Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/04/02 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 2, 1992 Chairman Larry McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 5:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, John Melcher, Suzanne Chitiea, Steve Preston, HPC Brad Buller, City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Bey Nissen, Associate Planner; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer APPLICANTS: PRESENT: Prescott Muir, Prescott Muir Architects; Lisa Arnett, Prescott Muir Architects; Brett French, Environs Landscape Architecture; Joseph Meyer, C.B. Commercial REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 92-02 - SMITH'S SUPERSTORE Mr. Prescott Muir presented revised architectural plans to the Commission and commented on the proposal. Ms. Beverly Nissen presented staff's comments to the Commission. The Commission responded to the proposal as follows: Commissioner Melcher indicated that this process was not intended for the Commission to receive new information and it would be difficult for him to comment on the revised elevations. He felt that the original drawings were difficult to decipher because of their size and scale. He liked the fact that the building was "dug in" on the north side. He felt this would help reduce the scale of the building. He felt that the lack of satellite pads at the corner was not an issue and that master planning with the out parcel to the north was appropriate. He felt that the urbanity of the Activity Center needs to be addressed and at first blush he preferred the alternate landscape plan rather than what was originally proposed. He felt that the overhead doors were enormous and needed to be addressed. He felt that allowing the architecture to reflect the winery or still building on the east side of Foothill Boulevard was appropriate, but that the building should not reflect the architecture of the winery shopping center. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he felt the Activity Center as proposed did not meet the intent of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He reflected on the reason why no buildings required on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and only this corner was different and buildings should be required. He also felt the site should be more pedestrian oriented and give the customers the opportunity to do other types of shopping and errands. He felt the site plan should try and get away from large parking areas exposed to Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the architecture was hard to comment on because of the scale of the drawings. He felt that the building did not fit his idea of what a shopping center should look like. Commissioner Chitiea shared the site plan concerns of Commissioner Tolstoy. She felt the site was too small to accommodate such a large building. She felt that the convenience to the consumer was not present without additional shops. She felt the building facade needed greater articulation. She felt it would be hard, however, to place a building of this size adjacent to the street frontage. She felt that the building facade needed more movement and that change was needed in the roof plane. She felt that the orientation of the loading area was a problem. She preferred the revised landscape concept with the water element at the corner. She felt more landscaping against the building should be provided. Commissioner McNiel commented that he had never seen a building this large for a grocery store. Mr. Prescott Muir responded that the concept behind the Smith's Superstore was to take a typical shopping center and introvert it so that all the ancillary services are provided in the interior of the building. Yogurt stores, video rental, and pizza parlors will be run by concessionaires. Commissioner McNiel indicated that he agreed with the location of the Activity Center. He felt it was important to master plan the out parcel. He indicated that it was a policy of the Planning Commission not to expose roll-up doors to a public street. He felt that the walkway through the center of the site would be difficult to push a grocery cart through and that it should be expanded. He felt that the specialized paving in front of the store served no purpose unless it lined up with the entry doors. He felt that the roof line needed greater articulation and that equipment screening should be integrated with the architecture of the building. He did not like the standing seamed metal roof and felt a different roof material would be more appropriate. He felt that the exterior of the building should be treated as though it were a Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 2, 1992 shopping center. He felt that the corner treatment should reflect the local winery heritage also. His biggest concern was the creation of pedestrian access that made sense. He felt that the applicant should explore moving pads A and B to the corner to create an Activity Center and possibly reorient the building. He felt that the use was appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he would welcome a new architectural look in the City and did not mind departing from the traditional Mediterranean style, but that any new theme must have the same level of detail as is common throughout the City. Commissioner Melcher thought that the form of the building should express the fact that so much is happening inside the building. He stated he was disappointed with the mechanical screening concept. He stated that the lines of the penthouse should not be discernible as a penthouse. He thought that the applicant should explore reducing the drive aisles to 24 feet in width. He had no objection to the proposed metal roof. Commissioner Chitiea indicated the applicant should not use any industrial materials. She did not like the use of split face block especially when mixed with stucco and rock. She felt the entry point at the corner should be of quality materials and upscale. She felt the building needed more movement and interest and that it currently looked like a big box. Mr. Buller concluded the meeting with the following remarks: The challenge for the applicant is to fit the 75,000 square foot building onto the site. 2. The out parcel to the north should be master planned. Three of the Commissioners were opposed to roll-up doors facing Foothill Boulevard and one of the Commissioners felt they might be successfully incorporated into the project if aesthetics and location issues were considered. 4. Metal roof is not desirable. The architecture of the project should not reflect that of the winery shopping center. Engineering and Historic Preservation concerns were not discussed. The applicant should consult with the Fire District to determine if the secondary driveway off Vineyard Avenue could be turf blocked and whether a majority of the drive isles could be reduced to 24 feet. The Historic Preservation Commission will consider the project because of the original Cucamonga Post Office was located on the site. The applicant should revise the Activity Center concept. Buildings, of an appropriate scale should be added and sited at the corner. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 2, 1992 ***** ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 2, 1992