Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/08/23 - Agenda Packet - AdjournedWEDNESDAY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA' AUGUST 23, 1995 WORKSHOP RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 5:00 P.M. III. IV. VL Pledge of Allegiance Roll Ca!l, Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Lumpp Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Announcements Old Business CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - The proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 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, Office, Residential) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Public Comments This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. If iteras go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gag Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certijSv that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 17, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF RF, PORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 23, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller. City Planner Steve Hayes. AICP, Associate Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - LEVV1S DEVELOPMENT CO. - The proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 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, Office, Residential) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. ABSTRACT: On August 9, 1995, the Planning Commission held a workshop but time did not allow for the Commission to discuss issues related to the balance of the shopping canter. The purpose of tonight's workshop is to give further direction to the applicant relative to the design issues associated with the master site plan and the architectural elevations for the shopping center (excluding Home Depot). On August 1, 1995, the Design Review Committee (Barker, Lumpp. Fong) reviewed the project and recommended that, based on the significance of some of the unresolved design issues, the project be reviewed by the full Planning Commission at a workshop prior to formal consideration of the application. Comments from the August 1, 1995, Design Review Committee meeting are attached for your convenience. City Planner BB:SHrjfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - August 1, 1995. Design Review Committee Action Comments Exhibit "B" - May 10, 1995, Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit "C" - May 31, 1995, Adjoumed Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ITEM A 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: Term Vista Community Plan Amendmere 95-01 and General Plan Amendment 95-01B. Design Parameters: The vacant site is bounded by undeveloped land in all directions, except to the east, where a single family residential homing lract 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 landforms exist on the property, however, a few mature Eucalyptus trees are scattenxl across the site and are pmpesed 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 comers 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 wail 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 instailed at the new project driveway along Rochester, directly across from Chefvii Street. To the north of the commerciai project, a future multiple family residentiai 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 intemai to the residential site with a drive aisle and parking along the interior property lines to provide an additionai buffer between the residential units and the shopping center. The project was the subject of two previous Planning Commission workshops (minute. s are attached). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an ou~ine 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: 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. 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. The Committee should consider whether the linear appearance of the storefronts has been modified enough to address previous Commission concerns relative to this issue. 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. Drive-Thru Pads C and E should be redesignad to provide longer stacking areas for the drive-thru lanes. Typically, 8-10 car stacking is needed. 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. 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. A more elaborate design guideline package (similar to Tetra Vista Town Center) should be provided for Committee review. Architecture: The rear (north) elevation of the Home Depot should be significantly upgraded, being that it will face future residential development. 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: The customer pick-up lane in fi'ont 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 The landscape liiaffer 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. 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. A greater depth fo~ 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: The typical enhanced storefronts should be enlarged and increased in depth to become a more integral part of the architectural design. A morn 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: The activity center concept should be catTied 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. All proposed signage should be in balance with the proportions and massing of the buildings. The exterior treatment used on the pick-up canopy and facedes of the Home Depot should be carded 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 urtresolved 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 StaffPlanner: 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 fek 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 tight-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 - Item No. 9 - 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 Dri~,e 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. More elaborate Design Guidelines have been prepared and will be given io the other three Planning Commissioners at the Planning Commission Workshop, and may be discussed at that time. Architecture: Item No. I - 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 Pag~ 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 concem 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. Secondal:y 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 - Architecture: 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 waffle associated with a Home Depot. Item No. 1 - 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 proffie gazebo-like structure, should be considered further by the full Planning Commission. CITY OF P~CHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 10, 1995 Chairman Barke~ called the Adjourned Meeting of the city of Rancho cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at the Rancho cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho cucamonga, California. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: Gary Luque, Greg Hoxworth, Robert McLendon, Chuck Beecher, and Mike Lasley - Lewis Development Corporation; Greg George - Home Depot; Mark Bertone - Madole and Associates; Andrew Feola, Greg Mendoze - Feola, Carli & Archuleta Architects; Frank coda, Vasanthi Ramahthan, Mark Shenouda Greenberg Farrow Architects; Mike Sweeney - Land Concern NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAT. USE PERMIT 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES The proposed development of an integrated.shopping center totaling 501,324 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one development consisting of a 136,983 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Office, Residential) District of the Tetra vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of FOOthill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Related Fileel Terra Vista community Plan Amendment 95-01 and General Plan Amendment 95-01B. Brad Bullet, City Planner, introduced the commissioners to the development team and stated the purpose of the workshop. He noted the status of the related applications and fr~ the major issues for Commission discussion. Gary Luque, Lewis Development corporation, introduced the development team and referenced the propose~ project timing for the Home Depot. He briefly mentioned his concern with the requirements for street improvements with the initial phase of development. Mr. Buller suggested that, if the commission wished to discuss this item, it could be done in conjunction with the topic Of vehicular circulation, which is included on the workshop agenda. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Development Company, elaborated on how this center was different from other shopping centers in Tetra Vista, in that all of the users are proposed to be of the larger, major-tenant variety and none of the smaller tenants typical of most centers. e 7 Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, discussed the neighborhood setting and presented the concerns related to locating this project in the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Tolstoy stated how, in the early days of the City, the Commission .was very sensitive to development in the surrounding neighborhood and that is why the area in question Was designated as a mixed use site. He said it was felt that mixed use zoning would allow a better buffer to be planned and provided between the site and the existing subdivision of homes and any newly planned developments adjacent to the site. Andy Feola, Feola, Carli & Archuleta Architects, detailed the thought process behind the proposed architectural and site planning concept. Mark Bertone, Madole & Associates, explained the technical aspects of the site grading and drainage situation. Con~nissioner Tolstoy asked how far the building is set back from Rochester Avenue on the new site plan alternative presented at tonight's workshop. Mike Lasley, Lewis Development Corporation, replied that it is now approximately 90 feet back from the Rochester Avenue face of curb. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the development team about the proposed trail along Rochester Avenue. Mr. Lasley reported that a meandering sidewalk would be used along the entire frontage of Rochester Avenue. Commissioner Melcher asked how wide the ultimate right of way for Rochester Avenue will be and how far the proposed 4-story hotel on the northeast corner of Rochester and Foothill will be located from the existing residences. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented a site plan of the hotel indicating it is approximately 125 feet from the closest existing residence. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the proposed location of the Xome Depot is approximately 135 feet from the closest residence. He felt that if the building were moved back ~urther from the property line, a traffic circulation problem, simila~ to that at their- Upland store, would be created. In addition, he expressed concerns that the modified plan includes a loss of landscaping against the east elevation of the building and ~ new vehicular access, which he felt could potentially create additional traffic hazards on site. Finally, he suggested that the beet way to lower the profile of the building, as seen from Rochester Avenue, wou~dbeto add on elements at a lower, more pedestrian scale, such as colonnades, overhead trellises, etc. co~mnissioner McNiel objected to the new driveway along Rochester Avenue, noting the traffic congestion would increase. He strongly urged the developers to provide intensified landscaping along the east side of Home Depot and consider further lowering the pad elevation of the building. He asked who would be maintaining the landscaping along the perimeter.of Home Depot. Mr. Lasley stated that Lewis Management corporation will maintain the entire shopping center landscaping. Commissioner Melcher asked for a conceptual design of the abutting residential project to the north in order to get a better idea of how the two uses interrelate (or conflict) with each other. PC Adjourned Minutes - 2 - May 10, 1995 Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification as to where the Rochester trall Ls now proposed. Mr. Lasley described, in detail, the original trail concept and its relationship to the mixed use site and the new concept on the site perimeter acting as an additional buffer between the adjacent land uses. Commissioner TOlstoy noted that with the trail proposed on the project perimeter, an even greater opportunity wlll exist to provide the type of buffer needed between the two very different land uses. Con~nissioner Melcher requested that the width of the trail feature be similar to the width of other greenway trails used throughout Terra Vista. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that perhaps the Terra Vista Ccm~nunity Plan should be amended in order to address the economic changes related to the "big box" tenant market anticipated for the future. Mr. Bullet asked for clarification on the setback issue, whether the Commission felt the originally proposed location, 45 feet hack, was preferred to the new 90-foot setback presented to the Commission this evening. No consensus of the Commission occurred at this time; however, the Commission did concur that the trail along Rochester should be upgraded. Mr. Hayes framed the vehicular circulation issue for the Commissioners. chairman Barker asked for clarification regarding the circulation pattern around the pick-up canopy. Mr. Hoxworth elaborated on the function and circular'ion around the pick-up canopy, as well as the interior function in the immediate area of the canopy. Frank Coda, Greenberg Farrow Architects, embellished further on the interior function of the area surrounding the pick-up canopy area. Commissioner Melcher observed that truck traffic will be less intrusive if truck traffic is limited to Poplar Drive, as with the original scheme. Commissioner Lumpp noted =he traffic problems created near the In-N-Out Burger in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, and he expressed hope that resolutions to the traffic concerns could be addressed better in this situation. Commissioner Tolstoy also noted that better stacking should be provided at key vehicular access points rather than at Foothill Marketplace. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, explained the problems associated with moving the Rochester access point to a location further south along the project frontage. Commissioner Lumpp explained why he felt the parking lot layout i~ front of the Home Depot works because it disperses traffio and does not create well-marked "speedways" in the parking lot. Commissioner McNiel expressed his concerns with the layout of the parking area adjacent to the Home Depot, noting that a more pronounced access aisle should be provided to connect the Home Depot parking area with the balance of the site. PC Adjourned Minutes - 3 - May 10, 1995 Commissioner Tolstoy noted that most people coming from the north will decide to use Rochester Avenue. Mr. 'Hayes^referenced the linear arrangement of the buildiggs and asked for Commission input on this issue. Mr. Feola talked about the uniqueness of the project and how the promenade element acts as a focal point for the storefronts. He noted that the movement in the storefronts had been increased since the December workshop. chairman Barker noted his concern that the solid wall of buildings does not have a penetration (i.e., plaza) and stretches for the same distance as from Target to ROSS in the Tetra Vista Town Center. Commissioner Melcher asked how wide the pedestrian walkway is under the trellis. Grog Mendoza, Greenberg Farrow Architects, responded that it is planned to be 10 feet. Commissioner McNiel recommended that some landscaping be introduced in front of the Home Depot as well. Commissioner Eumpp stressed the importance of providing logical and clear pedestrian connections to link the entire project. Mr. Feola explained to the Commissioners how the movement in the promenade element is substantial, not just straight as earlier commented. Commissioner Lumpp recc~wnended that the treatment in front of the Home Depot be softshed in some way to be more consistent with the rest of the project and be carried across the front of the garden center area. He recommended that the architect explore the possibility of moving the Home Depot south to aid in breaking up the linear effect along the storefronts. He again stressed the importance of providing a linear pedestrian connection from the west to east side of the project. Mr. Lasley explained the problems associated with moving the driveways along Orchard Avenue relative to providing a pedestrian connection along the lower-half of the project area. Chairman Barker noted that the project still appears quite linear in two dimensions. Commissioner McNiel requested that the applicant identify the pedestrian connections better for major entrances to parking areas. Mike Sweeney, Land concern, highlighted the attributes of the storefront promenade feature, stressing that the feature extends over the entire storefront area instead of being concentrated in one specific plaza area. Mr. Bullet asked the Com~ission for clarification on the pedestrian circulation system. Chairman Barker asked for input from other Commissioners as to whether the pedestrian circulation as proposed meets the intent and goals of the Tetra Vista community Plan. Commissioner Lumpp felt that it would, with the suggested changes. PC Adjourned Minutes - 4 - May 10, 1995 Mr. Mendoza presented the proposed revisions to the other site planning issues raised in the staff report. Commissioner Melcher felt that more room should be allowed for the proposed drive-thru restaurants for maneuvering, parking, and outdoor .eating areas. Con~nissioner McNiel expressed his concern with placing a service station adjacent t0 the major project entrance. Commissioner Lumpp stated that it would be his preference to provide sit-down restaurants and that the service station be provided at the corner of Foothill and Orchard. chairman Barker expressed his concern with the garden shop on the west side of Major One. Mr. Lasley suggested that this issue be deferred and considered with the appropriate phase of development. Mr. Sweeney elaborated on the proposed activity center concept and the differences between a formal versus the proposed informal design. Mr. Buller further framed the issue for the commission, explaining the concept used on the Masi project and how the concepts could be tied together to create some uniformity for all four corners. Chairman Barker stated his preference for the original, more informal concept. Commissioner McNiel stated why he feels the pedestrian activity centers are a good idea. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the applicant could take advantage of providing different levels of activity at each corner within the activity center. Co~nissioner Melcher clarified that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP) requires consistency among the four corners within an activity center and that anything else would be in violation of the spirit of the plan. However, he disagreed with the FBSP require~ant in this situation, and felt that the original concept of the applicant was highly preferred. commissioner Lumpp noted that the historic relevance of the corner and its buildings could be taken into consideration with the design of the activity center. commissioner Melcher fel~ that the formal design could be applied once transitioning away from the corner to bring in the element of consistency with the Masi project and future development on the other corners. commissioner Lumpp expressed his support for the unique individuality of the center. Mr. Feola stated that a design criteria package would be developed ~o ensure that the architecture of the pad buildings would be complementary to the line of major tenants. Mr. Lasley ensured the Commission that such guidelines could be enforced. PC Adjourned Minutes - 5 - May 10, 1995 Commissioner Melther observed that Home Depot does not relate to the rest of the center in terms of architecture. Mr. Laeley explained the architectural differences to the Commission and pointed out the elements that tie the Home Depot to the rest of the center. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that something be done to soften the front elevation of Home Depot. Mr. Coda embellished on the function in front of the Home Depot and stated that maybe the promenade element could be extended to be in front of the garden center and on the east side of the building. commissioner Tolstoy felt that the architecture did not have enough detail. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Mr. coda and thought that carrying the promenade element to be in front of the garden center and nursery would be a good idea. Chairman Barker. felt that the elevations adjacent to existing and future residential development should be studied further. Mr. Feola presented' the metal roof and its proposed use to the Commission and asked for-comments.- Two of the Commissioners did not like its proposed use. coe~aissioner McNiel noted that he did not object to its use on the surface, but he felt that it would oreate a precedent for a lack of quality design for the future. Mr. Bullet asked for Commission comments on the central tower element. chairman Barker did not like the low profile and bulk of the new central element and. noted his preference for the original taller, more open and airy tower element. Commissioner Lumpp expressed the need for a significant focal feature (related to the clock tower element). Mr. Bullet recapped the major comments generated from the workshop and recommended that another workshop be held, at which time a better phasing plan for on-site and off-site improvements be prepared. The meeting adjourned 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes - 6 - May 10, 1995 CITY OF R/%NCHO CUC~a4ONGA pI~%NNING COMMISSION NINUTES Adjourned Workshop May 31, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the city of Rancho Cuo~nga Planning Commission to order at 4=30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Dave Barker, Tolstoy ABSENT: John Melcher Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Peter STAFF PRESENT: APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer Gary Luque, Greg Hoxworth, and Robert McLendon - Lewis Development Company; Mike Lasley Private Consultant for Lewis Homes; Miller Archuleta and Greg Mendoze - Feels, Carli Q Archuleta Architects; Mark Schenouda and Vasanthi Ramahthan - Greenberg Farrow Architects; Mark Bertone Madole & Associates; Jill Sweeney - Land Concern. OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAT. USE PERMIT 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - The proposed development pf an integrated shopping center totaling 491,324 square feet on 47.33 acres of land-with proposed phase one development consisting of a 136,953 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Office, Residential) District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN~ 227-151-18 and 24. Related Files~ Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment 9S-01 and General Plan Amendment 9~-01B. Brad Bullet, City Planner, summarized the issues raised at the May 10, 1995, workshop and the purpose of today'e workshop. Robert McLendon, Lewis Development company, highlighted the revisions to the master site plan. Greg Mendoza, Feels, Carli & Archuleta Architects, explained the specific changes made to the architecture and site plan In response to the previous workshop. The specific issues highlighted werez l) change in the truck access for Home Depot; 2) moving Staples northward; 3) the new north/south drive aisle west of the Home Depot parking area; 4} the addition of the service station; 5) lining up the handicapped parking with the main storefront entrances; 6) moving the curb cut north on Orchard; and 7) the moving of Major One south to give more curve to the main drive aisle. Commissioner McNiel asked if the setback along the rear property line was the same as the original proposal. Greg Mendoza, Feola, Carll & Archuleta Architects, responded that this setback had not changed. Commissioner McNiel inquired as to how many dropping off building materials. Mark Schenouda, Greenberg Farrow Architects, could be expected. large trucks per day would be stated that five trucks per day Mike Lasley, Consultant, highlighted where the screen wall is pulled back from the street and extended in distance on the new site plan. He noted that the screen wall will 'give an appearance of being approximately 10 feet high from the perimeter streets. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the soreen wall would be long enough. commissioner McNiel asked if Poplar Avenue would be signalized. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that Rochester and Poplar Avenues will not be signalized. Commissioner Lumpp requested an explanation for the theory of screening the off- loading area from Poplar Avenue. Jill Sweeney, Land Concern, explained how the proposed hierarchy of trees and shrubs would screen this area. Mr. Buller pointed out to the Commission that there may be a concern with the screening of the off-loading area west of the transformer. He felt that additional cross-sections should be provided to depict the proposed screening in this area. Mr. Lasley noted that a screen wall could be added on top of the proposed retaining wall and that additional landscaping could be used to provide better screening. Chairman 8arker was concerned with the potential impact of the rear of the buildings on the future residential projects north of the commercial site. commissioner McNiel agreed with Chairman Barker and added that the rear elevations should still be upgraded, as well as the landscape concept. Chairman Barker reiterated that he is especially sensitive to this concern in this area given the close proximity of the residential areas. Mr. Lasley noted that the screen wall will be 2 feet higher than the loading doors on the north side of the building. Con~nissioner McNiel adde~ that the east elevation still may need some additional architectural enhancements. Ms. Sweeney explained the changes made since the first workshop on the Rochester trail system. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- May 31, 1995 Mr. Mendoza presented the changes made to the front of the Home Depot including a change in the colurans to match the rest of the center, the addition of a wood trellis, and the upgraded design of the lumber pick-up area structure that matches the rest of the center. Mr. Buller asked how close the pop-out on the building comes to the curb. Mr. Mendoza responded 12 to 13 feet and highlighted for the Commission how the pedestrian walkway would work in this area. chairman Barker asked the architect to look into modifying the pop-out on the front elevation to be less obtrusive to the pedestrian walkway system. Mr. Mendoza highlighted the modifications made to the pick-up canopy area. Chairman Barker reiterated his earlier concern of how, even with the changes made to the circulation around the pick-up canopy, motorists will disperse in the parking lot directly south of the Home Depot. Commissioner Lumpp liked the parking lot layout in this area and how it forces people to scatter as opposed to denoting drive aisles of major vehicular activity. He expressed the need for the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting soon in case the neighborhood has different ideas about the project. He felt that the cornices were designed too close together, but that the building should not be raised as a potential solution. chairman Barker expressed his dislike for the striping in front of the Home Depot and recommended that special paving be used as a potential solution to denote the loading ares. Coanissioner McNiel felt that a traffic control system should be devised to help internal circulation flow better. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any flat cart storage is planned to be provided in the Home Depot parking area. This issue was discussed and it was determined that this may no= be a good idea given the Home Depot's employee policy on car= returns and that human nature does not lend itself toward using the return areas. commissioner Lumpp suggested that one large area for car~ returns mey be the best alternative. Camniseloner McNiel referenced the situation a= Target where the cart storage is concealed by architectural additions to the building. Commissioner Lumpp indicated his support now to be able to provide a better pedestrian connection between Home Depot and Staples. Mr. Bullet asked the applicant to provide a plan that shows how the plaza ares in front of Home Depot and Staples works. Mr. Lasley talked about the proposed sign program and specifically the signage size for Home Depot. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- May 31, 1995 Commissioner McNiel recommended that the sign size be reduced and that several alternatives be provided so that the sign is in proper proportion with the building facade. · TWO sign alternatives were presented to the Commission, one with 60-inch internally illuminated orange letters and the other with 72-inch letters. Commissioner McNiel asked the architect to make sure that the pick-up canopy treatment used on the exterior side of the element is carried around to the undersides of the element as well. He also felt that the pop-out area on the front side of the Home Depot was an afterthought and that it should be eliminated or moved to a location that does not interfere with pedestrian circulation. He expressed his concerns with the length of the flat parapet and the minimal depth of the entry element. He noted that some columns should be used at logical termination points to enhance the appearance of the building. Chairman Barker asked for an explanation of the service station area. Mr. Mendoza explained the internal circulation patterns and the functions of the service station. Chairman Barker felt something should be done to provide better balance and symmetry at the main entrance. Mr. Lasley suggested that Pad E could be rotated to be on an angle to match the service station building and harmonize the theme through landscaping. Mr. Buller mentioned that the spacing and patterning of the Craps Myrtle trees could be tightened up on the project site and pavement patterns similar to those used across Foothill Boulevard could be used to integrate the activity center better with the Masi project on the opposite side of Foothill Boulevard. He noted that the special paving treatment should be extended to the first project driveway to match the Masi project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- May 31, 1995