fine in either location. Commissioner Chitiea felt that loading parking spaces might work in that location but that permanent parking may not be appropriate. Mr. Buller suggested that different paving material could be used for the loading spaces. Mr. Murphy indicated the next issues was the storefront variation. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 10, 1993 Mr. Bickel explained that larger tenants were expected in this area as opposed to the smaller tenants in the eastern phase. Commissioner Melcher felt the City should do everything it can to help the tenants. Chairman McNiel noted that the span of the storefront was not large. Commissioner Chitiea recommended angles be provided at the double doors. Mr. Murphy noted the next issue for Commission discussion was the cornice treatment. Mr. Bickel stated that he did not want to overuse the cornice detail. He observed that Target has no cornice treatment and suggested that a layered cornice like Wal-Mart might be appropriate. Chairman McNiel felt the cornice needs the sophisticated look of the pre-cast element. Mr. Buller suggested that the tower at the southwest corner of Sports Chalet should return similar to other towers approved in the center. Commissioner Melcher felt the arches within the arcade area need to rest on a column. Chairman McNiel questioned the rear elevation design. Mr. Murphy responded that the typical shop buildings will be set back further from the rear property line and will be screened from the freeway by Sports Chalet. He pointed out that the only visibility will be from a distance down the freeway. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher on the need to support the arcade arches with a column. The Commissioners agreed that the changes could be submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval and then forward to the full Commission for final action. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 10, 1993