Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/12/28 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting December 28, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROT.T. C~T.T. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer , , , , , NEW BUSINESS Ae PR~-APPT.ICATION R~VI~W 94-03 - WESTERN T.AND PROPERTIES - The review of conceptual site planning for the Terra Vista Promenade, an integrated shopping center on approximately 50 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the project to the Commission and briefly explained the purpose of the pre-application review process. He noted that the project will require a General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment and those issues should not be discussed at this stage; only design issues should be brought forth in tonight's forum. Elaine Carbrey, Gruen Associates, provided a brief history behind the making of the Tetra Vista Community Plan and how it relates to the site in question. She stated the idea of having an auto plaza and office related uses would not be financially feasible at this time because of the current market situation. She explained how the required trail connection through the site is now proposed to be located along the Rochester Avenue frontage to provide a more substantial buffer (a 100-foot setback from the ultimate face of curb along Rochester) between the shopping center and the existing residential development on the east side of Rochester, while not segregating the site into smaller pieces. She briefly noted other modifications to the original intent of the community plan. Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, detailed the differences between the market for this shopping center compared to Tetra Vista Town Center, in that no small, in line shops would be available in the new project--only tenants over 18,000 square feet. He stated that non-binding letters of intent have been signed with Home Depot, Kmart, The Broadway, Staples, and Sports Authority with two other leasing opportunities still available. He remarked that a number of single tenant build- to-suit pads will also be available to users interested in locating along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Andy Feola of Feola, Carli & Archuleta Architects highlighted the major site planning opportunities and constraints in designing the site plan and detailed the architectural elements used in designing the storefronts. Frank Cota, Home Depot, summarized the architectural features and thoughts used in designing the Home Depot building. He noted that the location of the Garden Center had been changed since the original submittal to the City and is now internal to the site. He also highlighted the elements that were used to articulate the building elevation facing Rochester Avenue. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, framed the issues that staff felt should be discussed at the meeting (land use transition, architecture, etc.) Mr. Buller further detailed the intent behind the architectural concept, reflecting the winery style of architecture historically known throughout the region. Commissioner Melcher felt that the most critical pedestrian-oriented issue is how to deal with the pedestrian circulation and orientation of the specific site plan rather than worrying about the greenbelt connection dissecting the project. He noted that it appears the density of the future residential development will make up for other projects within Terra Vista where development did not occur at the highest end of the allowable density ranges. He thought the landscape buffer between the shopping center and the future apartments should be increased in width and become a more substantial visual buffer by using dense plantings of trees and shrubs and by taking advantage of the grade difference between the two uses. He felt the loading functions at the northwest corner of the shopping center could potentially negatively impact the adjacent residential development and that a strong demarcation between uses is critical in this area. He commented that the residential portion of the site plan should be specifically considered now and that it should not suffice to call this a future project. He felt the front elevations of the in-line shop buildings need improvement and that such a heavy reliance on the landscaping to improve the appearance would be a concern, since there is no guarantees that the landscaping would be able to mature without being severely pruned or removed. He explained how, in his opinion, the jog in the main vehicular drive aisle weakens the site plan and commented that it should be straightened out to better focus on the main architectural entry statement. He reiterated that more movement in the storefronts will be necessary, as well as the rear elevation of the in-line tenants. He was concerned that the open tile and exposed rafter roof over the pedestrian walkway in front of the in-line shops would not be permitted due to wind restrictions. He expressed a need for assurance that the landscaping will remain intact and allowed to mature naturally. In regards to the activity center treatment at the intersection of Foothill and Rochester, he thought that some of the same elements should be utilized that were proposed at the Masi site across the street. Commissioner McNiel asked the applicant about the proposed use of special pavement in front of the major stores. Mr. Mager stated that a special pavement treatment is proposed in front of all tenants with the exception of Home Depot, where functional constraints make the use of a textured pavement difficult. Commissioner McNiel expressed the need for a substantial depth for the facades and the importance of considering screening of all roof mounted mechanical equipment early in the process, given the grade difference between the shopping center and the multi-family planned residential development. Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, highlighted the possible options for roof screening. Commissioner McNiel asked for a sight line study to be prepared to address the concern. He noted that it may be necessary for a completely enclosed structure PC Adjourned Minutes 2 December 28, 1994 to be built to screen the equipment adequately. He raised his concerns about Foothill Boulevard becoming another situation where a street is dominated by strip retail con~ercial centers and hoped that this project would not accentuate that trend. He reiterated his concern about the maintenance of the landscaping and expressed how crucial it will be to maintain it properly. Commissioner Lumpp asked the applicant to confirm that the referenced 100 foot separation exists between buildings (not including garage structures) within the shopping center and buildings within the future apartment project. Mr. Lasley responded affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp expressed his concern about the treatment of the landscape buffer between the adjoining land uses and said he felt the solution needs to be studied in detail. He felt that a secondary east/west pedestrian connection, similar to the north/south connection leading up to the focal point of the project, should be added to connect the pad buildings. He thought this connection should take the form of an uninterrupted greenbelt. He suggested that the two major tenants (Home Depot and Kmart) be stepped back to give more variety along the front elevation of the shopping center. He noted that the tenant signage will hopefully not be a major concern with this center since no small in-line shops will be locating within the project and the users have the potential to be long term users. He felt that the Home Depot garden center is in a much better location being internal to the line of tenants and that the functionality of the loading area is much improved. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed the opinion that the vehicular access location along Rochester works better located further south as shown on the most recent site plan. Commissioner Lumpp noted the potential to provide a tree-lined drive flanking both sides of the main north/south drive aisle. He commented that the Orchard Street elevation (the west, or garden center elevation of Kmart) should be significantly upgraded. He agreed that the activity center concept used for the Masi project should be used as a guideline for designing the activity center at this corner of Foothill and Rochester. Co~nissioner Tolstoy felt the circulation pattern in front of the Home Depot is significantly upgraded with the new site plan with the garden center internal to the row of tenants. He expressed his concerns regarding stacking of materials in the garden center and stated the materials should not be stacked higher than the screen walls. He asked about the purpose of the raised storefront entrances and noted that an opportunity exists to use landscaping as a significant element within the shopping center, given that all of the tenants will occupy large spaces. He liked the design of the shed roof overhangs along the storefronts, but felt the rear elevation of the in line shops should be significantly upgraded. He wanted to see a more specific layout for the residential portion of the project and observed that the screening of the roof mounted mechanical equipment fro~ the future apartment project will be critical. He felt a "softer" treatment should be used at this activity center than used in other activity centers in the city. He remarked that the greenbelt trail connection should be more than just a twin sidewalk. Chairman Barker agreed that the tile shed roof structures over the storefront walkway and the heav~ landscape buffer along the storefronts are nice features. He expressed his concern about the location and demarcation of handicapped parking areas. In terms of the replotting of the Home Depot and garden center, he too preferred the revised layout and stated that he liked the creative approach to design being applied to this project. PC Adjourned Minutes 3 December 28, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the design of the Kmart should be sensitive to the uses across the street. He asked the applicant if this Home Depot would be the same size as the one in Upland. Mr. Cota stated that this Home Depot would be larger than the Upland facility. Mr. Bullet asked for input relative to the difference in the storefront designs for each major tenant. Commissioner Melcher stated his preference for differences in the front facades for each tenant. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed, but cautioned the architect to make the element appear usable. Mr. Buller asked the Commission for comments relative to the clock tower. Commissioner Melcher liked the transparency of the clock tower, but reiterated that the main north/south drive aisle should be straightened out to strengthen the focal point effect. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. , , , , Be P~-~PPT.ICATION P~VIEW 94-04 - T.EWIS HOMES - A review of a proposed 70-unit single family detached housing project on 9.36 acres of land in the Community Service Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue. Gary Luque, Lewis Homes, presented the project and noted that the plan he was presenting tonight was slightly modified from that submitted earlier to the Commission. He observed that the new plan has 69 units, a reduction of 1, and a new recreation court at the southwest corner of the project. Mr. Luque also presented photographs of historic homes in Etiwanda and a. colored building elevation of a typical home that might be designed for this project. It was a consensus of the Planning Commission that the project's design did not meet the intent and requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. If the applicant desires to rethink the plan, the Planning Commission did, however, offer options the applicant may wish to pursue. The Commission was very supportive of the overall concept of an all residential project for the corner. Brad Buller, City Planner, agreed to work with Lewis if they choose to move forward with a project on this site. · , , , , Or.D BUSINF-SS: Ce CONDITION~r. USE PRRMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS - Review of site plan, elevations, colors, and materials for development of an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18 and 19 as part of Conditional Use Permit 94-26, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (the site of previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. PC Adjourned Minutes 4 December 28, 1994 Mike Scandiffio, representing Masi Partners, explained the applicant's proposal and offered to modify the plans to address the concerns of staff and any the Planning Commission may express tonight. He suggested moving the entry further east by expanding a new front walkway corridor that would have a minimum dimension of 12 feet wide and using decorative wrought iron fencing between the columns of the entry walkway to ensure that users of the facility enter from the east parking lot. The question of adequate parking was discussed. Mr. Bullet explained that the latest parking analysis had not been reviewed by staff since it had only been submitted on December 15, but noted that the basic premise and methodology of the study were accepted earlier. Me did question the possible need for a variance for the new parking shown along the Rochester frontage. The Planning Commission also raised concern about the ability of the City to ensure that the use of the building does not exceed the maximum occupancy load for which parking is provided. Mr. Buller explained the difficulty for staff in monitoring the interior use of a building but reminded the Commission that if a violation or parking problem does occur, consideration of revocation of the project's conditional use permit might be required. After considerable discussion on the site plan, architecture, color, and materials for the ice/roller rink building, the Planning Commission agreed to have a brief hearing of this matter on the January 11 agenda. At that meeting, the applicant will present revised plans reflective of tonight's discussion. Further, at the applicant's request, the item will be scheduled for final action at the January 25 regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Because of the short time frame for turn around of drawings, the Commission said a staff report will not be necessary for the January 11 hearing, but simply requested that the applicant submit revised plans prior to the meeting. PUBr. IC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , , ~DJOURNMRNT The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfu!ly submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes 5 December 28, 1994