Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/08/01 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION COMMENTS AND MINUTES TUESDAY AUGUST 1, 1995 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Nancy Fong Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker John Melcher CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 5:00 P.M. (Miki) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13566- RALECO-The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved residential subdivision consisting of 21 lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of Summit Avenue (Wilson Avenue) and west of San Sevaine Drive - APN: 226-291- 12; 226-301-19 through 28; and 226-311-4 through 8 and 22-26. 5:40 p.m. (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95 18/MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAr USE PERMIT 90-37- PRICE COSTCO - A request to amend the original Master Plan to provide a 5,040 square foot building or a 2,800 square foot restaurant building on a one-acre parcel within an existing shopping center (Foothill Marketplace) in the Regional Related Commercial designation(Subarea 4)of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-35. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING August 1, 1995 Page 2 6:20 p.m. (Steve H) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - The development of an integrated shopping center totaling approximately 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Residential, Office) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Related Files: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 and General Plan Amendment 95-0113. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT I, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist Hfor the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 25, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 P.M. Miki Bratt August 1, 1995 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13566 - RALECO - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved residential subdivision consisting of 21 lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of Summit Avenue (Wilson Avenue) and west of San Sevaine Drive - APN: 226-291- 12; 226-301-19 through 28; and 226-311-4 through 8 and 22-26. Design Parameters: This infill tract is designed to be consistent in size and design with existing homes in the subdivision. A neighborhood meeting was held on July 11, 1995 and those in attendance generally agreed that the design was consistent with existing homes. The 21 lots are consistent with the recorded tract map. Tract 13566 is bounded on the north by Summit (Wilson Avenue), on the south by San Bernardino County Flood Control District San Sevaine Basin No. 5,on the east by San Sevaine Flood Control Basins 1, 2, and 3, and on the west by vacant land zoned Low Residential, Etiwanda Specific Plan. When the final phases of the subdivision are built out, a future extension of Wazdman Bullock Road will curve through the subdivision to the south and connect to Cherry Avenue to the East. The extension of Wazdman Bullock Road from Summit Avenue parallel to the western boundary of the tract will not be built until the vacant land to the west develops. Staff Comments: Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Site/Grading/Wall Plan: 1. The Plan 2400(one-story)model should be plotted on a greater percentage of lots to create greater unit variety within the project. Architecture: 1. Staff recommends that the Committee visit the project site. The lack of detail on the side elevations should be addressed. Generally, the existing homes in other phases of this subdivision have a greater level of detail. 2. Materials for perimeter and garden walls is generally not called out and must be specified. All perimeter walls should be concrete block to withstand wind and consist of decorative material or finish. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed,and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Lack of detail on trim. In general stucco over wood is appropriate. Window trim detail must be consistent on all elevations. 2. Where decorative elements are specified such as shutters, curved windows, and/or shaped vents, the elements must be included on side and rear elevations. 3. A minimum of 20 percent of the lots should be plotted to allow recreational vehicle storage access on the garage side of the residence. DRC Comments DR 13566 August 1, 1995 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from public streets, shall consist of a decorative exterior material or finish including decorative cap. 2. Where river rock is called out, it shall be native rock and not manufactured rock. 3. Where wood siding is specified, siding elements must be included on side and rear elevations. 4. Decorative paving in individual driveways should be specified,consist of various patterns/textures of concrete, as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5. Chimney cap treatments should be varied and integrated with the chimney design, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. All porches, courtyards, and balconies shall be usable dimensions, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions, as deemed appropriate by the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Miki Bratt The Committee advised the applicant to work with staff on product siting and elevation revisions and to return to the Design Review Committee: i. Consider the backyard privacy when siting single story house products, especially for Lots 3, 4, and 57. 2. The proposed house products do not have the same level of the architectural details as in the surrounding homes. Add architectural details and treatment, especially on the side elevations. 3. Minimize the use of four-car garages and where used mitigate through design treatment. 4. Review porch design to ensure that the acceptable minimum of 8 feet by 10 feet is met. 5. All secondary issues and policy issues recommended by staff should be incorporated into revisions. (Also see Residential design guidelines attached). Attachment TECHNICAL AND GRADING REVIEW COMMENTS August 2, 1995 Planning requirements - Contact: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner, (909) 989-1861 1. Revise product siting to meet Low District front, side, and rear setback requirements of Etiwanda Specific Plan on lots 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 56. Also, this revision provides an opportunity to shift side yard setbacks to provide 12 feet of clear space (15' total) which would allow future RV parking on garage side of a minimum of six lots. 2. Indicate perimeter walls for lots on south side of Shepherd Drive. 3. Submit roof plan for each house product. 4. Dimension the porch area. 5. Show walkway leading from driveway to front entry for each lot. Engineering requirements - Contact: Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer 1. Lot 1, only the Shepherd Drive driveway cut will be permitted. Building and Safety/Grading Requirement- Contact: Lloyd Goolsby, Principal Plans Examiner (909) 989-1863. 1. Resubmit only pertinent grading sheets (including 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 plus index, section, and detail sheets). 2. Show drainage for each lot of this phased development and include indicated sections. 3. Show limits of grading work for this phased development. 4. Show product footprint on grading plan. 5. Dimension driveways. 6. Show driveway cuts, driveway grades, walkway from driveway to entry, etc. 7. Show drainage easement at the north end of Ingvaldsen Place. 8. Indicate drainage flows from rear of lots on the south side of Shepherd Drive. R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S I T E P L A N N I N G ■ Multi-Family Orient buildings to focus on good views. Well thought-out site planning is crucial in the devel- Consider visitor parking beyond minimum code opment of successful projects. In addition to the requirements. standards outlined in the Development Code, the following should be considered. ■ Distribute parking evenly throughout project. Relate the location of site uses with adjoining proper- Avoid dead-end drive aisles over 150 feet in length. ties to avoid possible conflicts and take advantage of mutual potentials. ■ Single-Family Consider sharing curb cuts with adjoining properties. Placement of houses in single family subdivisions is an important element in creating a functional, quality Buildings which are skewed in relationship to each living environment.■ other can create variety of view orientation and streetscape interest. (access Provide larger side yard setback(i.e.,10-12 feet minimum)on garage side of lot to allow vehicular Provide adequate common open space,including to the rear yard. recreation facilities, tot lots,and large open lawn areas. Provide greater variation in front yard setback on larger lots(i.e.,1/2 acre or larger). Lo cal pedestrian connections between open spaces and dwelling units,and to perimeter streets,enhance Locate driveways as far as possible from intersec- quality of life,are safer,and lowers maintenance tions. costs. Substantially vary front yard setbacks. Create logical circulation system which is readily understandable to the user. Provide two means of ingress and egress, not includ- ing emergency only access. Treat drive aisles like the streetscape:curvilinear lanes and parkway trees. Orient buildings to focus on good views. Screen parking areas from the street with mounding, Vary garage treatments,such as side entry,detached landscaping,low profile walls,and lowering grade of and semi-detached,rear entry,etc. parking areas below street. On flag lots,use 12 foot width for that portion of Screen exterior trash areas,storage areas,utilities,etc. driveway providing access to the garage to minimize from view using elements compatible with architec- concrete and maximize landscaping potential. ture and landscaping. t atr garages to curate larger front yards,greater Strengthen project entry statements with expanded I separation between driveways and create variety accent landscaping,decorative paving and special I along the streetscape. architectural features incorporated into perimeter walls or monument signs. Taper three or four car garage driveways down to a standard two-car width at street.■■ Terminate entry statement at an interior focal point, such as unique architecture or landscape elements, fountains,plazas,stream and/or waterfall elements or landscape treatment which take aesthetic advan- tage of variation in grade. Consider street setbacks on adjacent properties,yet vary setbacks whenever possible. Preserve existing healthy trees in place and design as major feature. Provide two means of ingress and egress, not includ- ing emergency only access. riu:xESisrre C I T Y OF R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A • P L A N N I N G D I V I S I O N R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S A R C H I T E C T U R E The City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks well thought outdated. Low-key and earthy colors work best for out design solutions which reflect the best of a primary colon;use of more vibrant colors should be particular style, respect the community's heritage, . limited to accents. and relate well to their surroundings.■ Provide lockable storage space for multiple family Provide architectural treatment to all elevations(i.e., units. 360 degree architecture). Use 2-car garage with bonus room on some I If the front of a house is sided, then provide siding to floorplans or offset the third car space to avoid /I the other sides of the house. 'garages which dominate the streetscape.For multi- ( family projects,garages should be architecturally / Consider compatibility with surrounding architec- designed to compliment the residences;consider (/J tural character,including harmonious building style, varying the door treatment on multiple garage form,height,size,color,material,and roof line. structures. Develop individual expression in single buildings in /rOtte story massing is preferred on corner side yards. harmony with neighborhood.Refrain from architec- //One tural gimmicks that sacrifice the integrity of the Shadow patterns created by architectural elements streetscape to a single structure. such as overhangs,trellises,reveals and recesses,and awnings,contribute to a buildings character while Roof lines are critical to the visual impact of a home. aiding in climate control. Provide roof lines which respond to the general design of other roofs along the street. Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots or across the street from one another. Vary roof massing and/or heights on larger build- ings. Avoid identical color schemes plotted on adjacent lots. Upgrade design treatment of carport structures to reflect the architectural design of the dwelling units. Integrate screens for all roof-mounted equipment into the building design(i.e.,extend parapet walls) /(Ence nha architectural elements exposed to public rather than as an afterthought. view. Design roof line in conjunction with building mass Vary roof designs along rear elevations of units for consistent composition. backing up to perimeter streets to provide a pleasant and vaned streetscape. On hillsides,design the form,mass and profile of buildings and architectural features so as to compli- Coordinate exterior building design on all elevations ment the natural topography. from building to building to achieve the same level of design quality. Pse native rock for fieldstone.Other forms of stone JOn small lot subdivisions,avoid diverse architectural may be manufactured products. styles.Keep the design statement,materials,and Design chimney stacks with accent materials used details consistent.The use of mixed incompatible on house,such as brick or stone,except interior architectural styles is strongly discouraged.For chimneys.■■ example,a Cape Cod style is incompatible with a Spanish style. Choose colors consistent with the chosen design theme.Avoid "trendy" colors which become quickly PM,PW,Ra C I T Y OF R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ■ P L A N N I N G D I V I S I O N DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Scott Murphy August 1, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-18/MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37-PRICE COSTCO- A request to amend the original Master Plan to provide a 5,040 square foot retail building or a 2,800 square foot restaurant building on a one-acre parcel within an existing shopping center(Foothill Marketplace) in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between I-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-35. Design Parameters: The site is currently being used as a parking lot by Price Club. All improvements (landscaping and paving) were completed as part of the Price Club construction. The parking area is recessed from Foothill Boulevard approximately 7 feet. The property is located between the westerly entry drive for the center and a vacant pad planned for a gas station. Background: In August of 1991, the City approved plans for Foothill Marketplace, a 62-acre, 550,000-square foot, commercial retail center. The Master Plan for the center identified the location of Price Club, Wal-Mart, tenant space within the eastern and western phases and free-standing pads along the Foothill street frontage. Since that time, the majority of the center has been completed. Most of the free-standing pads have not been completed. On April 12, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-application workshop to consider a McDonalds proposed for this site. In reviewing the request, the Commission expressed concern that the application contemplated too intense a development on too small a parcel. The Commission also expressed concern about existing traffic/circulation issues at the center and about locating any building on this site, not just the McDonalds facility (see attached minutes). As part of the application, the applicant has submitted a revised traffic study to address circulation concerns that presently exist and anticipated concerns with the development of the retail or restaurant building. The traffic engineer has recommended three mitigation measures to address existing and potential impacts to the circulation: a. The on-site intersections at the westerly and signalized entries should be all-way stop. b. The eastbound lane to the westerly drive should be widened to 2 lanes. C. Better directional signing should be provided at both entries. Staff is currently reviewing the traffic study in more detail and will update the Committee on our findings and recommendations at the meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission expressed concern about locating any building at this site. The Commission noted that the approved Master Plan for Foothill Marketplace provided building placements and spacings that allowed view corridors into the center. Placement of a building at this site would eliminate a view corridor into the western DRC COMMENTS DR 95-18/CUP 90-37 - PRICE COSTCO August 1, 1995 Page 2 portion of the site and would begin to create the appearance of strip retail. Based on statements made during the Planning Commission workshop, staff recommends that no building be allowed at this location. If the Design Review Committee concurs with staff, staff suggests that the Committee address the other issues connected with the project. 2. If a building is allowed at this location, the question becomes one of location of the building. There are two approaches that can be taken in considering the building placement: a. The building could be located adjacent to the entry drive to create a gateway between the proposed building and In-N-Out. Similar architectural features can be used to tie the buildings together. If this option is preferred, staff recommends that a landscaped setback comparable to In-N-Out's setback(18 feet) be maintained between the curb and the trellis of the proposed structure (12 feet shown). b. The building could be located on the east side of the property to maintain the view corridor into the site. Since no building design has been submitted for the gas station, the future building could be located at the west side of the property to open up both the western and main entries. 3. Both schemes (retail and restaurant) suffer from a lack of fenestration (windows). Glass storefronts are only provided on the east side facing the parking lot. Opportunities should be explored for window displays of merchandise or dining room views. Of particular concern are the north and west elevations. 4. Retail Scheme - Use decorative cornice around flat parapet at northeast comer. 5. Restaurant Scheme-Eliminate radius columns around outdoor eating area which have awkward appearance and unfinished ends. 6. Incorporate direct sidewalk connection to Foothill Boulevard sidewalk from store entrance. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. In both site plan layouts, the design of the parking area creates awkward turning movements, both entering and exiting the site. The parking layout should be redesigned to eliminate the vehicle movement conflicts. 2. The sloping roof element on the retail building should extend around the northeast comer of the building rather than being interrupted by the parapet wall. 3. Additional relief should be provided on the west elevation of the restaurant building. 4. The trellis proposed at the south side of the restaurant is designed with columns and solid walls. The trellis should be simplified to use columns to support the trellis. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All building materials, colors, stains, etc., should match the approved materials for the balance of the center. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-18/CUP 90-37 - PRICE COSTCO August 1, 1995 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend that the building not be permitted at this location. If the Committee feels the location is acceptable, conditions to address the other staff comments should be placed on the application for review and approval by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance. Attachment: Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Dave Barker, Heinz Lumpp,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Design Review Committee reviewed the application and stated that no further review of the application should be conducted until the on-site traffic circulation issues are resolved. The Committee presented the applicant with a sketch depicting a four-way intersection for the westerly entry drive (see attached). While they did not require the design to match the sketch, the Committee recommended that a design comparable to the sketch should be evaluated by a traffic engineer to determine the level of congestion relief provided by the redesign. The Committee agreed that if the on-site traffic circulation was adequately addressed,a building would be considered at this location. The applicant should continue to work with staff on the architectural details of the buildings. The application should return to the Committee for additional review. Attachment DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:20 p.m. Steve Hayes August 1, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - The development of an integrated shopping center totaling approximately 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Residential, Office) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue-APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Related Files: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 and General Plan Amendment 95-01 B. Design Parameters: The vacant site is bounded by undeveloped land in all directions,except to the east,where a single family residential housing tract exists, and to the south a building exists that will be retained for the future Masi Plaza development as an Old Spaghetti Factory. No significant landfomis exist on the property,however, a few mature Eucalyptus trees are scattered across the site and are proposed to be removed in conjunction with development of the site. The site slopes gently from north to south. The project is designed to take its primary access from Foothill Boulevard at the future signalized intersection with Masi Drive. This access lines up with the future project on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. The proposed vehicular access on Rochester Avenue lines up with Chervil Street to the east. Other driveway locations have been located in conformance with the regulations of Caltrans and the Engineering Division, as applicable. As part of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Activity Center Area for the intersection of Foothill and Rochester, the project includes a pedestrian activity area at the comer with a fountain, seating, and upgraded landscaping and decorative hardscape,with elements tying together this design with the activity center designed for the Masi project. A master plan for development of the four corners of the Activity Center is included within the plan submittal. Home Depot is shown near the northeast comer of the site. An 8-foot high screen wall and landscaping are proposed to screen the loading area from view of Rochester Avenue and the future Poplar Drive, the building has been set back 80 feet from the curb along Rochester, and traffic control measures as required by the City's Traffic Engineering Division will be installed at the new project driveway along Rochester, directly across from Chervil Street. To the north of the commercial project, a future multiple family residential development is proposed. A 10-foot grade difference is proposed between the two uses with a 10-to 15-foot wide landscape buffer on each project boundary. Even though the residential project is only shown in concept, it appears that it is the intent of the applicant to have two and three-story multiple family buildings internal to the residential site with a drive aisle and parking along the interior property lines to provide an additional buffer between the residential units and the shopping center. The project was the subject of two previous Planning Commission workshops (minutes are attached). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 2 Site Plan: 1. A master plan of the multiple family residential area north and west of the site should be provided to illustrate how the shopping center, as currently designed, will mitigate any potential negative impacts (i.e. land use transition, noise, aesthetics, etc.) related to locating a shopping center adjacent to residential development and how pedestrian connections can be planned from surrounding residential land to the shopping center. 2. The parking area south of the Home Depot should be modified with clearer major through drive aisles that are designed to avoid dead ends in the middle of long rows of parking stalls. 3. The Committee should consider whether the linear appearance of the storefronts has been modified enough to address previous Commission concerns relative to this issue. 4. The four way vehicle intersection north of Pad C should be redesigned to be at more of a right angle. In addition, the sweeping curve leading up from Foothill Boulevard should be straightened with longer radius curves. 5. Drive-Thru Pads C and E should be redesigned to provide longer stacking areas for the drive-thru lanes. Typically, 8-10 car stacking is needed. 6. A significant east/west pedestrian link should be provided along the southern half of the project (i.e. along the main drive aisle) to promote pedestrian movement among the pad buildings. 7. Connect sidewalks at project entries to a logical on-site sidewalk system. 8. Cross-sections of the loading area at the rear of the Home Depot, including proposed screening devices, should be prepared for Committee review, as requested at the previous Planning Commission Workshop. 9. A more elaborate design guideline package (similar to Terra Vista Town Center) should be provided for Committee review. Architecture: 1. The rear(north) elevation of the Home Depot should be significantly upgraded, being that it will face future residential development. 2. Screening of roof-mounted mechanical equipment is going to be of special concern with this project, given the potential grade difference between the project and the future residential project to the north. A design solution for Home Depot as well as other buildings should be considered now because these screens may become an integral part of the architectural design. Provide several sight-line cross-section studies to show equipment in relation to parapet height. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Site Plan: 1. The customer pick-up lane in front of the Home Depot should be defined by using special paving to match other uses of special paving within the shopping center. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 3 2. The landscape buffer between the shopping center and the future residential project to the north should be increased in width and density of planting. In addition, the landscaping on the outside of the screen wall along Poplar Drive should be upgraded. 3. The layout of the parking lot should be revised to minimize vehicular circulation problems in several areas of the site, which will be highlighted by staff at the meeting. 4. A greater depth for vehicle stacking should be provided at the two westerly accesses to Orchard Avenue. 5. Landscaping should be introduced along the storefront of Home Depot wherever possible. Virtually none is proposed over the 400 foot long front elevation. Architecture: 1. The typical enhanced storefronts should be enlarged and increased in depth to become a more integral part of the architectural design. 2. A more decorative roofing material than galvanized metal sheets should be used on all arcades in the promenade area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. The activity center concept should be carried westward across the Foothill Boulevard frontage to the first driveway, as required of the Masi project on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, and as required by the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement. 2. All proposed signage should be in balance with the proportions and massing of the buildings. 3. The exterior treatment used on the pick-up canopy and facades of the Home Depot should be carried around to the back and undersides of the elements as well. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee review the plans in light of the staff comments raised in this report. If the Committee feels that there are significant issues remaining that should be addressed by the applicant for additional Committee review, then this item should be brought back for further Committee consideration prior to scheduling the item for another Planning Commission Workshop. However, if the Committee feels it more appropriate to have the unresolved items be reviewed again by the full Planning Commission at a workshop, then the Committee should direct the applicant and staff to schedule another Planning Commission Workshop. Attachment: Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 4 The Committee (Barker, Lumpp, Fong) recommended that, based on the significance of the remaining unresolved issues, that the project should be forwarded to another full Planning Commission Workshop to potentially resolve the remaining design issues. The Committee and/or the applicant did offer the following comments at the meeting: Site Plan: Item No. 1 - The applicant stated that, based on the uncertainty of the market, that the preparation of a master plan for the residential area was not feasible at this time. To move along the commercial project, the applicant stated they would agree to a condition of approval that allows staff to develop the design guidelines and add them to the Community Plan for addressing the buffer and the edge treatment between the commercial and the residential developments. Item No. 2 - No resolution was reached between the Committee and the applicant on this issue. Further discussion of this item should occur at the Planning Commission Workshop. Item No. 3 - The Committee felt the linear appearance of the storefronts had been modified sufficiently to address previous Commission concerns. Item No. 4 - The Committee felt that the most recent revision to this intersection, with a greater degree of symmetry, would be acceptable with proper signage and striping. Item No. 5 - The Committee recommended that these pads be modified to reflect proper stacking now. Moving the pick-up windows on these pads may allow for the required stacking, to the satisfaction of staff. Item No. 6 - The applicant is proposing to use the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk with sidewalk connections from Foothill Boulevard to the pad buildings to provide the pedestrian link to the pad buildings. This would be a departure from previous Commission policy, and the Commission should discuss this in greater detail at the workshop. Item No. 7 - The applicant agreed to finish the sidewalk connections from the public right-of-way to the site. However, the Committee also recommended additional north/south pedestrian connections throughout the project to connect pad buildings with the major tenants. Item No. 8 - Cross-sections were provided at the Design Review Committee meeting showing how the loading areas would be screened. Considerable discussion occurred on whether the screen wall along Poplar Drive should be continued west to screen the areas where trucks will off- load lumber and other building supplies, however, no consensus was reached by the Committee on this issue. Additional discussion of this item should occur at the Planning Commission Workshop. Item No. 9 - More elaborate Design Guidelines have been prepared and will be given to the other three Planning Commissioners at the Planning Commission Workshop, and may be discussed at that time. Architecture: Item No. 1 - The Committee felt that the revisions to the north elevation were sufficient to address previous Commission concerns. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 5 Item No. 2 - The applicant provided line-of-site drawings to indicate that the roof equipment on the Home Depot (including the proposed satellite dish) will be completely screened from all existing development. However, of special concern in this situation would be how the equipment can be screened from the future residential multiple family development north and west of the shopping center. The applicant agreed to conditioning the residential project in the future to not be able to orient buildings to cast their views onto the rooftops of the shopping center. Secondary Issues: Site Plan: Item No. 1 - The Committee felt that the layered colored concrete to delineate the customer pick-up lane is acceptable, but preferred not to have any paint striping over it. If striping is necessary, a color other than yellow should be used. Item No. 2 - This item should be discussed further by the Planning Commission at the workshop. Item No. 3 - The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff on addressing this issue. Item No. 4 - The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve this concern. Item No. 5 - The Committee felt that the recent inclusion of landscaping in front of the garden center and the house plant enclosure was sufficient to address this concern, understanding the function and heavy foot traffic associated with a Home Depot. Architecture: Item No. I - This item was recommended to be deferred by the Committee to such time when the balance of the shopping center is proposed to be developed. Item No. 2 - The roofing material for the promenade area should be considered further at the Planning Commission Workshop. In addition to these comments, the Committee also noted that the center focal point element, now proposed as a low profile gazebo-like structure, should be considered further by the full Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS AUGUST I, 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary