Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/10/31 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES • TUESDAY OCTOBER 31, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. • 7:00 p.m. (Brent) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 139 -LOW E'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-011-32. 7:20 p.m. (Brent) MODIFICATION - MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING A request to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 135 unit, three-story senior assisted living facility to have 143 units in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street -APN: 1077-421-10 and 33. Related File: Pre-Application Review 98-03. 7:40 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50 - VANTIGER - A request to develop a 5,130 square foot service station (Shell) with drive-thru fast food service (Wendy's) and aself-serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1100-161-002. J DRC AGENDA October 31, 2000 • Page 2 7:40 p.m (Brent) VARIANCE 00-02 - VANTIGER - A request to reduce the required parking setback from 35 feet to 25 feet along Etiwanda Avenue to accommodate a service station with fast food and self serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1100-161-002. 810 p.m. (Duane/ Sal) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-38 (SAN CARMELA) - D.R. NORTON - A request to subdivide and develop an approximate 23-acre site into 97 single-family residential lots and two lettered lots for slopes along the project's frontage. The site is located along the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane and east of Day Creek Boulevard and is in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 227-091-14 and -15; and 227-111-12 and -13. 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 • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count October 31, 2000 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 139 - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved The Lowe's project on May 26, 1999. Since that time the Commission has also approved the Farmer Boy's fast food restaurant and the Union Bank projects on the Lowe's site. The program establishes criteria for Lowe's monument and wall signs, for pad tenant monument and wall signs, and for multi-tenant (inline retail) tenant wall signs. There is potential for retail shop buildings to be added to the master plan to the east of Lowe's; hence, multi-tenant wall sign criteria are proposed. The Lowe's wall signs have already been approved under a separate permit to accommodate Lowe's wishes to open in October of this year. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: . 1. Pad Monument Signs -The Program includes criteria and design for monument signs for the pad tenants. Pad tenants in shopping centers aren't typically allowed to have their own monument signs and are identified on overall shopping center monument signs. Either eliminate the pad tenant monument signs or revise their design to have a much lower profile similar to the Macaroni Grill monument sign in the Terra Vista shopping center. Union Bank and Farmer Boys -The City has granted approval of the Union Bank and Farmer Boys restaurant projects. Since signs for these projects are included in the proposed Program, the conceptual design for the signs should also be included. 3. Sign Elevations -The Program lists several types of signs that have reference to attached sign drawings but no such drawings are present. Provide a comprehensive set of sign drawings correlated with the Program text. Of particular importance are the project identification signs, which afford the opportunity to greatly enhance business identification. 4. Colors -Change item 9 to include three colors only. Suggest eliminating blue and green, as they do not read well at night. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Page 2, General Sign Criteria -add the following to item 8, "The sign area shall also be repainted to match the surrounding wall color to eliminate any residual appearance of • the sign." 2. Page 3, "I.D. Monument Signs -These are the tenant monument signs and shall be eliminated or reduced in size per item 1 above. If they are kept, add item an item 6. "Minimum letter height shall be 8 inches. "No "Project I.D. Sign" drawings provided. DRC COMMENTS USP #139 • October 31, 2000 Page 2 Page 4, Pad Tenant I.D -Change maximum letter height to eighteen inches. Shop Tenant I.D. Signs are not shown on Site Plan. If the criteria are to remain for future use, modify item C.5 to read,"...not to exceed 70 percent of the leased storefront width. "Change item C.6 to read,"...overall height of 4 feet." 4. Page 5, Fabrication Standards -Change criteria under item 6 to require bronze returns instead of color to match window mullions. 5. Page 6, Under canopy Tenant Sign -There are no such tenant buildings shown on Site Plan so why this criteria is included is not clear. No Entry Window Sign or Delivery Entry I.D. sign drawings are included. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of staff's comments • and brought back for further review. The Committee directed the applicant to either remove individual pad tenant monument signs or revise their design to be much smaller in scale, similar to the Macaroni Grill restaurant monument sign. The applicant agreed to making the changes. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Brent Le Count October 31, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13 MODIFICATION - MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING A request to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 135 unit, three-story senior assisted living facility to have 143 units in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-10 and 33. Related File: Pre-Application Review 98-03. Background: The Planning Commission approved the subject Conditional Use Permit on September 9, 1998. The project is approved to have 135 units and 167 beds. The applicant would now like to have 143 units with 168 beds so the bed-count stays virtually the same. The applicant wishes to convert many of the two bedroom units to one bedroom to respond to market demand. Design Parameters: The project involves development of 5.4 acres of the larger 11.2-acre site. The remaining 5.8 acres was master planned with the original Conditional Use Permit for an office park and gas station. The site is surrounded by existing residential development to the north, an office park development to the east, vacant land and the Terra Vista shopping center to the south, and a flood control channel immediately to the west with a flood control basin and the northern portion of the Deer Creek shopping center further to the west across Haven Avenue. • The footprint and basic site planning for the project remain as previously approved. The southern wing of the building however has been increased from one-story as approved to three stories. The west wing connection to the skilled nursing section has been reduced from two-story to one-story. Wall articulation and window treatment have also been revised so that there is less change of plane in wall surfaces, more areas of blank stucco walls, fewer windows, and the number of window mullions has been greatly reduced. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: There are no major issues because the project has retained the important elements of the high quality architecture of the original approval. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding streets and property. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. C_J DRC COMMENTS CUP 98-13 - MARRIOT • October 31, 2000 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee directed the applicant to restudy the proposed design to have at least the same level of architectural quality and detailing as the originally approved design and be brought back for further review. n U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count October 31, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50 -VANTIGER A request to develop a 5,130 square foot service station (Shell) with drive-thru fast food service (Wendy's) and a self serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1100-161-002. VARIANCE 00-02 -VANTIGER - A request to reduce the required parking setback from 35 feet to 25 feet along Etiwanda Avenue to accommodate a service station with fast food and self serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1100-161-002. Background: The Design Review Committee considered the project on June 6, 2000 at which time the Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review. The Committee had the following comments: 1. The drive-thru aspect of the project is in conflict with the Activity Center theme for the intersection (reduced building setback, pedestrian friendly streetscape). The Committee is not willing to accept any reduction in the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback policy requirement. • The project has been redesigned with the drive-thru lane setback 54 feet from the face of curb on Foothill Boulevard and 35 feet from Etiwanda Avenue. The Etiwanda Avenue setback is less than the 45-foot setback because the applicant is being required to install a right-turn lane for the Etiwanda Avenue driveway. This pushes the curb line easterly into the site leaving insufficient room to accommodate the 45-foot drive thru lane setback. If the right-turn lane were not required, the project would meet the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback. Furthermore, the new design includes substantial trellis work supported by river rock covered columns along the Etiwanda Avenue frontage. There is a 23-foot deep landscaped area along this frontage, which provides sufficient room for screening the drive-thru lane with berms and landscaping. 2. The project appears to be overbuilt, which is resulting in numerous setback encroachments. The Committee noted that there was nothing unusual about the site such as slope or topography, which would create setback problems. The project Site Plan has been completely revised to eliminate setback encroachments except for the parking setback along Etiwanda Avenue. A 35-foot parking setback is required but only 25 feet is provided. This is due to the right-turn lane requirement noted under item 1 above. Staff is of the opinion that the right-turn lane requirement would justify a variance request for reduction of the parking and drive thru lane setbacks because without having to provide the right-turn lane the project would be in compliance with code and policy. The Committee is not willing to support any reduction in the 25-foot building setback from the car wash to the north property line and adjoining single family home. . The carwash has been relocated to the south side of the service station building and the pump island canopy is located 48 feet from the north property line. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 & VAR 00-02 - VANTIGER • October 31, 2000 Page 2 4. The Committee indicated that the building footprint is not being questioned, but that the site planning and architectural design needs to be substantially upgraded. The Committee suggested restudying the pump island configuration, the car wash, and backup dimensions to make more efficient use of the site. The Committee directed the applicant to develop an architectural statement consistent with the Etiwanda area. The architectural design has been substantially revised to be anything but corporate. The building features substantial use of river rock, Spanish file roofing, wooden (barn- like) door features, divided light windows, trellises, and traditional roof and parapet forms consistent with the Etiwanda theme. The pump island configuration is completely revised and is set at a 45-degree angle with respect to the site. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has done an exemplary job of meeting the Committees concerns and comments. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The applicant has resolved all outstanding major issues: Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. Provide a 3-foot high decorative screen wall around the west and south sides of the drive-thru lane. 2. Provide a better connection between the car wash building and the main service station building. This could be a roof structure or a trellis feature or other design acceptable to the Committee. 3. Provide a double row of Crape Myrtle trees spaced 15 to 20 feet along the Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue frontage per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Activity Center requirements. Replace all London Plane trees with Crape Myrtles. Note that trees planted in the public right-of-way shall not exceed 24-inch box size and shall have no tree grates. 4. Replace King Palm trees with either Queen Palms or Fan Palms. The Palm tree planting should form a backdrop for the more formally spaced Crape Myrtles. 5. In addition to items 1 and 2 above, provide substantial tree and shrub planting between the drive-thru lane and the streets to create a dense screen for the drive-thru lane. Slopes shall have a softened, meandering appearance. 6. Provide artwork or a gazebo or other decorative feature in the landscape area at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to draw the eye away from the drive-thru car wash opening and provide a strong corner presence consistent with the intent of the Activity Center. • 7. The site contains a large Oak tree and two Palm trees. These trees shall be preserved on-site, either in-place or relocated. The remaining trees, namely Eucalyptus and Pepper trees may be removed. Their removal is offset by provision of on-site landscaping. 8. Trellis members shall be of substantial size to avoid a spindly appearance. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 & VAR 00-02 - VANTIGER • October 31, 2000 Page 3 9. Provide conceptual sign location, size, and materials for Planning Commission review, including the subtenant (restaurant) signs. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof and ground-mounted equipment (including vacuums for car wash customers) shall be fully screened from all surrounding property and streets. 2. Planter islands shall have a minimum width of 6 feet. 3. All walls and fences shall either be decorative masonry (both sides) or wrought iron. 4. River rock veneer shall be natural rock rather than an artificial/manufactured product. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval subject to the above comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman • Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staff's comments with emphasis on providing a revised connecting feature (roof mansard) between the car wash and main service station building and provision of a vertical focal element at the southwest corner of the site. It was determined that removal of the large existing Walnut tree along the Foothill Boulevard frontage is acceptable as it conflicts with necessary improvements and is not a protected heritage tree. The Committee wishes to see the revised design as a consent calendar item. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • rr.i~nn~sir.n~r10 p'm nnnr~.r~nSal SalazadDua~e MoTitar TnOoTobe^ 31n2000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-38 (SAN CARMELA) - D.R. HORTON - A request to subdivide and develop an approximate 23-acre site into 97 single-family residential lots and two lettered lots for slopes along the project's frontage. The site is located along the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane and east of Day Creek Boulevard and is in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 227-091-14 and -15; and 227-111-12 and -13. Background: On June 21 2000, the City approved a General Plan Amendment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment for the project site, which: (1) amended the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and (2) amended the Victoria Community Plan zoning classification from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). Proposed Tentative Tract Map 16128 and Development Review 00-38 are designed in accordance with the provisions and standards of the project site's General Plan land use designation and Victoria Community Plan zoning classification. Design Parameters: The project site is an abandoned vineyard and gently slopes to the south. Approximately 12 Eucalyptus trees are located along the northern perimeter of the site. The project proposes to remove these existing Eucalyptus trees. The applicant will acquire a Tree Removal Permit, prior to issuance of grading permit. The applicant also proposes to provide a windrow of Eucalyptus trees along the northern perimeter of the project site to replace those existing 12 Eucalyptus trees that will be removed with the project. There are only three • structures located on-site, old artesian well standpipes that were used to irrigate the vineyard. The site is surrounded by existing development. A public storage facility is located to the west; a neighborhood commercial center and apartment complex are located to the east; the historic Regina Winery is located to the south (across Base Line Road); and a vacant railroad corridor and single-family residences are located to the north. Proposed Tentative Tract 16128: The proposed 97 single-family residential lots range in size from 5,527 to 14,429 square feet. The average lot size is 7,144 square feet. The project site will be accessed from two entries along Base Line Road. San Carmela Court, which is the eastern entry, will be provided with full access. A median break with left-turn pocket will be provided along Base Line Road to allow for the full access. No other median breaks are proposed. The second entry will allow right-turn in and out only. San Carmela Ccurt, which is the primary roadway into the subdivision, will cul-de-sac at the northern perimeter of the project site. Proposed Street G extends from San Carmela Court in a perpendicular direction and connects with other internal roadways to provide internal circulation throughout the subdivision. Refer to Exhibit "A" for a reduction of Tentative Tract 16128. Proposed Development Review 00-38: Development Review 00-38 proposes three house plans with three elevation styles. Additionally, alternative window designs affecting shape, actual number of windows, and surrounds are also being proposed for those elevations facing Base Line Road. All homes will be two-story structures; no single-story homes are being proposed. The floor plan for Plan 1 will range from 2,575 to 2,660 square feet in size, and have four bedrooms, loft area, three bathrooms, and athree-car tandem garage. Optional features include a 10'-6" x 14' den or bonus room, and a larger family room (from 15'-4" x 14'-6" to 15'-4" x 21'-6"). The floor plan for Plan 2 will range from 2,962 to 3,194 square feet in size, and have five to six bedrooms, three bathrooms, and atwo-car garage. Optional features include a 12'-6" x 10' loft, an extra 11' x 10'-8" bedroom, and third garage. The floor plan for Plan 3 will range from 3,192 to 3,614 square feet in size, and have five bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a three-car garage. Optional features include a 13' x 10'-6" bonus room, 11' x 18' loft, 12'-4" x 12' den, and extra 11'-4" x 15' bedroom. Refer to Exhibit "B" for a reduction of proposed design and building plans. DRC COMMENTS TTM 16128 & DR 00-38 - D.R. HORTON • October 31, 2000 Page 2 Depending upon the particular plan, light brown blend concrete flat file or "S" file will be provided. wood trim, wood shutters, and stucco recesses. on certain elevations. stucco exterior walls, with either brown or gray Accent features include brown or green blend Gray or brown stone veneer will be provided Staff finds the building plans to be well designed. The elevations are characterized by strong vertical and horizontal changes. Roofs include varied hip and gable designs which make for interesting elevations. Though three-car garages are being proposed, the garage does not appear to dominate the front elevations of the various plans. Window surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations, not only the front elevations. Furthermore, the Conceptual Site Plan and building elevations comply with the various requirements and development standards of the Victoria Community Plan, relating to setbacks, landscaping, lot size, fences and walls, recreational vehicle storage, etc. Refer to Exhibit "C" for a reduction of the Conceptual Site Plan. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Minor Issues: The following item will be the focus of Committee discussion: 1. Staff finds that the proposed applications comply with the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) development standards of the Victoria Community Plan and will result in development of well-designed single-family residences. However, the project requires removal of 12 onsite Eucalyptus trees along the northern perimeter of the project site. The project therefore, requires acquisition of a Tree Removal Permit, prior to issuance of grading permit. 2. The project's Landscape Plan indicates that a windrow of trees along the northern perimeter of the project site will be provided to replace those existing Eucalyptus trees that will be removed with the project. Refer to Exhibit "D," which shows the proposed windrow of trees. The specific tree type and size will provided in accordance with City standards, subject to City Planner approval. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Sal Salazar/Duane Morita The applicant showed that the project would be designed with sufficient color and design variations that were satisfactory to the Committee. The Committee requested that a better quality streetscape exhibit and colored elevations be prepared for the Planning Commission meeting. The Committee found the project acceptable, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the project's noise study to address potential sound mitigation for those homes . along the eastern perimeter of the project site that may be affected by future commercial development to the east. DRC COMMENTS TTM 16128 & DR 00-38 - D.R. HORTON • October 31, 2000 Page 2 2. Provide second story enhancements for homes along Base Line Road, including second story balconies if reasonable sound mitigation can be provided. 3. All walls facing a street shall be decorative masonry on both sides. 4. Connecting walls between homes shall be stucco to match the homes. Color transitions between homes shall be at interior corners. Wall offsets shall be introduced where necessary in order to provide interior corners for color transitions. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • October 31, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary • • s"' • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 31.2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. 7:00 p.m. (Brent) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 139 - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-011-32. 7:20 p.m. (Brent) MODIFICATION - MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING A request to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 135 unit, three-story senior assisted living facility to have 143 units in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street -APN: 1077-421-10 and 33. Related File: Pre-Application Review 98-03. 7:40 p.m (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50 - VANTIGER A request to develop a 5,130 square foot service station (Shell) with drive-thru fast food service (Wendy's) and a self serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1100-161-002. n LJ ' DRC AGENDA October 31, 2000 • Page 2 7:40 p.m (Brent) VARIANCE 00-02 - VANTIGER - A request to reduce the required parking setback from 35 feet to 25 feet along Etiwanda Avenue to accommodate a service station with fast food and self serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1100- 161-002. 810 p.m. (Duane/ Sal) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-38 (SAN CARMELA) - D.R. HORTON - A request to subdivide and develop an approximate 23-acre site into 97 single-family residential lots and two lettered lots for slopes along the project's frontage. The site is located along the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane and east of Day Creek Boulevard and is in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan -APN: 227-091-14 and -15; and 227-111-12 and -13. 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 . 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 26, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Censer Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count October 31, 2000 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 139 - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved The Lowe's project on May 26, 1999. Since that time the Commission has also approved the Farmer Boy's fast food restaurant and the Union Bank projects on the Lowe's site. The program establishes criteria for Lowe's monument and wall signs, for pad tenant monument and wall signs, and for multi-tenant (inline retail) tenant wall signs. There is potential for retail shop buildings to be added to the master plan to the east of Lowe's; hence, multi-tenant wall sign criteria are proposed. The Lowe's wall signs have already been approved under a separate permit to accommodate Lowe's wishes to open in October of this year. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: • 1. Pad Monument Signs -The Program includes criteria and design for monument signs for the pad tenants. Pad tenants in shopping centers aren't typically allowed to have their own monument signs and are identified on overall shopping center monument signs. Either eliminate the pad tenant monument signs or revise their design to have a much lower profile similar to the Macaroni Grill monument sign in the Terra Vista shopping center. Union Bank and Farmer Boys -The City has granted approval of the Union Bank and Farmer Boys restaurant projects. Since signs for these projects are included in the proposed Program, the conceptual design for the signs should also be included. Sign Elevations -The Program lists several types of signs that have reference to attached sign drawings but no such drawings are present. Provide a comprehensive set of sign drawings correlated with the Program text. Of particular importance are the project identification signs, which afford the opportunity to greatly enhance business identification. 4. Colors -Change item 9 to include three colors only. Suggest eliminating blue and green, as they do not read well at night. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Page 2, General Sign Criteria -add the following to item 8, "The sign area shall also be repainted to match the surrounding wall color to eliminate any residual appearance of the sign." • 2. Page 3, "I.D. Monument Signs -These are the tenant monument signs and shall be eliminated or reduced in size per item 1 above. If they are kept, add item an item 6. "Minimum letter height shall be 8 inches. "No "Project I.D. Sign" drawings provided. ' DRC COMMENTS USP #139 • October 31, 2000 Page 2 3. Page 4, Pad Tenant I.D -Change maximum letter height to eighteen inches. Shop Tenant I.D. Signs are not shown on Site Plan. If the criteria are to remain for future use, modify item C.5 to read,"...not to exceed 70 percent of the leased storefront width. "Change item C.6 to read,"...overall height of 4 feet." 4. Page 5, Fabrication Standards -Change criteria under item 6 to require bronze returns instead of color to match window mullions. 5. Page 6, Under canopy Tenant Sign -There are no such tenant buildings shown on Site Plan so why this criteria is included is not clear. No Entry Window Sign or Delivery Entry I.D. sign drawings are included. l Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • • ' Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM ~y~~l~ ~ ~rJ: 22`~ .6~1.32 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this sign program is to ensure the design and production of quality signage which reflects [he integrity of the architecture and the intent of the Owner (Ca[ellus Development Corporation) and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for this center. This sign program has been developed to communicate the particular parameters each tenant is to follow so their individual store signage will be effective and also complement the project as a whole. Performance will be strictly enforoed and any non-conforming signs or disapproved signs must be brought into conformance at [he expense of the tenant. The program establishes maximum and minimum letter sizes, sign area allowances, location, color allowance, etc., for each sign type which is subject to the sole discretionary approval of the Owner and its' Management Company (hereafter referred to as "Landlord"), within the context of this tenant sign program. ~Asused herein, the term "Tenant" shall mean the tenant, owner, or occupant of any building or portion thereof, within the retail area of Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, the boundaries of which are shown on exhibit attached hereto. In addition [o this sign program, all signs are limited to the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga sign ordinance. APPROVAL PROCEDURE 5164 ~ 1„ ~~~All Tenant signs installed or displayed on the premiseso~ho Cucamonga Corporate Park must have • ~ ~~ prior written approval by the Landlord and an approv~buitding permit from the City. 2. ~~~ Each Tenant, or its' representative, must submit three (3) sets of professionally executed drawings which meet ~~ ~~~~the City of Rancho Cucamonga submittal standards[o [he Landlord for approval (two black & white and ~~~ ~~~onecolor set, all at 8.5" X 1I"format). ~ Signage approval must first be obtained fromtheLandlord prior to submittal to the City. 3. ~~~~The aesthetic characteristics ofthe signs; eg. placement, size, proportion, color, texture, illumination, and graphics are subject to the discretionary approval of the Landlord, within the context of this sign program. ~~ ~~~ If the submittal is not approved, the Tenant must submit revised plans until Landlord approval is obtained. 4. ~~~UponwrittenapprovalbytheLandlord,TenantisresponsibleforsubmittingtheplanstotheCityforpetmif .. ~~~~~~~approval. All City permits for signs shall be obtained and paid for by Tenant or Tenant's representative prior to fabrication and installation, with a copy of said pernit provided to Landlord. SIGN TYPE SCHEDULE Ground Mounted: 1. ~~~ProjectI.D. Sign(s) ~ ~~~ 2. ~~~Monument Sign(s) '-~ ~~ ~a Exterior Mounted: Qa~ J 1. Anchor Tenant I.D. / Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Q 2. ~~~PadTenantI.D./ U • 3.~~~~ShopTenantl.D./ 4. ~~~UndercanopyTenantSign 5. ~~~ ~ Store Number 6. ~~~~Entry Window Signage 7. ~~~~Delivery Entry I.D. Page, t z w a O J W W r~~ ' Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM GENERAL SIGN CRITERIA 1. ""Tenant sigaage_shall_include only the_businesspame as regis[ered_on the.lease.agreementor_as otherwise. '"'trademarked,_copyrighted or registered'by_Tenant,_and established_logo symbol._Amdliary_graphic elements, __ .will be_allowed_only_upon the_discreaonary approval_of'the_Landlord. 2""'Maintenance of'each siggis_the.responsibility_of the_Tenan[ who'erceted and installed_it_Letter forms or letter "' faces'and the electricatsupply to_illuminate each which require_repair_will be_replaced or repaired_within ten '__ T(10) days of'written notice'[o~Tenanf by_Landlord."If'the signage_problem is no[ rectified_within said teq(10)_ '._. ~day_period,_Landlord_will repair_the siggatTenant's expense. 3. __Signs_will_be_fi~ee_ot?all_labels.and manufac[urer's_advertising wifb.the_excep[ion of code_requirements. 4.""'As_a general rule,_Tenan[ signs are to be locatedyisually centercd,_horizontalty and vertically .within the fascia __ '(sign.band)aboveahev_primary_leasehold_entrance_or at other reasonable_locations_ogsingle Tenant structures. 5. ""Cooperative Tenant seasonatpromofional_signing will be_permitted_only upon review and approval_ofrthe __ _Landlord.and_the_Citypt?Rancho_Cucamonga 6. "'Tenan['will be completely responsible for the opera[iogof its_siggcontractoi and will indemnify, defend. ""'and hold harmless Landlord,_its_Property_manager and their.respcetive employees and_agents_from damages. ""'or'liabilities'resulting from_its contractor's work."Tenant will also_provide Landlord with'adequate.evidencepf' • _Tenant's_sign contractor's_insurance_coverage naming_the,Landlord and_Property_Manage{as~addi[ionally named. -- -insures. 7. _Tenantwill_immediately remove_all_signs_representing_a_discontinued_business or service. _ -ale- ~~ Af~e mar... e..rn ~ ~a~ la 8,_' Immediately~upon_removal_otany siggby_Tenant,_any_d age'[o dre building_fascia_or sign,area will_be.repairod ~~'~' _ _by'Tenant,or.by the building owner's[ Tenant's expense.. All Repair_work is to_be_completed_withigthe'ten_(10)_ ~~i _'_ .day period_following siggremoval. ~.l~ds~Gt~. ~v.-0twYr W1kµ' PROHIBITED SIGNS The_followinp signs_are prohibited: 1 ~"'Roo(moanted_signs. 2.""'Projec[ing signs. 3 Signs_painted_directly on_the wall. rv it,Ln+w+T~ ,e,~ p9.tovAa~ ~~ ~ c~ SlOA) 4.~~~~~Flashing,_animatedor rota[ingsigns. 5." Portable signs,.including_vehicle_ortrailer'mountedsigns. 6. "'Tethered'balloons or other infla[ables,_pennants,_streamers,'o{flags_(exceptnationa(_or govemmental_flags'as '_ _approved_by_the.Landlord). ~ 7. "'Tempomry_sigrvs_maypot be_displayed.on.any'building, landscape_strip, or igthe.parldng_area,_and temporary ~ .m 'signs_maypo[ be_placed_on.the inside_surface_ofang window.._Tempomry_preopeninptsignage_may'bepermi[ted _ "in_these areas_upogapproval_by_Landlord. V • 8.~"'Bamters .except as_permitted_for temporary_signs,_by_the Landlord and_the City of Rancho_Cucamonga. 9. ""Not with'standingthe foregoing, all signs displayed'witltLandlord's_prior approval, whether temporary_signs, iit___~ ~_~.L~ 1:1,_'......w'l.a .....C _..:......11.. ...e.....eA Z w a O J W ~~, ... ,_ ,_ _w_r..,..,.,~.........~_r...r...,,,.. Page 2 ' Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM I.D.•Monument Sign(s) 1~It~ -~„-a~J~ p.~aU~.E.1~ 1.~~~ "Availability of the Tenant identification,panels on the "Tenant LD.,Monttment Sign"is based on the sole ~~~~ ~~discretionof`the Jandlord. 2.,,,, Refer [o the designdmwing contained within dils sign program designated as Sign Type,"Tenant I.D. ~, ~„ „Monumen[,Sign" for fabication standazds, maximum area allowance, letter height,,letter style, and color. 3. ~~~~Tenants with nationally or regionally established togo graphics may utilize their gaphics and colors, upon. '„_ „Landlord approval. 4.~~~~~Tenamcopy is to be visuallycentered, vertically and horizontally withinthe monumen[aign panel and sized „_ _~proportionately to Tenant occupied space as approved by dte Landlord. 5. ~~~'All Single Tenant Monument Signs'are to be illuminated signs which are commected to the,Tenant's individual ~~'~ ~~electncal service by an assigned 7-box, must be controlled,by a dedicated time clock, and mus[,have a disconnect ,,,, „means (switch) within visual,proximity,mtheslgn, all paid for,by Tenant (e, 'MudtM~M 1.~4- ~GI(,a4~" Z4~e.L. 9G 8-Ir~uifrsS. Project 1.0.~Sign(s) • 1.~„ _~ProjectLD.~Signsarelimited [o only identifying thetheme name and/or,graphinlogo of the Center. 2.~'~~~Refer to,the design drawing contained within this sign programdesignated as SignType,"Project I.D. Sign" '~~~ 'for fabrication standards, maximum area allowance, letter,height,~letter style, and color. .. .. ~~to p-~ailla/t Tenant Storefront Sign ~'°~ A.~,,,,~Anchor Tenant % Lowe's Home Improvement wazehouse's WALL, SIGN 1.~ ~~An Anchor Tenant,is defined as,arry~Tenant occupying agross,leasablespaceof 20,000 square fee[ or ~~ ~~~' more. 2.~~~ ~~The maximum allowable letter heightis no[ to exceed four feetand seven inches,(4'-7") fora single ,,,, ,,,,. „ „ ~~~, ,line,withthe exception ofthe,"L" N,"Lowe's" which may be,five feet,andaeven inches,(5'-7") high. 3. ~~ ~~AnchorTenammay utilize its trademark logotype, logo,symbol and business idemity colors as they ,~~~ pertain to thecon[extof this sign,progmm, upon,prior,writtenapproval,bythe,Landlord. 4. '~ ~~One,(1)Anchor Tenant sign is allowed per elevation facing a street of parking lot, up to,a maximum '~~, ~,~of'3~sip~s including monument signs. ~ 5. " elevationis not to exceeddre smaller of 10%of the, area perfront ~~The maximumallowable sign J H ~~,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, , , ,building face or,150square feet U • (Rejer,totHepage,'FABRlCATION,&INSTALLATTONSTANDARDSi1jor'producnon'standardsJ H Z W a O J W W rte. Page 3 Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM B. ""PAD TENANT I.D.' 1 ""'A Pad'Tenant is defined as_any_Tenant.occupying.a,sivgle_Tenant,.free-standing_buitdingwith a '~ """"""_~_gross.occupied'space'ot'~up to' 19,999'square_fcet.or as_defined.by.the.Landlord'within.the'coniext~ ' ~-_'~."' .of the_Tenan[ lease_agreement. --- ,$ a ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,, , .. Fae !9d" , 2.-_ The'maximum allowable letter height-is not to exceed'hveaty fear m -, )_for_a_single-line. . _ _____--3..~ _Pad'tenan[.may.uffiize'its~trademark'logo-graphics-and'Iogo-symbol, includingbusiness wlors, upon- "" """""""._ .approval.by_dte.Landlord."This does no[ app}y_toaign_copy, which mustbe_per the'color'palette_ ~'~ "~_'~"~'~"'under."FABRICATION,&,WSTALLATION' section o~this_siggprogram. 4.""'Dne_(1).pad tenant storefron[.identifrcazion siggis_sllowed per~elevation'facing a street or.parking. "" """"""'~' .lo[,_up'to~a,maximum of 3~signs.including monumen[signs._.Inpo case'shall~thetotalpumber_o!' m" ~' .c"..::.signs_exceed~three.' 5. ~TThe'maxvnum~allowable siggarea for'the'storefronf elevation (maigentry)_is no[ to_exceed the '_ _"_"'__"__.smaller_otr10°/qo(thebuildingface_or_150square_feet 6. ""All wall mounted'signs.shall not_pmject_above the roof'and shall.inpo'case_be higher_thag20_fcet_ --- --------------- from.fmished-grade. • (Rejer,to'thepage,'FABRICATION&IN57ALLATl11ONS7ANDARDS'tjorpraduehon standards) C _--'TSHOP~TENANT_I.D. ~ ~,,11,I D+.1 ~i/t,Q'~.Z~ MI~ 1 ""A Shop_Tenant_is defined~as arry,Tenant o~a multi-levant building. d 2.T~The'maxvnum allowable'letter height.is'no['[o'exceed'Hwa,NY'fo~ieches_(3'P`). 3. "'A Shop_[enant with nationally'or regionally es[ablishedaogo graphrcemay_use.its.business "" ~identity_type~style_andlogo.symbol,,with.a_maximum.of2_colors,_wi[hinone~sign_uponLandlord ,.n m.,._T.m. . ---- -- - -approval. 4.""'Tenants wishing'[o~initiate_logo.graphics for they'business_signage~must'selec[ from the typestyles -_ __---_-------- and.color~palette~as'specified widtigdils sign-program-(refer to "Color" withiq[he.Fabrication & "" """"""""'Installation S[andards'and~the~illustrated_type_style'samples).~~Tenants~with_business_graphics'not~ ~" ~ w""~~~'~~~ consistent wit}t.these'standards must_submi[ a_professionally.prepared design_drawing(in_scaleend "" """"""""in.color) of the_proposed_sign for'review_by_Landlord .Upon Landlord.approval,(irt_writing),'Tenant _' "---'._"~-- -must_submit_thedesigo.[o_theCity. ~0 ~• ~' _ -5. ""The'maximum allowable_siggarea.per'storefiront elevatiogie notto_exceed.Hm~lervF-}99fr~of ---~---Ute-~ -or-i5' ~~~t ~' _ 1 6. ~'The~sigglayoutwill be'a'one.(1)_line fomatfor storefrontidentification.~Twoaine fomaz_may _,_ _be_considered_on'a'case_by.case~basis,'butnotto.exceed.agoverall_heighfpfair~feeE(6'~ t P~~-(4 ~ . . .m __T.. 7 ~ ~ All~wall-mounted.sigos_shallpo[_project above~the roof and_shall in'no case.be_higher than_20 fee[. -- -----------~ ~from'finished.gmde. (Refer_to_tHepage;,'FABR/CATION & INSTAI.l.ATION STANDARDS''jorproduehoh,standarrLs) to J J w V Page 4 H Z W a O J W W r~~ ~1 • Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM FABRICATION 8~ INSTALLATION STANDARDS are,[o'be'State,Regis[ered Contractors'widt they hcense,ingood,standing, must compensation,coverage„and,anypther, performed. 2 ~"-A11 Tenant,Smrefront,Signs,are_[o,be',illumina[ed,sigos,which are connected to the Tenant's individual electrical, ""'service, an,assigned,J-box, which'must_beoontrolled,by,a'dedicated'time,clock ,and,must,have,a,discomuxt „_ _means,(switch)'within,visual,proximity,tothe,sign,,all paid for by the,Tenant. 3. ""All signs,and,installa[ions of sigps must,conform'to'the,appropriate,building',and electrical'codes,(U/L, ""'N.E.C. - latestedi[ion,,e[cJ. ,The,Tenan[,and,the siga,contrac[or will obtainand,pay,for'any,and all,permits .,,...required. 4""'In no case'will'ihere'be,any exposed,electrical raceways, "' ,'conduit„transformers, junclion,boxes,conduc[ors,~or crossovers. "" "Letter,fastening,will,be,fmished,in,a,manner consistent with,quality,fabrication,practices,and,clips,are_to '~' „be,concealed and [o,be,galvanized _stainless,steel ,aluminum ,brass,or,bronze. ,The,installationwdl be. ,~, „approved,by,'the,Landlord. 5. ""Tenant Storefront,Signs are,to,be,individually,momted, in[emally illuminated open,pan,channel,letters,or .,,, „back lit (halo),letters with,acrylic,face. ,~v~~~ ~a'l~i 6. ""Channel letIer'and,logo,fonns,are' fabricated,from,minimum,24,gaugesheet,metal_ore 063'aluminwn "" "formed into achannel configura , n'with_a five inch,(5") retum.,,Eac6 lettermusrhave a minimum ot; "two,(2)_ I/4",seep holes,for dr ~ ge of water. 'The iaside'ot'the metal letter and,loge form,are to be,painted .._ .. "" VLetter,and,logo,faces,are tube,fabricated.froml/8",(minunum) acryhc'and,attached.to,the metal,retum,with, " ~3/4"trimcap ~ Internal illumination'shall be 30 mil-amp,(minvnum) neon tube,Iighting, sufficien[,to,provide_ "" "even lighting,and,shall,be,manufacttued ,labeled,and,installed,in,accordance,with,U/L (Underwriters, "" ~Laboratory),specifrca[ions. 7. " Tenant and/o{Tenant'e sign.contractor'shall not,.in,the,course,ot:sigv,installation or removal,damage,atry "" "otahe,building's,erderior,or s[mctwe.'Tenant will beheld fully responsible for all cos[s,mcnrted,to,repair _„_ ,_any,damege,,atthg sole,discretion,ofrhe Landlord. 8 ~"' All,penetrations,of'the exterior,fascia,are,to,be,sealed,watertight,,thenpainted to,match,the,existing,fascia ,_ _and,bwlding,color. 9. ""Color: "" ~Al!'Tenants without established bvsiness.graphics.must.choose thwr sign;colorjrom the colorpaleae below. "" "A'maximum o,~'2polors_may be uset~wlthin one.(I) sign. "" ~For~lcrylic Faces: ,,,, _ White. (Aristech #7328) Red, (Aristech #2793; ~~ 3 ~1"~ 1 ~~~~ Yellow (Aristech,#2016) ~I~,~ q~u~ t~iaD ~L'GU.i ~ ^"^'^( . "Letter'retarns'shall'^~.~'window n,,, ' I r r ~cli other color as approvedbv rh /-^-~at^-^~'Trimcap_ „- - -~. _color.is jo,be.gold or bronze."Alternate'Mmcap colors.which match'jhe letter face color may,only be user upon. _"' the discretionaryapproval of the.Landlord v_ LL d t. Page 5 F Z w a O J W W i~ Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT~SIGN PROGRAM UNDERCANOPY TENANT~SIGN tJo Uw~L~--~' P,~u.nl~b-s °"~ - - ~ Sly Pta~l Nb2 1 ""'Each Tenant in multi-tenant buildings shall_install,_at_Tenant's sole'cost and_expense,,one (I) ~,(~ .r _"Undercanopy_Tenan[ Sigo"_suspended_from.the canopy at its_primary_entry.to-act.as_a.pedestriagorien[ed~u lµ~~ __ _.identificatiogsign. 2._"'Reter lo_thb'desiggdrawing_wnlained within_ilils_sign progmm_designated as Siga_Type_"Undercanopy ~~ Tenant Sign" for the'fabrication standards. N~ 1~1G.+WiG'D 3. ""This sigo_must be installed'at a'consis[ent height mall other_undercanopy_sigos_at a_minimum height ot? "" __eight(8')_feetcleamnce from_grade._ Along.with'the requnements of this section, Tenant musfcomply with, _' .all the,requvements.of ihe_geneml_sign criteria,.including.printLandlord,Approval_o(the_design. STORE NUMBER 1""'Tenantshall install a tenant'store number_at_each Tenant&ont_eatry._These aumbets must be.vivyl machine- ---- - - - - - - - - "" "cut numbers,_six inches (6") in_heightp[ilizingthe projecttypestyle_(Helvetica'Medium).__The'numbers _T' care to_be_installed_pet the layout as_stipulated_iqthis.sign_program._(see_desigo_drawing, Page 10 ) • ENTRY_WINDOW SIGNAGE I"_"Eacti tenantis allowed one_(1)_informatiogsign_at the eahy_to its_store."The copy_forahis siggisaimited " ~ '_to.pertinen[ business infomation such as'store'houcs _telephone.numbers _emergency_information .charge __ cards_honored,.o{oche{business_instmction _Siggshall be~approved by the_Landlord. 2 ""This siggis to_be_white'vinyl~machinecut copy_in~Helvetica Medium.typestyle,'applied_[o the_store_ _'_ ~ window adjacentto_the,entry_door. 3. ""The maximum area allowed_'foi this_sign_is_six.square_fee[.(6_sq._ft)_and_the maximum_letter height~must __ ~no[ exceed_two inches.(2"). 4.""'Refei to'the_design_drawing_contained withigthis_sign program_designa[ed_as SiggType_"EnUy_Window ----_S~gnage'. ` l II~GyD>~A 5. __Ngothet window signs.shall_be_pertaitied including_pos[ers or_wmdow_pain[. DELIVERY ENTRY I.D. =- - - -- ~, 1 ..Each Tenant.may_place_a_sigp_ogits~delivery dooi to_identify_the.s[orepame_md number. ~ w Q 2T _Eachsiga_isao_be.[abricated.igthe same_manner (black machine-cut viiryl m'Helvetica Mediumapestyle) V __'and installed_igthe same_retationship to_the dehvery door. • 3. ~~Refetto_the'desigodrawing_contained_withigfhis_si~_progmm_designated as_SiggType ",-Dlwerhrvery'Entry_I.D."_ ~~~ Page 6 H z W a 0 J W W ~~ • 1~ u i w..e-~...~ ~aes~ar ~ua~ ~ $ ~° Ted a1eJOCLo~ e6uoweon~ oyouea uoileoi~ioadg u6ig ~ s ~ s v ~ ~hw..~ ~ >uawnuoW ~ ~ 4 ~ ~.~.,~> 3~~~1~@ ~ 0 U 7 O Vi D D N t0 D 7 O ~ fn ~ L J ~ _ 3 ~ D ~' ~ E `O 0• O ~~ U ~ C m 3 ~ ~ ~ a z o Q E .~ ~ ~ o. O n E co N ~(JL 2N ~ N ~ N ~, w _ 3(n :G ~ C L U Q ~ ~ ~ d E w ~ ~' c~~ c O m M O =~° E °' ~ a~n a' o m N N D U O ~ m 0 = N ~ C U B O an~"a~ N~ ~~ S E Lg ~ ° o U ~i ~ S ii ~ ~ ao ~ F- N `c ryl I~~ F-I i N Qr 0 U W C C.. °z ~~ ~~ ~~ V m d N N O (0 C rn~rn ~ V! ~ C O }~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ C p m L N _O LL W O O U m c s S m L U t0 O C O N E c E a' n li 4 7 m L r O L LL 0 .~~- 3 C E 0 U Z O N • ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~nw~ ~` ~~ sued aie~od~o~ e6uoweon~ oyouea uoileoi~ioadg u6ig luawnuow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~,~,.~ ~ n O U ~ 0 ~ 0 D d t0 D ~ O N Q ~ ^. ..-_ L _ J _~ .._ _- 3 ~ a 1--~ 7 E O ~ O ~ ~ ~ E ~ a 2 Cn ~ n E +. ~ c O n E co ~ t 2 ~ y ~ N C yew ~ ~ t d C N c c ~ ~ C ? o ° .E o °i ~ o ~ x ~ a ~ @ _~ ~_ o~E m ~ ~ n~' d U c~ D ~o ~m _ ° m ° ~°5 Ii ~ ~ 'v N O O N (`~ c N N m m r U O Q i U CLS m 4) Q 0 _~ ~/Wr~ r--I 5~ L O /~ l~ V_ +~ ~ ~ lV y'-1 .ire s%•-4. `Q.^. k... .9-.Z -.O'FJ m C s_ J_ m U i0 O L li U E U .,owe... asiea+w xxuas S E Q~ ~I~\ s~k ~~,~ l~,i v~oro was r `~J ® ~ ~~ed aae~od~o~ e6uowean~ oyaueb u6ig luawnuoyy s,amo~ ~ E ~ g i j ~ g i e ~ ~ N p~ ! a P m e ~ _ ~ 3 3 ! • a~ N U~ ~ ~O °z o ~¢ ~ m ~H ~ ~«. asiraiw rrruve s s` ~ O ~ ~ l~ I:I r~J ~ ~~ed a~e~od~o~ e6uowean~ oyauea uoneoo~ ufii5 ~uawnuow ~ ~ ° _ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ rn M~ , - • ~ ~ i _~ ~. ~ v O o J U~ ~O ~ ~ a °~' ~z N a~ uH ~ oz ~ ~w o ~H ~ w a 'O m a w O 6 W `a a a a w ~6~+ m (%] G E W J U N Q ~--' ~"' O Z DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Brent Le Count October 31, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13 MODIFICATION - MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING A request to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 135 unit, three-story senior assisted living facility to have 143 units in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-10 and 33. Related File: Pre-Application Review 98-03. Background: The Planning Commission approved the subject Conditional Use Permit on September 9, 1998. The project is approved to have 135 units and 167 beds. The applicant would now like to have 143 units with 168 beds so the bed-count stays virtually the same. The applicant wishes to convert many of the two bedroom units to one bedroom to respond to market demand. Design Parameters: The project involves development of 5.4 acres of the larger 11.2-acre site. The remaining 5.8 acres was master planned with the original Conditional Use Permit for an office park and gas station. The site is surrounded by existing residential development to the north, an office park development to the east, vacant land and the Terra Vista shopping center to the south, and a flood control channel immediately to the west with a flood control basin and the northern portion of the Deer Creek shopping center further to the west across Haven Avenue. • The footprint and basic site planning for the project remain as previously approved. The southern wing of the building however has been increased from one-story as approved to three stories. The west wing connection to the skilled nursing section has been reduced from two-story to one-story. Wall articulation and window treatment have also been revised so that there is less change of plane in wall surfaces, more areas of blank stucco walls, fewer windows, and the number of window mullions has been greatly reduced. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: There are no major issues because the project has retained the important elements of the high quality architecture of the original approval. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding streets and property. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • • tt __ t~ ..~ A ' ' ~.~'~ n ;f ~ i J !f~ & s l IF ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ g r 3 ~=i 3 t' ~~ 0 f .r ~~ ~ t' 4~' -~~ ~T: -yj~ •~~' 'K. 't.. .~ `y,\\~ z ~.,~ W z W a ~'\~,~.;.. .. Hj~N Z ~ . W W Z 4 ~'.,.,,,, ~ -----~ ~. ~ 0 -,...,.---r..........._,_~ ~ 2 g ~ "'--.. ~ ~ -- ~~ . - ~ ~ - ~ J o ~ .~ __ o~~ ~ ~ moo= ~ ----- ---------------------------_..............................._.._._.......______-----e-- ~ z ~? w cwn m a ..,, .~ -t- F~ ~ l - . 'D L~'~n1Dx.3P~ Pc~..J n u July 19, 2000 Mr. Brent LeCount, AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Regarding: Marriott Brighton Gardens Rancho Cucamonga Assisted Living Facility HMC #1245002 Subject: Proposed CUP Modifications Dear Brent: This letter provides a brief description of the proposed design modifications. The basic building shape and form remain the same with some modifications to the Floor plans • and exterior elevations as follows: 1. The building floor area has been increased by modifying most of the Two- Bedroom Units into One-Bedroom Units due to rental difficulty of the Two- Bedroom Unils. As a result, there is an increase of eight (8) units. 2. The southwestern wing of the building has been changed to one-story and the south wing has been changed to three-story. 3. The northeastern wing and northwestern wing have expanded 6'-10" each. 4. Exterior elevations have been revised to create more variations and details by utilizing more window types and details around windows. Window mullions have been reduced for visibility from inside without the mullions blocking the view. The building height remains as originally approved. Sincerely, HMC GROUP Architecture Division /,~ Ben Tu, AIA t A hit t S i P `vz s' R rc en or rotec ec e el BT: mr ee~ °~ti ~~ ' • Attachments ~ ;r= c1, cc: D. Endsley, File-AG ~~' COY Plen E LBLECt BT aac-1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count October 31, 2000 -VANTIGER A request to develop a 5,130 square foot service station (Shell) with drive-thru fast food service (Wendy's) and a self serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1100-161-002. VARIANCE 00-02 -VANTIGER - A request to reduce the required parking setback from 35 feet to 25 feet along Etiwanda Avenue to accommodate a service station with fast food and self serve car wash on 2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1100-161-002. Background: The Design Review Committee considered the project on June 6, 2000 at which time the Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review. The Committee had the following comments: The drive-thru aspect of the project is in conflict with the Activity Center theme for the intersection (reduced building setback, pedestrian friendly streetscape). The Committee is not willing to accept any reduction in the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback policy requirement. • The project has been redesigned with the drive-thru lane setback 54 feet from the face of curb on Foothill Boulevard and 35 feet from Etiwanda Avenue. The Etiwanda Avenue setback is less than the 45-foot setback because the applicant is being required to install a right-turn lane for the Etiwanda Avenue driveway. This pushes the curb line easterly into the site leaving insufficient room to accommodate the 45-foot drive thru lane setback. If the right-turn lane were not required, the project would meet the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback. Furthermore, the new design includes substantial trellis work supported by river rock covered columns along the Etiwanda Avenue frontage. There is a 23-foot deep landscaped area along this frontage, which provides sufficient room for screening the drive-thru lane with berms and landscaping. 2. The project appears to be overbuilt, which is resulting in numerous setback encroachments. The Committee noted that there was nothing unusual about the site such as slope or topography, which would create setback problems. The project Site Plan has been completely revised to eliminate setback encroachments except for the parking setback along Etiwanda Avenue. A 35-foot parking setback is required but only 25 feet is provided. This is due to the right-turn lane requirement noted under item 1 above. Staff is of the opinion that the right-turn lane requirement would justify a variance request for reduction of the parking and drive thru lane setbacks because without having to provide the right-turn lane the project would be in compliance with code and policy. 3. The Committee is not willing to support any reduction in the 25-foot building setback from the car wash to the north property line and adjoining single family home. • The carwash has been relocated to the south side of the service station building and the pump island canopy is located 48 feet from the north property line. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 & VAR 00-02 - VANTIGER • October 31, 2000 Page 2 4. The Committee indicated that the building footprint is not being questioned, but that the site planning and architectural design needs to be substantially upgraded. The Committee suggested restudying the pump island configuration, the car wash, and backup dimensions to make more efficient use of the site. The Committee directed the applicant to develop an architectural statement consistent with the Etiwanda area. The architectural design has been substantially revised to be anything but corporate. The building features substantial use of river rock, Spanish the roofing, wooden (barn- like) door features, divided light windows, trellises, and traditional roof and parapet forms consistent with the Etiwanda theme. The pump island configuration is completely revised and is set at a 45-degree angle with respect to the site. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has done an exemplary job of meeting the Committees concerns and comments. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The applicant has resolved all outstanding major issues: Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. Provide a 3- foot high decorative screen wall around the west and south sides of the drive-thru lane. 2. Provide a better connection between the car wash building and the main service station building. This could be a roof structure or a trellis feature or other design acceptable to the Committee. 3. Provide a double row of Crape Myrtle trees spaced 15 to 20 feet along the Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue frontage per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Activity Center requirements. Replace all London Plane trees with Crape Myrtles. Note that trees planted in the public right-of-way shall not exceed 24-inch box size and shall have no tree grates. 4. Replace King Palm trees with either Queen Palms or Fan Palms. The Palm tree planting should form a backdrop for the more formally spaced Crape Myrtles. 5. In addition to items 1 and 2 above, provide substantial tree and shrub planting between the drive-thru lane and the streets to create a dense screen for the drive-thru lane. Slopes shall have a softened, meandering appearance. 6. Provide artwork or a gazebo or other decorative feature in the landscape area at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to draw the eye away from the drive-thru car wash opening and provide a strong corner presence consistent with the intent of the Activity Center. 7. The site contains a large Oak tree and two Palm trees. These trees shall be preserved • on-site, either in-place or relocated. The remaining trees, namely Eucalyptus and Pepper trees may be removed. Their removal is offset by provision of on-site landscaping. 8. Trellis members shall be of substantial size to avoid a spindly appearance. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 & VAR 00-02 - VANTIGER October 31, 2000 • Page 3 9. Provide conceptual sign location, size, and materials for Planning Commission review, including the subtenant (restaurant) signs. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof and ground-mounted equipment (including vacuums for car wash customers) shall be fully screened from all surrounding property and streets. 2. Planter islands shall have a minimum width of 6 feet. 3. All walls and fences shall either be decorative masonry (both sides) or wrought iron. 4. River rock veneer shall be natural rock rather than an artificial/manufactured product. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval subject to the above comments. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 6, 2000 ENVI~2ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50-VANTIGER - A request to develop a 5,000 square foot service station (Shell) with drive-thru fast food service (Wendy's) and a self serve car wash on 2.0 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 1100-161-002. Related file: Variance 00-02. VARIANCE 00-02 -VANTIGER-A request to reduce the required parking setback from 35 feet to 15 feet along Etiwanda Avenue to accommodate a service station with fast food and self serve car wash on 2.0 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100.161- 002. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-50. Design Parameters: The 2-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Etiwahda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and slopes from north to south at approximately 2.5 percent. There is an existing occupied home on the property to the north and there is an abandoned home on the property to the east. Both homes fall within the Community Commercial District of Subarea 4, same land use district as the subject site. The car wash is proposed to be I.~cated within the north end of the site and has been designed with wing walls at the openings to prevent excessive car wash noise from impacting the occupied residence to the north. The project includes a master plan for retail "" development of the properties to the north and east. The master plan provides for access to the site from the east thereby permitting the driveway at the southeast corner of the site to exist in a temporary fashion (the driveway is located too close to the Foothill Boulevard/Etiwanda Avenue intersection to meet General Plan circulation design standards and must ultimately be removed). The site falls within the Subarea 4 Activity Center per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. This .~' Activity Center is intended to have a less urban character than the other Subareas and thus landscape and rolling berms. are recommended as opposed to hardscape materials. A fast food drive-thru is proposed fronting both Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission Drive-Thru Design Policy calls for a minimum 45-foot setback from the face of curb to the drive-thru lane. The project is proposed to have only a 20- to 35-foot setback to the drive-thru lane. The applicant is providing a sloped area with retaining wall, landscaping, and substantial trellises to minimize the presence of the drive-thru lane. The building design has a very boxy appearance with blank stucco walls and river rock accents. The applicant is open to design suggestions but is not willing to vary from the basic building footprint. The site is grossly over- parked with only 43 parking spaces required and 70 spaces are provided. The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to allow substantial reduction of the parking setback along Etiwanda Avenue. The applicant claims that provision of a right tum lane as required by the City squeezes out room for the setback. Typically, a 15-foot parking setback and 25-foot building setback is required along properly lines adjoining residential development. However, the home located to the east of the site has been abandoned for some time and is non-conforming relative to the Community Commercial land use designation for the property. The increased setbacks are therefor not required along the east property line. Background The site was previously occupied by the Pearson Filling Station and Garage, a Historic Landmark. In 1998, the City Council re-designated the station as a Historic Point of Interest thus allowing the building to be conditionally demolished. The building was soon thereafter demolished. One of the conditions placed on the redesignation was that the developer provide a historic plaque ~~ for the Pearson Station on the site with development. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 8 VAR 00-02 - VANTIGER June 6, 2000 Page 2 • In May of 1998, the Planning Commission conducted aPre-Application Review workshop on developing the site with a service station. The Commission had the following primary concerns: The drive-thru lane shall be heavily screened with berms and landscaping. The drive-thru lane shall be so effectively screened that it will not be visible from Foothill Boulevard or Etiwanda Avenue. 2. The site functions as a gateway to Etiwanda. Therefor, the architectural design of the building shall incorporate features from the Etiwanda area as opposed to Foothill Boulevard/Route 66. The building design appears boxy and needs substantial improvement. 4,a~. 3. Potential conflicts between diesel/large truck use and automobile use of the site should be . resolved. (The current design is gasoline/automobile use only). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee,;.. discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Substantially revise the building design to provide a high quality architectural statement and • better incorporate Etiwanda area architectural themes. This may include expanded use of river rock, wood siding, gabled roofs, "barn" type design features and massing, etc. Some examples include the Mobil station at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, and the Arco station located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard in Claremont. Also note-attached excerpts from the Wohl development plans showing creative use of river rock application, massing, and roof styles. Design of the car washbuilding, pump island canopy, and the storage building/trash enclosure should follow suit. 2. Break up the continuous flat parapet line with vertical change in plane and/or file roof elements. Staff is also concerned that the overall parapet height of 15 feet may not be adequate to screen roof-mounted equipment. Restaurants typically have roof equipment that is larger and taller than normal retail buildings, thus necessitating a taller parapet. 3. Project does not comply with 45-foot setback to drive-thru lane per Planning Commission policy. The applicant claims there is insufficient room on-site to accommodate the setback; however, the site is of substantial size and is 27 parking spaces over-parked. While the site may not be large enough to fulfill all ofthe applicant's wishes (such as car wash), the site is large enough to accommodate reasonable development in conformance with the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback. The drive-thru lane is proposed to be screened by a retaining wall/slope and landscaping. Secondan/ Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide substantial tree and shrub planting between the drive-thru lane and the streets. •~ Plants should be layered to create a dense screen for the drive-thru lane. Sycamore trees shall be included along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Slopes in this area shall have softened, meandering appearance. • DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 & VAR 00-02 - VANTIGER June 6, 2000 Page 3 •:. 1. Provide a heavily landscaped, sloped up area along the Etiwanda Avenue frontage to screen parking area and offset the reduced parking setback. 2. Provide substantial planting within the planter along the north property line to provide a buffer for the existing home to the north and offset the sparse landscaping elsewhere on- site. 3. Avoid having parking spaces loaded off of the east-west drive aisle (south of the car wash) as this is shown as the ultimate main east-west drive aisle in the Master.Plan. 4. Provide a sidewalk connection from Foothill Boulevard to building entrance. 5. Provide decorative driveway paving within southern driveway. While this driveway is proposed to be temporary, the exact timing of its eventual removal is unknown because there is no pending development application to the east. It should be designed to the same quality as a permanent driveway. 6. The pedestrian/handicapped pathway along the east'side of the building is only 30 feet wide between column and wall, which does not meet ADA access standards. Relocate•'~-~ southernmost handicap parking space as near as possible to main building entry. 7. The site contains a large oak tree and two Palm trees. These trees shall be preserved on site, either in-place or re-located. The remaining gees, namely Eucalyptus and Pepper trees ~1 may be removed. Their removal will be offset by provision of on-site landscaping. •~ 8. Provide conceptual sign location, size, and materials. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and la brought back for further Committee review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Lany McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project did not recommend approval. The Committer requested that it be revised in light of staffs comments and the following additional comments and brought back for further review: The drive-thru aspect of the project is in conflict with the Activity Center theme for the intersection (reduced building setback, pedestrian-friendly streetscape). The Committee is not willing to accept any reduction in the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback requirement. 2. The project appears to be overbuilt, which is resulting innumerous setback encroachments. The Committee noted that there was nothing unusual about the site such as slope or topography, which would create setback problems. •- 3. The Committee is not willing to support any reduction in the 25-foot building setback from the car wash to the north property line and adjoining single-family home. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 & VAR 00-02 - VANTIGER June 6, 2000 Page 4 ~" 4. _ The Committee indicated that the building footprint is not being questioned, but that the site planning and architectural design needs to be substantially upgraded. The Committee suggested restudying the pump island configuration, the car wash, and backup dimensions to make more efficient use of the site. The applicant showed the Committee drawings of a Mediterranean style building. The Committee indicated this design was previously rejected by the Planning Commission during the Pre-application Review; therefore, would not be supported by the Committee. The Committee directed the applicant to develop an architectural statement consistent with the Etiwanda area. The applicant agreed to substantially modify the building architecture provided the building footprint does not change. The Committee suggested that the applicant visit other projects and work closely with staff. -~ •~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS . 8:10 p.m. Sal Salazar/Duane Morita October 31, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16128 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-38 (SAN CARMELA) - D.R. HORTON - A request to subdivide and develop an approximate 23-acre site into 97 single-family residential lots and two lettered lots for slopes along the project's frontage. The site is located along the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane and east of Day Creek Boulevard and is in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 227-091-14 and -15; and 227-111-12 and -13. Background: On June 21 2000, the City approved a General Plan Amendment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment for the project site, which: (1) amended the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and (2) amended the Victoria Community Plan zoning classification from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). Proposed Tentative Tract Map 16128 and Development Review 00-38 are designed in accordance with the provisions and standards of the project site's General Plan land use designation and Victoria Community Plan zoning classification. Design Parameters: The project site is an abandoned vineyard and gently slopes to the south. Approximately 12 Eucalyptus trees are located along the northern perimeter of the site. The project proposes to remove these existing Eucalyptus trees. The applicant will acquire a Tree Removal Permit, prior to issuance of grading permit. The applicant also proposes to provide a windrow of Eucalyptus trees along the northern perimeter of the project site to replace those existing 12 Eucalyptus trees that will be removed with the project. There are only three • structures located on-site, old artesian well standpipes that were used to irrigate the vineyard. The site is surrounded by existing development. A public storage facility is located to the west; a neighborhood commercial center and apartment complex are located to the east; the historic Regina Winery is located to the south (across Base Line Road); and a vacant railroad corridor and single-family residences are located to the north. Proposed Tentative Tract 16128: The proposed 97 single-family residential lots range in size from 5,527 to 14,429 square feet. The average lot size is 7,144 square feet. The project site will be accessed from two entries along Base Line Road. San Carmela Court, which is the eastern entry, will be provided with full access. A median break with left-turn pocket will be provided along Base Line Road to allow for the full access. No other median breaks are proposed. The second entry will allow right-turn in and out only. San Carmela Court, which is the primary roadway into the subdivision, will cul-de-sac at the northern perimeter of the project site. Proposed Street G extends from San Carmela Court in a perpendicular direction and connects with other internal roadways to provide internal circulation throughout the subdivision. Refer to Exhibit "A" for a reduction of Tentative Tract 16128. Proposed Development Review 00-38: Development Review 00-38 proposes three house plans with three elevation styles. Additionally, alternative window designs affecting shape, actual number of windows, and surrounds are also being proposed for those elevations facing Base Line Road. All homes will be two-story structures; no single-story homes are being proposed. The floor plan for Plan 1 will range from 2,575 to 2,660 square feet in size, and have four bedrooms, loft area, three bathrooms, and athree-car tandem garage. Optional features include a 10'-6" x 14' den or bonus room, and a larger family room (from 15'-4" x 14'-6" to 15'-4" x 21'-6"). The floor plan for Plan 2 will range from 2,962 to 3,194 square feet in size, and have five to six bedrooms, three bathrooms, and atwo-car garage. Optional features include a • 12'-6" x 10' loft, an extra 11' x 10'-8" bedroom, and third garage. The floor plan for Plan 3 will range from 3,192 to 3,614 square feet in size, and have five bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a three-car garage. Optional features include a 13' x 10'-6" bonus room, 11' x 18' loft, 12'-4" x 12' den, and extra 11'-4" x 15' bedroom. Refer to Exhibit "B" for a reduction of proposed design and building plans. DRC COMMENTS TTM 16128 & DR 00-38 - D.R. HORTON • October 31, 2000 Page 2 Depending upon the particular plan, light brown stucco exterior walls, with either brown or gray blend concrete flat file or "S" file will be provided. Accent features include brown or green blend wood trim, wood shutters, and stucco recesses. Gray or brown stone veneer will be provided on certain elevations. Staff finds the building plans to be well designed. The elevations are characterized by strong vertical and horizontal changes. Roofs include varied hip and gable designs which make for interesting elevations. Though three-car garages are being proposed, the garage does not appear to dominate the front elevations of the various plans. Window surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations, not only the front elevations. Furthermore, the Conceptual Site Plan and building elevations comply with the various requirements and development standards of the Victoria Community Plan, relating to setbacks, landscaping, lot size, fences and walls, recreational vehicle storage, etc. Refer to Exhibit "C" for a reduction of the Conceptual Site Plan. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Minor Issues: The following item will be the focus of Committee discussion: 1. Staff finds that the proposed applications comply with the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) development standards of the Victoria Community Plan and will result in development of well-designed single-family residences. However, the project • requires removal of 12 onsite Eucalyptus trees along the northern perimeter of the project site. The project therefore, requires acquisition of a Tree Removal Permit, prior to issuance of grading permit. 2. The project's Landscape Plan indicates that a windrow of trees along the northern perimeter of the project site will be provided to replace those existing Eucalyptus trees that will be removed with the project. Refer to Exhibit "D," which shows the proposed windrow of trees. The specific tree type and size will provided in accordance with City standards, subject to City Planner approval. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Sal Salazar/Duane Morita • ~....., ~ o.,..,n, .~~ ~..~a... ~'~..,. ~- ... A.,~ .,: ,: ;~.~ u:. w<,~ ~ ~~ ~, ,.., . ' ~~.- •s~wa i ~Mm ~aC •t M [eft Y ~ mu[4 ~~ ~~' _~rtio{f ~C (Vlst lM~. Wf VC ~~t .~tT w,~pgy ® M'~1[5 4~V Om[~m[ mti ~ ~6wis '~•K.• ~JV~[l Io rl~Jt V[m 4l YSKS ~ /+i•¢~S~! ~~~~ ••wi ~uaw .. nw, iu.na ~~ ~•O'1M (pig Yf_!Y~ •~ • s]C Sglnla+~RC~r srnw w~rr e'n. [< Lf~OK C(4h R.ltiY.[ Ci Htt ~. r ~~ part ~. ;ouµm aF sar ee.Mrio.o .~, moo 6t 4D~iN. S~N'•. i'H( f1OV®~r0 4E~ c~.a ~t , o0 f _~. ,a~~. a a ~ j ! ! ~ a. ~ 1~IL~lYfiL! ~,~ r ~ i tLfiL n. v nn. ..... .,,s, ~...u nr.m+ ri ~~ .r. u~c. w. ^ .wc.a nwc~ ~~ n ~.t -- 1l e r L _ _ J YsIWl14~O10NS~Y i ;~~ x~ le S5 Ui ~~ .t G- a6 6t A i~3~~1 ~~ HV ~e 9 ~l uw ~- Z.$ F_e ~1 ~~ 141 vie 3a is st f ~ 9 S~S: ~H ~~ ~_ NLL_ i= Zy 'pa 0 ~ ~` b o .6 z° e~ 3~~d iii w °i- A ~ pq ~ at ~ 6 S& i ~? > ~N ..t u ~b V C9R ~O°- F Qua O kc m m s e I :_ >, w ~ w x c a C \ .~ e.q d p j N C A ~ A ~ v yen 6 p .B ~~, c c4 G~J N F' w ~ O ° ° ~ F ~ ~ U ~n m rn u r ~, p A C O t a O O =u IE IS ;z ~r 'e a-,a ea ~a~ , ~ <-~ ~~ _~ ~u a ~ ~' ~ 4~ x_ f=s ~t a~$a!I ^- 1 I! 3<la.t 0 ~ ~ ~V~ V r Z v OF V ~ x a V ~ V ~ O vJ V Q K A g S 1 ;;' ., ~'~ R v~'i ~+ fit{ o ~,~ ~~, ,~~ a a ~: r 'ir oom 5c$ ~` ' c ~8og t v 5 N ~ c~ =i ~< ;.... ~. ~~a `~ i IU t€ OP ~i ~9 'R Q- ~I RI J ~;i <^ ~ I x.~ ~W R ~~ fze 11 ~u ~~ 7¢i 3<liEi g Ci o ~r Q ~ ~ u Z '.C ~ O O j U < _ a v '„ W ~` v o ~ O v z z A 9 I i i ,''?° ~ =1 ~ Y yy p~1 M ~'; ,',~ -.~ ~a ~.~~ A' ~"!+.~rf .. ,~ l: ~,~', ~ N .., o ~~~ ~' GO~o ZaV 5~~8~g2 3~ g; 7i :# =§ t ., 3f ! ;Y~ _s! j L V r =u E ~! ~_ ~,,, <-,,,~ 3a~~ ~~~ ~E _= ~ €i Fop,p ~i ~; !j Ei 3<I! f! O~ U V ~ r^ ~ ~ /1 i a' i C~ ~i' A ~~ ~. +ll~ 3Y`= a:') r., . 5~s ~ °` t. i+ o~~ { 3'~n .' ~~ 4. +~. r- 0 i, z 0 „s _ a:~.~ °ocy"0~ °r'.~~mgGi o~-~ &$~< A ~{ FlW' Y~:•~ r~~p ~, ~ r .ab. .; J_. Sya[' G. ~.. 4 'i.. ~j 1 ' ~ ~[~~~~--~I[~~~~-/pL,/ l "" ®® ` {i :~ lT~ i ~ y' .~~; F ' ry 0 .y V ti W i i N I I _~'P i! Ui ~~ Ee <- ~f ti <^ ~ f ' `' uvi ~ ~ __; ~I Eie if ap g[ 3f 3a le Ei d o ^. ~ ~..ad V Z ~ ~ o V~ U ~ rrir u o V vJ O I Z 1' ~~~9 • I i I • i - ~, ,. - ~ ~ O `5 ~-:. ~ ~. , ~ ~Sa g: -~ C .., I~ - i ~® ~. ~~~ L ~~ ~~ . ® - ' 8 .,w\ ~ ~'wi~ ~' 9 i~f,.• '+a ~ f e~..k~ c 3~~3a '4 :.i• 1 lUV r, ' `ri < r ~ ~^~ : ii'' ~'F -s" ~i GJ ~~ s'S. r d' -,~ _~ •'. t. B® _y i~ ~. k TN l k 1-=~~-=- 1~. ~ ~ ~1 , S~ti ~: vy.'E': o.,h v. M I ~ ~ i 2~ E`- ~{ ,z ~I a-,a Et x ~~~ i-~ ~ ~~ e~ is i Qze ft ~r ~! pi v ~a 3<f~ [t ~~/~ `rJ Q V Z U O V ~ Q g M • I -- - a m c ~- i C1 e ~~q~ j~ ~ zq < U Q i a0 ~ lx=~~ ~ , en0 ..~'.~ y m ~ •~ ~ ch ~ ~> £££ ~ Z a ~ _ 8R ~ ~ I . 0 I ~- o ~B . ~ ~ ~ be c$ u' ~e ~ I I' m. V i m x:/ "_ ~~ii~i~' '- ~~ ~ C/ m U Y . .ilr.1 ~-_~ ~~3~~r-- Z7 iii, iir.on--Z i~ I ~ a yb ~ ~, i 1 v^ , , 11 , N i ~ c r , a Z ~4 }~ ~ a b ' i ~ i y m O t ~-~T~ 5 ~ u~ ~ N .Q v U N ~ ( ~ ~ ., ~ . yy W A q u Go U a z .-P,~ ry ;~~~ O V ~ °' en ~ d o ap y, ~ o O 84 E ~ v ~m ~~ m- I p ~ aE~d m r sn (7 p, V ~ ~O ~ G ~' ~ O a o:~ ~ O O _ - CO -- - ~ N ~ ~ o~$ Dx ~a m o ~ Q g~ ~ ~ 55 y m W ~ O x W m , p x ~ ____ 3 ~u C & a r ~ 8 N~ p W '~ I Fb ~~ ~ O'i ^ ~ ~ m4 {Yi 0. ., m W t ~ ,~I OC d ... ~4_ y ~B ~ ~ ;° I`!` ~= js =e Q- pe ae i C. ~==~~I ~W. d __: s{ f~e 1t Qu ~E Ifi 3Q Is Ei O ^+ V z V ~ x ~ ~ o V Z a z A 1 69 LJ i • l r~ "'u~, 3~ r l . I .~ .. q rr / c III dr ~ ~ ~ ~0 i v 5.~tb ~ e~~cm ~'" i g.., ~ ~ , ~ ~, to .~ r . 'r+ ~ ~ O s ~'4. a .9Z, oVoo>~~? WW °coc~~ 4~.'ti*K'i+~ 3t~3w3MF y~'b. r1 -'.Ti .. a J• • J• J~a / ~~~ r i a ~ /~ `4t' ___ { ;. ___ III_I IJI !I Y f' '~ ll i~ ~l~` :~~~ ;...~ `_' 3: a ¢: Y z' +. [- ' ~~~ I~ ~L 'u E' p! ~~z'i Ot a-,v v Isl ~ _~~ ~~ ~~ NV t~ wf i^~ i fre 11 ~~ ~t 4i 3a li €i Q z U ~ o a ,~ V ~ O vJ V 6 K A i C i • I I O ~ ~ ~ U U *. 2 W ° f s~F o F_ ybyg Y ~~~`o S~~gG3„F 3~ ~V 8; .Y ~I :a _§ s5~ 52 ajF ;Z. i:r k ^0 +V V W N z~tt a Ui ~~ ~t <-al t z taa NU t~ Q.~ ~fit =r t ~t~ it ~~ ~! gl 3< li Ei O O V ~ ~ O V O g6 ~ A I i i i i • .;. ~: .. :: ,~::r. ,. ,~ ~` .~ ~ ,., ,~<~ ` F x ~ ~ Z ~ a.? 6 O :"i ~•t •l.• w w ~ -* ~ v .l ~; iv ~~~'''777 XC ~ far i t~l 9 D +S' 0 4, ~ ~ ~ sf ~ ! ,..fir s e pp i ~,~: ;~:AA,:rr,:: ~ '+~a,g ~s ~,~~, ,~s > ~~.; - ~ ~c°C-~~`t~~'- 33m3GF6 _`,~, ? A f~~ ~~ ' ~/ ~. ? 3±i 3n :t k ® ' ~ ~e j t^+L: t ® ... F ' t~"~® ~ f }~ +v~• ,p' ~~~''~'~' P4 roc ~i~l ~f w f ri.µ.: ~ ~'K: ~. r • ~~ N N i xu Ee 9t Ui ~~ ~! Q- ~7 ~f <- ~ f ~U~ ?~ ? €? wW? S~~ ~z6 ' iU ~~ ~~ ?iQ ~1€~ Q? O O~ v z V gOg V F O 6 a ~.? U O can ° V Q OC ~ g 4 9E C J M i N i ~u ES S? =~a=e Q- aE Q! T 1}°1 Q~~ it Hui a is ~ ~! Qxe 1 =a 148 7 ~1 3<11.a i i r. .~ t F@ Z ri vpyp py ~'-- up xpM 3~o~op~ `p~Vy E$~Y U N O .~ j ti W O d Q V z Q+ Z ~ V ~ a a ~` u ~ d 9 S 4§ ii ~i i ~ ~~ ~ _________ ~_ __ i iii ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ s' ° ~ r $ o,,_ ~„iai z' ~ a x, o =_ _-i-y-':i== W ~~ _--___ ~ aR .- ~, . ',- ~_ __ ~ I ~~ use r-__~, S ~---- I z$n- -- -C~:i_~I ._ ._ ... .¢.=o _ ~ o z ~ c A N ~ ~ Ch ~ ~ ~C ~ \ O: li °' C 99 ~ '~ W 7 t~ ~ o~C. ~ ~ M ~ ~ y v rte, - _- c~;Ao ~ a C) v .o z ;O '.° °o .~ E ~I ~ 1 F O ~ m v a (..~ ~y d _______ _ ~ Z () iL ^I N m ~Ki O a0 ~~ m 5 ~ O O ~ ~ i3 2 - z. ~ a p m m w° O z~ ~ 0 Z c a O _ °m 0 ~ t O ._ .,.. ~ e 3= ~ fy B E ------- 8~` 8 o• z puy,a ~ o~n < 0 ~~ I Fa m$ ~ - m 0 m^ ~^ =" ~___ I I 18 _ __ ~ ~ a III 1- u ' f 5~ r ~ ~: 0 p(. 3 ~ ~ i5 ~§ ~~ w ___ ___________ ' t CD ' 3 W ~ ® ~m ... 0 5j ~~ W W ;t~ 0. .7 ..1 ~ , M , y= j S! a-,i~l . ~, Q- I ~\ fu i _W ` s~ _- s fie i ~u ~? qi a 9 1 3<te€1 QI O ~~ d V Z U O U o Q V 0 O `~J V 8 9 4 94 • i ~y5,1` S ti ~M1 . ~` `L ~t. riY~~~ '' iS"C , O ~''"- Z a~1'{ \ Q J~ M A~ t~~ 1- :~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ a i~ i ~ ~ / ////k ~' - ~» / I I i~ S ~~~ wy.eA' /~ I 'I~I .<. i ~ nl pEY D Y >~. _:,, ~. . <k.. '. o x~, ~''~~k ~'. ^O <~ZCO~ 4. ~4w r 3N3~F ~Y,' ic,J• ~ e- ;. ,~ t; ~~, ,//~ N S ~~.~ ti ~, ;. •' a W ~. :~ i /i~% ~y + ~ ~~ ~ I C~~, .~~ h ~~ ice. -- ,~~,,,,,, il: '. ,'~i"~, aL ; ~' a •4,,~-'~+, k. ` o-.1 d 7 k4 ~. i M I I ~u EE i? ~~ ~I'! Q- ~(~! ~ ~~ ~ <=~ tl wwi ~ °"{ x_~ Eie it jo gl pi 3<liEi Y O u z V ~ x QU7 a U ~ C/~ ~ a 5 i • • i I i I i i ~ ~' xy~-{yy 111 1 i`r.' M ..y3i:. .; ~ . ', ~ ~•+ Z :~ e'ii~ ~ 11 ,, .. { r~l, s. O L4 ~ W ~ ~. ~ r ~ ~ yam,. ~~ -. ~ ~ • ~ s= ~.~, oomo5o'po ' ~ ^ 3 .LZ•~, goz ~ 5~i3G~~i ' V J. lf'~.~ •~ ~ p.~. V~ Q ~:" Y `4 ~ Ci 'J 1~ ` ri ~: ~ ~ ~; ~'~ ~ •i [v F X• • 1 ~4 ~ ® .s:,~,p r. w~ ~j .i. h aF"' . ~~R°4. ~ Y ~~• .i. d k4. • r M 'v ~S 14 ,z 1 `I i ,i 4 ' Er ~~ ~ ,{ wW, ~ _-~ f=, ~~ <~ , i 3<u!~ Z Q N V < ~ ~r /~~~ cgp~f O rJ Z 6 K S r ~ i I i I I i ~ Rt _ '»1.' anti a :r C I ?"> "~~ O ~, ~ _ ._ GG .%i~/~~//il'/, .~ f~~/ //// yam. ~--~-~U ® r -4. n ~ i ® c ~ Y :~ ~, . •4, 3•'..'lY,f, 111 ~; ~ ~ 4. 3 ~ L~ r~~ ~~ ty~~ 9 .~voo>oc~i 'S ;~ ~ i~c c~oowc . bs~~ p oopoc~~ *': ~.*~ ~•L G3'im33'"O y~~~4,~ /yam . ~~1 1 ~ f Gov„ -' ~'~ ~ ~. [~Ic .1~~~ Y "b 'fi'r h. , ^~ d ^~ ±~ .? ?' ~~ ~ ~:€; 0~ •~; "~"` K ® k. 99{r'' 9 ,~ ~~ i P. ,- i ~;?~ ~~ i" y '• ^-, ",~~.. ~: a~ T ^°4..ti..M •~• .~~~ W i „ 4~. •~~°.^r. ~ cV I ~ M I su EE iE =p'e a- ae ~~ x ~a~ f~ H~ +~ wWF ~ <^~ ~I =~f Fis i ~~ ~! pi =ri 3a U €~ `~ ~ W U Z U O V ~ 2 V a0 rr ^~^ vJ a A 1 • i • i ~ M ~~ M xu EE ~6 Ui ~i ,e a-,e °° ° a, fu i a_~ ~gf N _~F Fi ], #~ ~p ~! Ei 3a Ee €i s V Z G pQ U ~ O V ~ V ~ O `~J V Z a OC A 1 OOAWC~'iUAL SITE PLAN ~ • ~i'fAT1VE TRACT 16128 LOT 1 IMCf 110 S.BG N TE CT OF waoo QICAYONQ~ c«.nT OF 9.N ®Nwao. , SfAiE aF CNFOIlR 64 ~gl /UT IECOIO®N 8001( D10F IMP$ - - wrECS)arona11aE1E000eOFfl~DCOU/fT •`.. •.~ .. ~ac~vc era®ro sale®t loco a ~ .nom .- s a ~: ~ 1 " _ n r ~~ .~ ~~~ ai % e i w> ....~- i 1.= e~ ~ ~ ~1 a' .. e ~. t~ c i I a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ___ \\___ _4__ ~ ~ I 1®IJJ a ; 1 >~._ F- 1, Et * aSn~S• >E/RSE~~ _ ': ~~E s j ~ '] n~ A Sc.[[ has. 9L .. LW~ 5!' ~ i : ~ I 1 i e n - .• . T 1 >~os _____ __ u _ _ ~ _ __ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ __ n~/~ ~o ~., .. • e t ~ I I 4. . _ _ _ 1'1 ___ -> - _ __-e ~.~_~_ __ ___ ~___ ~- _ _________ _ ~t _ __ _ _ ~e.n..~a _4~:.~ ~ ~s rrrm -~L~ -j i° __ e_n.e_<n~. t ter..........,.... ~~ ------ ---- I ~. ~ T~r w I ~I ~ ~--~.°~ I e `~ ~ ~; -~ ~ _ r i^ • ~ Mf ~, - I i ~ C G ...a_, _..rs~..~.~,rs. ,.,,_ ...~. ~ 71°~~ Gt~ 1Rpw ~ w _ ., ~j ~L ~ liu mrvu~~mure , __ - _ _ ~ _ rs s M ra nr ru r minor ro ~ curs ,arx n,o ru. uxraru .. w u-aa \~ /E a wrr.umwmrnwuw r r ve le n a ~ ' ' ) a x I vL n u 1 +S ce.,` 1 : 'r ' ' x Jo ~, / ~ :.a. °.r - - - -. i x r ) ; /, x x s , ) 1. / ~ a~ - - FI , - - / ! J. x ~ ,b I~ v J x ,h 1 - ~ ~ '~ e• i. Jx 1 ~ ~ /// -I x Ir x R" - - A ~! ~ .J ~ ~ ~ aJ 5 ° x - PUBL/GNA/hTA/NED AREAS: jj _ -- / ~o li ~. 1 "oEfu a '~~'»T"ri '„"""-@ ~ - _ ..:.~.., ~..,..~a...,rs.... i fi' JSx x ) J A E ...~°MY~xV.wrs.rs '""°T..'~;~ 'ncnm.' ~~ s : 1 ~ : eJ : `I /. ,. ,.. inr, u~ua tq i,i4.o nrs. I f[/VATELYNAIh J5 r0 x I~ A'ED J' JE I ~ RE1R.51[MES@ 4AF"WA)'. _ _ __ 1 I ~ ~! ~ J d , ~ x.na ~! I Q .r fhhY ES yT( !1F ES ~ J _ sirrmcw ~~ i R~ 551 ul$E06 Ne,- uJVU.v..a..r. n.nu orman......u,a.,a. x I I ~~ / - _~ ~ p x - r 1 _ it 55 ' / ' I --PF.R/AI£TER R'`/LL N:ILLCFICL4G PUFLH'r• ] I n - I /GN \/lfl! B! NI\ R {T //Hi// SPL?EACED~ ~ I i 1 G¢ VIVHRI II'1LL\ TA\ (LR b£/Lt ('t)L(xF ] I J __ 3 5; I {y 6 jl ~ 1 I)P/ AL.C fd ARffAR I 1 " a/ t I I J IIl~]PF 1\I, IGI}mil l1 I i / 1 )I x I I 1 x ' ~`~ ~~ I ~T fi >B ~ ~ x J9 ] ~ ~ ._~ ! ~I I ] ~?_wu ~ I _ I I! , ~ ~ ~ I I' ' - ~_ _,.. ~ =i - i 1 ~ _. ~~ ! ~ ~~ e - t ~ ~ x .d x ~ !G. ° ~ ° 1 1' I i I ~ l -.~~~;r,~-,~ - ~~-.- - nPAL /seA/-.nRfer~x~v A r. ~ ~, .., , ~ , ~ I I ' _ _ 'ILRh'YI 'Nf ,, 1 __ ~ s I., ~, ~~ Y -J~pY..., IY V«~ ! ~ !~ ~ ,~ ~- r -~ ~~ -r*"'~~~axz x ) x ' A ' 1~7Gd'0 blE~/NI l__ e. 1 - rcru IAu 4 /OC V/ L' n x !I NIf fLFf h]),h4 bJ 6r ES E`' oll S/('GL //656 / H.,SpL Fi '~ ]R) j a+v EhTtl/Lx 1L/ -hAR /D W'A -h nawm AY+R~' IO II'A/.L' ~~L> - P1L'AL.ILt t,tT TFE1S~,~ .~~.., ~... R ~ I .:: ,.. ., : AA' ~~F .+e~. i.. T}'P/CAL EDGE C I h'D/T/OA' O.M1'B,tSEN, \ ~ ~~q}~{/•}-(/~J -~f-~}. -.-'p~}~^~~ _ A/G\pLR/VL4L~'~ELA /\hi)RNfI LMILINWI)h IH{LT ~ F~ -`~"`+~ v~-H~-~W ' TEE~GH OEYd(AQN!)LLHfj{G£KE.T4R//L\'l)(!11'I.FLRIS\F.fZh~_ ' ~.nv ~~ 5'l,}'LfX1AY,IV'1xRL/TTRZLf ~~ _~~- ` . r l~l\ ^.. _ _ _ r ~vrv ~S\ ~1~~- ~. ~ \" I LANDSCAPE PLAN ~` • ~;`°°~- ~ ~= --- - -~ - ---- - - _ _ _ _ ,l .. ; 1 •^!~ rY ~ UN~561PE f I -- ----- --- - - --~ - -- -~ _ /f~"~,°, - D.R. NORTON ~ - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES • TUESDAY OCTOBER 17, 2000 7:00 P.M` RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. 7:00 p.m. (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-53 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. - A request to construct single family residences on 11 in-fill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue -APN: 209-101-18, 209-101-24, 209-103-06, 209-104-06, 209-104-34, 209-104-35, 209-112-17, and 209-121-22. • Related files: Development Review 95-03 and 97-35. 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. 7:10 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-56 - SACRED HEART CHURCH -The expansion of the existing Sacred Heart Church with Phase one consisting of a new 20,000 square foot sanctuary building and Phase two consisting of an additional 2,200 square feet of sanctuary space and 5,400 square feet of additional classroom space on 11 acres of land in the Regional Related Commercial district of Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located at 12704 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-02, 24, 25 and 227-221-01 and 02. 7:30 p.m. (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-61 -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-A requestto construct a 49 unit, three story, 39,533 square foot senior housing facility on 1.31 acres in the High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Salina Street, and Malvern Avenue -APN: 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B, Development District Amendment 00-03 and • Development Agreement 00-02. L~ DRC AGENDA October 17, 2000 Page 2 7:50 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-60 - NORTHTOW N HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. -A request to construct 96 senior apartments on 3.2 acres of land in the Mixed Use District, with a Senior Housing Overlay District, located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, between La Grande Street and Lomita Drive -APN: 202-151-12. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-01 A, Development Code Amendment 00-01, Development District Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. 8:10 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-04 - AMS CONTRACTORS - A request to construct a 10,800 square foot industrial office and warehouse building contractors building with yard area on 2.3 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located along west side of Hyssop Drive, approximately 300 feet north of 6th Street -APN: 229- 271-31, 32 and 37. 8:30 p.m (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-31- LEGENDSBURGERS -The development of a 3,671 square foot fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, on 1.25-acre of land in Office Professional District, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Carnelian Street -APN: 207-031-29. 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 C 1 J CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • • 7:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon October 17, 2000 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. - A request to construct single family residences on 11 in-fill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-101-18, 209-101-24, 209-103-06, 209-104-06, 209-104-34, 209-104-35, 209-112-17, and 209-121-22. Related files: Development Review 95-03 and 97-35. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed and approved. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-56-SACRED HEART CHURCH -The expansion of the existing Sacred Heart Church with Phase one consisting of a new 20,000 square foot sanctuary building and Phase two consisting of an additional 2,200 square feet of sanctuary space and 5,400 square feet of additional classroom space on 11 acres of land in the Regional Related Commercial district of Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located at 12704 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02, 24, 25 and 227-221-01 and 02. Design Parameters: The site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard across from the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. The main entrance to the site is the shared signalized entry for the shopping center (Marketplace Way). The Sacred Heart Church has occupied the site since 1958. The facilities are arranged in a campus like fashion and include the main sanctuary building, a multi-purpose building, an administration building, classrooms and playgrounds, and three residences. These buildings will remain. The site also contains a small teen center and garage building both of which will be demolished. While old, neither building has historic status. The existing buildings have an eclectic mix of materials including stucco, precision block, metal roofing, mission-style file roofing, and asphalt composition shingle roofing. Tree Removal: The site contains a number of mature trees including a remnant Eucalyptus windrow along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Most of the trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed improvements with the exception of the majority of trees surrounding the existing sanctuary building, which will remain. Variance: The new sanctuary is proposed with a building height of 50 feet and a 59-foot curving parapet. The maximum building height permitted by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is 35 feet high with 45-foot high towers. The increased building and tower height will require the filing of a Variance application. The increase in height is necessary to accommodate the architectural design preferences of the church for the sanctuary building. The parapet element is 60 feet wide, which staff believes goes well beyond the Code intent to be flexible for "towers, campaniles and rotundas." There is nothing unusual about the shape or size of the property and no apparent hardship to justify issuance of the Variance. The applicant will also needs a Variance to allow a 6-foot high wall with a 33-foot setback where a 45-foot building setback along Foothill Boulevard is required. This is necessary to accommodate an existing home on the site, which will be preserved. Variance application has not been submitted yet. Sound Wall: The site is subject to excessive noise from the I-15 Freeway. A noise study was conducted which recommends a 240 foot long, 12-foot high sound wall along the northbound on- rampfor I-15 Freeway. The off ramp is elevated above the site and the applicant is proposing that the sound wall be located at the top of slope along the off-ramp to maximize sound attenuation. Past experience has shown that Caltrans will not allow sound walls to be built within their right-of- waywhenother reasonable alternatives are available (i.e., building wall on church property line). If the wall were to be built on the church property, it would have to be as high as 38 feet to effectively attenuate noise. A 12-foot high wall along the off-ramp would obviously be aesthetically preferable to a 38-foot high wall on-site. The applicant has had preliminary meetings with Caltrans and claims that Caltrans is willing to accept the wall along the shoulder; however, two other developer requests have been denied by Caltrans in the last 12 months. • DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-56 -SACRED HEART CHURCH • October 17, 2000 Page 2 Planning Commission W orkshop: The project was reviewed at a Planning Commission workshop in January of 1999 (see attached minutes). The Commission had the following comments/concerns: The Master Plan should show points of ingress and egress for properties to the east and west and allow reciprocal access. The Master Plan has a point of connection to the property to the west. The applicant believes that the property to the east has sufficient access from Foothill Boulevard so it is unnecessary for the church to provide access. Properties to the east have right-in and right-out access only because of median island. If these commercially zoned properties to the east were to access through the church property there could be vehicle and pedestrian conflicts; therefore, staff recommends against reciprocal access. 2. Ensure that there is adequate parking on-site to accommodate the expanded sanctuary. Adequate on-site parking is provided. However, about half of the parking spaces are located more than 300 feet away from the sanctuary building. The church proposes to have church visitors drop off family at the main entry and then park. Also, there is apergola-covered walkway proposed to connect the northern parking area to the sanctuary building. The parking areas are scattered because they will serve the sanctuary as well as the existing school and church administration at different times. 3. Gated intersections will need to be moved. The gate at the main entry allows for tum around movement in front of the gate. • 4. Establish campus architecture for the site. The proposed sanctuary uses stucco and mission style roofing consistent with the other buildings on-site. Also, a long colonnade is proposed along the north side of the church similar to that on the existing multi-purpose building and church administration building. 5. Where there are heritage trees, preserve where possible. Many of the trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the project. The trees around the north, south, and west sides of the existing sanctuary will be preserved and some of the larger trees in the southeast corner of the site are intended to be relocated on-site. Planning Commission approval of a Tree Removal Permit is necessary to remove or relocate mature trees. 6. Consider an alternative to standing seam metal roofing. The current design has concrete mission-style roof material. 7. Provide the City with a Phasing Plan. Phase one will include the main sanctuary building and Phase two will include a small addition to the sanctuary and some additional classroom space. 8. Air quality is a concern. Consider reforestation in playground areas to provide a buffer for children along Foothill Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway. The playground areas have been relocated away from the 1-15 Freeway frontage. There are two rows of trees along the west edge of the main play area to provide a buffer from the freeway. The overall plan includes preservation/relocation of 78 existing trees plus planting of 446 new trees. Sound • attenuation wall may also assist in improving air quality. 9. Staff and the Design Review Committee will work with the applicant on architecture. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-56 -SACRED HEART CHURCH • October 17, 2000 Page 3 10. Provide adequate screening to the parking lot with landscaping and berming. The Foothill Boulevard frontage is proposed to have densely landscape berms (double row of trees with 15 to 20-foot spacing) with low masonry walls. 11. Renovate the Bell Tower to be compatible with the sanctuary that is proposed. The application proposes to stucco the existing sanctuary building to match the new sanctuary. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following items will be the focus of Committee discussion: Although the building design is attractive, it does not meet height limitations of Code. Variances can only be granted where there is something unusual, such as topography that warrants design flexibility. The Committee should discuss whether or not the excessive building height could be justified. The earlier design shown at the Commission Workshop had a lower overall height but was still in excess of code requirements. Elimination of the large parapet-like wall on the south elevation would reduce the building height by 9 feet. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. Columns for the pergola connecting the northern parking lotto the sanctuary should match those of the sanctuary. 2. Parking lot landscape islands should have the typical oval shape rather than a sharp, crescent shape. The sharply pointed planters leave less room for plants to grow and can result in irrigation over spray onto the parking area. 3. Provide mostly Sycamore trees along the Foothill Boulevard frontage with some African Sumac trees mixed in consistent with Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan"` Sycamores and African Sumacs are Foothill Boulevard theme trees that Caltrans has typically not allowed within the Foothill Boulevard right of way so they must be shifted on-site. Augment the berm/low wall/trees along the Foothill Boulevard frontage with shrub planting to further screen views of the parking area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All roof and ground mounted equipment and utilities shall be fully screened. Surround trash enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting. 3. Trash enclosure should feature overhead shade trellis and roll-up door. • 4. Avoid having a double fence condition along the project perimeter. Church should make a good faith effort to work with adjoining property owners to remove existing chain link fence and replace with single fence. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-56 -SACRED HEART CHURCH • October 17, 2000 Page 4 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staff's comments and provided the following additional direction: The excessive building height is an issue. Restudy the building to lower it as much as possible while still meeting the functional necessities of the church. 2. Have the noise consultant analyze the possibility of providing noise mitigation directly along the playground edge. This could be in the form of a combined berm with sound wall on top. The east side of the berm could act as informal stadium seating for the playground. • • • • ~~` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjoumed Meeting January 13, 1999 Chairman McNiel called the Adjoumed Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 10:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Betty. Miller, Associate Civil Engineer, Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner, Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ... . • NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-12 -SACRED HEART CHURCH -The proposed demolition of an existing church sanctuary and two additional buildings and the construction of a new sanctuary along with the development of a Master Plan for the 10.6 acre site located in the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 227-211- 24 and 25 and 227-221-01 and 02. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process. The project architect Ted Woods and Father Porter introduced the project and gave a brief history on why they are choosing to stay on Foothill Boulevard and not pursue the Etiwanda site. Mr. Woods described the various design solutions to the church campus and architecture of the new church building. Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner, reviewed staffs comments, noting staffs support for the use remaining on site and the proposed expansion. She highlighted issues of street access and circulation, architecture, master planning for adjacent properties, and tree preservation. Chairman McNiel stated the architecture is eclectic, but that it is unique and he likes it. He expressed concerns about the sheet metal roof and indicated they should considers different type of roof material, more resistant to wind. • Commissioner Mannerino liked the idea of a campus setting for the site. He noted the side view looks different from the front view. He liked the building. He indicated he would like to see the church stay at its present location and expand. Commissioner Stewart thought there are too many design styles happening on the main church building. She liked the Foothill Boulevard facade shown because it looks "Mission' style. She • preferred more of the Mission style architecture with more compatible colors. She felt the east elevation is too high. She encouraged the church to master plan for the lot to the west. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concerns regarding having children attend school on a street as busy as Foothill Boulevard for environmental reasons, but he supported the use. He advised the applicant to work with the neighbor to come up with a good plan for the west parcel. He did not feel that a gas station would be a good use for the vacant lot west of the church site. He thought the building should have some coherence in architecture to look coordinated rather than eclectic. He liked the front of the church, but felt the east elevation has too much roof and the side elevations took industrial. He requested landscaping along Foothill Boulevard to hide cars in the parking lot with a combination of banning, low walls, and landscaping. He did not think the sheet metal roof lends itself to a church. He suggested they soften the industrial look on the east side. He commented that the existing church building has a nice flavor. • Commissioner Macias felt the church expansion is a great thing for the community. He asked that the applicant address the traffic and circulation comments outlined by staff. He thought it is interesting architecture, but he preferred Mission architecture in the historic winery tradition. He questioned if the existing bell tower is compatible with what is being proposed. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding enhanced landscaping and berming to hide cars parked in the parking lot. Father Porter stated the buildings along Foothill Boulevard are brick and cannot be moved. He said the renovated buildings will be stuccoed to match the sanctuary architecture with compatible colors to create a cohesive Catholic flavor and the tower will be renovated to match new building with stucco to match. Mr. Buller summarized the meeting, noting that the following items are to be addressed when the church submits a development application: 1) Master Plan to show point of ingress and egress for properties to the east and west and allow reciprocal access. 2) Ensure that there is adequate parking on-site to accommodate the expanded sanctuary. 3) Gated intersections will need to be moved. 4) Establish a campus architecture for the site. 5) Where there are heritage trees, preserve where possible. 6) Concern expressed for the standing seam metal roof proposed. Consider an alternative roof material. 7) Provide the City with a phasing plan 8) Air Quality is a Concem. Consider reforestation in playground areas to provide a buffer for children along Foothill Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway. 9) Architecture -Staff and the Design Review Committee will work with the applicant on it. 10) Provide adequate screening to the parking lot with landscaping and berming. 11) Renovate the Bell Tower to be compatible with the sanctuary that is proposed. .... PC Adjourned Minutes -2- January 13, 1999 r ~ L J • o u < C V U F = c u n u ~ ~ ~ - < < i ~.. i ^ N EO ~ n 3 - s '" O < r ~ r O es ` ff 3 :i o u i e0< r2 U°~ yTio Syt of Vey F t Z < Vyr <O r y GSG F. O r; <<r~UO OrrZ ~ F O OS F ° .z~MZ zr<s O r ~!O V O ~~~ qW ~ 0w< OU ~U ~r03 ~ WZ V Z ~~Vf<rC~0000Zr a ^ ^ W ZLL ¢ W r C_ 2~~Oy~rUrUO~..-~rrZ U ~OO~~~arO~FOr<O« O r ryyr<.~<uC.,..G.,u.y3F Y Y ¢ ZW ~ -nn~~anr ~..~~~~~~~rw W ~¢ 2~ Z ~ O O mm nn u LL ~_ ;f wi J 7 ¢O U K 1 ~+ ra ~> x J Z 6 O 1, 6 T YQ ( 1 ~ N S r_ u3r~ ~•~~ ~e-~- -~R.o~1 ~.1~t ~a~ q L,I~.I~~p W Q U za o" ~~ o: >a w> J W W ~ 0 ~ m ~ Z. H' 0 LL- L--- BJ ~oj ~~g-~ 7 e.E: = J v ~1 Y I a lu V g` Y g ~l V w>~ Y u f~ u v O ~ /~~ "' V ~ ~ ~ nil n A m \~ l~ A Z O Q W F=- 0 z o ~ O U ~ V V < w f O O ~ < V _ r < ~ V ~ i k ~« S ~ Oz 3 O S - z w ZO « ~ «O a r 'Y ~ O ~~ `o. o i ~ a zOU Oi Y-< x•<° c- i ups <e 'Y oio i L~ f Oi.~w.3 Y« Y.U. O~za ` O iV ~w"aY2 l ~ O r Z-s it «i_G« < YYC~V «nYt~ rdy~VOwi'V O ii<«a)iYa02 <Or0~2w<_ p S~~Oy+rY~U0a0 ~z72C IY~ n <00.'.a~uaO~ZO:.~Oi.<.O .Y. :uus<a«<uwwrawnuwu3Z W Y Cm~n 1~~1 Q Z V U O ° F- W O~ W n y W 3 Q - m n ~' ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ C ~~~ ~~V/ ~ Q a ~ `~ 4 C ~ ~ ~ ~ a_~m a z'~Sa u .i~o _ :cm J_== Y 4 .Q LL DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Kirt Coury October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-61 -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to construct a 49 unit, three story, 39,533 square foot senior housing facility on 1.31 acres in the High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Salina Street, and Malvern Avenue - APN: 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-026, Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development Agreement 00-02. Design Parameters: The site is generally flat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is currently vacant with native trees and grasses present. Two Eucalyptus trees exist along the east property line and are designated to remain in-place. To the north of the site includes the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center and a parking area used by the City for senior parking. To the east of the site is an existing single-family subdivision. South of the site is the Cucamonga Elementary School. A parking area for the Upland Assistance League exists to the northwest. The project will include athree-story, 39,533 square foot apartment building consisting of a lobby, corridors, multi-purpose room and office. A manager's apartment will be located on the second floor and the building will be served by an elevator and three stairways. Site amenities involve outdoor seating benches and game tables, a barbeque grill, a community garden and rose garden, as well as a patio area and an outdoor fountain. The building will include a pilaster finish, re-shaven rafter tails, beams, and outriggers, a stone veneer "field ledge", white window frames and a concrete the roof. • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Replace stucco columns with wood at front lobby entrance of north elevation. Staff feels wood columns will provide more visibility for lobby. 2. Staff would suggest using atwo-tone color scheme, with darker color on base of building, to reduce height of building. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The applicant provided an exhibit that displayed a varying use of colors that was satisfactory to the • Committee. The exhibit revealed a darker color along the base of the building, with lighter colors above. The applicant also identified that the use of wood columns would not visually blend with the proposed architecture and the roof structure in front of the lobby area. The Committee was satisfied with the applicant's proposal and recommended approval of the project without modifications. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:50 p.m. Doug Fenn October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-60 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to construct 96 senior apartments on 3.2 acres of land in the Mixed Use District, with a Senior Housing Overlay District, located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, between La Grande Street and Lomita Drive -APN: 202-151-12. Related files; General Plan Amendment 00-01 A, Development Code Amendment 00-01, Development District Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. Design Parameters: The vacant site is in the heart of the historic downtown Alta Loma and was the site of the Alta Loma Citrus Heights Packing House. The site is mostly level, slopping gently to the south, and it has several trees in the northeast and southeast corners of the site. The site has been cleared under a previous demolition permit. The Alta Loma Elementary School is north of the project site. To the south and east are small commercial shops, Pacific Electric Railroad corridor, open storm drain channel, water tanks, and a multiple family residential complex. To the west are small commercial shops and asingle-family residential neighborhood. The proposed density is 30 units per acre. The gated project consists of three building pods, each surrounding a courtyard. The freestanding recreation center building will have a manager's apartment on the second floor. The apartment units vary from 599 to 820 square feet. Most of the apartment units are one-bedroom (86 units) and only 9 of the units are two-bedroom. The mangers unit is atwo-bedroom unit. All of the apartment buildings have elevator service. The units will have washer and dryer, kitchen, living and/or dining area bathroom, storage areas, and private patio areas. • The courtyard areas feature enhanced pavement, benches, and trees. A community rose and vegetable garden is planned for the northeast corner of the site, including a pedestrian seating patio with a shaded pergola. Behind the recreation building is a patio area with barbeque. The site is surrounded with a perimeter block wall with pilasters along the north and southeast property line, and a tubular steel fence with pilasters along Amethyst. The fence along the south property line adjacent to the future "Pacific Electric Trail" is interrupted with a tubular wrought iron fence where there are landscape pedestrian activity areas. The main access to the site is provided by a centralized median island with enhanced paving, which to leads to a narrower four way internal vehicular access (which also has accent paving). To the south of the property is a turf block emergency vehicular access way that connects to an existing public alley out to Amethyst Avenue. The neighborhood includes a range of architectural styles and older homes. The proposed Craftsman architectural theme is compatible with the area. The buildings incorporate three different building materials such as: stucco finish, siding, and stone finish. The buildings are well articulated with vertical and horizontal changes and recesses to the building planes. 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: 1. SITE PLAN: a) orient 8 parking spaces from the northeast corner of the project to east of the Recreation Building, and replace with landscaping. This would strengthen and enhance patio and pergola landscape area. b) Replace turf block with other material acceptable to • Fire District, such as accent paving. 2. ARCHITECTURE: a) Increase amount of horizontal siding, or introduce new areas of fish scale siding. Staff believes that the majority of the building wall should be sided. b) Replace the stone veneer with real river rock. River rock is characteristic Craftsman style buildings in the. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-60-NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV. CORP. • October 17, 2000 Page 2 3. RECREATION BUILDING: Provide elevations for Committee consent calendar review. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The existing Development Agreement must be modified to reflect the reduction of the average landscape setback along Amethyst Avenue from 45 feet to 21 feet. Otherwise a Variance application is required. Staff believes the proposed setback is appropriate in relation to other historic buildings on adjoining properties on both sides of Amethyst. 2. Provide gated pedestrian access from the Recreation Building patio to the future Pacific Electric Trail. 3. Introduce citrus trees into landscape to reflect the history of the former "Alta Loma Citrus Heights Packing House. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval subject to the above modifications. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman • Staff Planner: Douglas Fenn The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to staff's comments and subject to more "siding" being added to the buildings. Additionally, the Committee agreed that river rock did not have to be used and that the proposed stone veneer was adequate. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS . 8:10 p.m. Douglas Fenn October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-04-AMS CONTRACTORS - A request to construct a 10,800 square foot industrial office and warehouse building contractors building with yard area on 2.3 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located along west side of Hyssop Drive, approximately 300 feet north of 6th Street-APN: 229-271-31, 32 and 37. Design Parameters: The site has frontage along the I-15 Freeway. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there other significant vegetation on the site. The site is currently cultivated as a vineyard and indigenous vegetation. The site slopes from north to south at approximately less than 2 percent. The site is surrounded by vacant land to the north and across Hyssop Drive to the east. To the south is an existing metal industrial building. The proposed building is designed for a single story office and warehouse contractors building (tenant is A.M.S. Paving Contractors). The building design is oriented to front Hyssop Drive with a yard storage area to also front Hyssop Drive. The building will have office area (4,802 square feet) and with corresponding warehouse (8,000 square feet). The yard area portion of the project will be used to store such equipment as: pick-up trucks, dump trucks, several tanker trucks, and trailers (see attached Exhibit "A" picture of typical equipment to be stored). The yard is surrounded by an 8- foothigh split face block wall with 24 inch square split face block pilasters 30 feet on center. The building incorporates three different building materials; painted split face and precision block, with horizontal stucco band accents. The building is articulated with vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane. An employee patio area is provided to the rear of the building and • is surround by awell-designed landscape area. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion: Site Plan: Reorient building to mitigate severe Santa Ana winds. The roll-up doors are fully exposed to seasonal hurricane force winds. Ideally, the building would be plotted along the north property line with roll-up doors facing south. 2. Materials: Delete precision block because it is not considered a quality material and is contrary to architectural guidelines of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The following materials are recommended consistent with the architectural guidelines: different color split face block, fluted block, tilt-up concrete or stucco. Delete painting over split face block and allow the richness of the material to show. 3. Color: The building is white; with a dark red color trim that creates very strong color contrast. The red accent color is used for all cornices, horizontal bands, and window surrounds. Secondan/ Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide sidewalk connection from warehouse lunchroom to employee picnic area. • 2. Columns should project out 8 inches (not 4 inches as proposed) from main wall plane. 3. Provide decorative cap, with overhang, for the 8-foot high screen wall and pilasters. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-04 - AMS CONTRACTORS • October 17, 2000 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. Landscape the freeway slope embankment along the property adjacent to I-15 Freeway or pay in-lieu of construction fee. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and return to Design Review Committee. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Douglas Fenn The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the modifications the applicant proposed to the Committee such as: 1. Revise materials (fluted block and deletion of precession block). • 2. Building location agreeable with Committee 3. Toned down color scheme (of split face) approved by the Committee. • :~ : .,F;::, . ' < Rs~S.v.1v~u9l~~ ~ d .,} ' ~G. ~e,',W ~' ::1::''~•,K`f~'."'.1•iti~..'fKi;:y:: :,.~'.i~'`, vr~~~N`"~. .:~ .t; a.t.,v_. .. .., .a^i .t.,J,',.. -!.,~ ',< • C ._ _ ... c._•.AY74•:EYa?=::r>•r:.,'s.wb"~ ', :w; ~.~~ .. + - LL~W!IIIIIIIIIY ,~•. F'. ''~~ ~ • m ~ ~ ~~ rrmi~ sir ~~~ ~r ~•. :;;, ~ . `~._. - .~.' ';:,1"'~ Jr- .•~~t •:. z',: it r' r'.b: r...f ~.: :. ':'7:,- - 4'y,rl :`~`4, µir.r:.i ~,y (.Y' :.J]L.~ •~ •' _ r r. ..f. } . . .. I ,.,x 1'. 1^... - }, r ` r.. i~.. r., ..: :e,. . • 1 ~ a ~lyA'* r { ~~ > > d Cfo-'~'.. ~ f . S ~ . y ;;; `.~'' SERVICE - '~ ' '` `'r° ` `:"'''~-';~' °~`Sld-TfSFACTI ON `p. _ c.~ ~ .'1' S'~' ;}~ t~ 'r .1.. A':' i ~t rp: p:. .... ....r..,i': .. ~~~ ., r. ~]. r n + ? •/ , r ~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:30 p.m. Rudy Zeledon October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-31- LEGENDS BURGERS -The development of a 3,671 square foot fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, on 1.25-acre of land in Office Professional District, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Carnelian Street - APN: 207-031-29. Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The project was considered by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) on October 3, 2000, at which time the Committee requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review. At that time, the building design featured an abstract assemblage of geometric forms, black and white "checkerboard" file wainscot, and stainless steel cornice around dining area. The Design Committee Review reviewed revised plans on October 17, 2000. The project was substantially redesigned to incorporate some of the architectural features of the buildings within the Exchange office/professional center. The Design Review Committee (Stewart, Coleman) recommended approval with the following conditions: • 1. The applicant shall work with staff to minimize conflicts with vehicles exiting the drive-thru and vehicles trying to park in the parking island east of the building. All proposals shall be subject City Planner review and approval. 2. Special paving shall be introduced where pedestrians cross drive aisles. 3. A combination of a low decorative wall and dense landscaping shall be incorporated around the west leg of the drive-thru, to provide additional drive-thru screening. 4. The applicant shall work with staff in providing a sidewalk connection from Base Line Road to the entrance of the building. All proposals shall be subject City Planner review and approval. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • OCTOBER 17, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Resp dly sub ' ted Brad Buller Secretary C~ • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 17, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. 7:00 p.m. (Rudy) NORTHTOWN HOUSING .DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. - A request to _"• construct single family residences on 11 in-fill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue -APN: 209-101-18, 209-101-35, 209-101-36, 209-104-06, 209-104-34, 209-103-06, 209-121-22, 209-112-0, 209-112- 17 and 209-101-23. Related files: Development Review 95-03 and 97-35. 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. 7:10 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-56 - SACRED HEART CHURCH -The expansion of the existing Sacred Heart Church with Phase one consisting of a new 20,000 square foot sanctuary building and Phase two consisting of an additional 2,200 square feet of sanctuary space and 5,400 square feet of additional classroom space on 11 acres of land in the Regional Related Commercial district of Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located at 12704 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-02, 24, 25 and 227-221-01 and 02. 7:30 p.m (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-61 -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-A requestto construct a 49 unit, three story, 39,533 square foot senior housing facility on 1.31 acres in the High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Salina Street, and Malvern Avenue -APN: 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B, Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development Agreement 00-02. . DRC AGENDA October 17, 2000 Page 2 7:50 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-60 - NORTHTOW NHOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP.-A requestto construct 96 senior apartments on 3.2 acres of land in the Mixed Use District, with a Senior Housing Overlay District, located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, between La Grande Street and Lomita Drive -APN: 202-151-12. Related files; General Plan Amendment 00-01 A, Development Code Amendment 00-01, Development District Amendment 00- 01,and Development Agreement 00-01. 8:10 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-04 - AMS CONTRACTORS - A request to construct a 10,800 square foot industrial office and warehouse building contractors building with yard area on 2.3 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located along west side of Hyssop Drive, approximately 300 feet north of 6th Street -APN: 229- 271-31, 32 and 37. 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 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist ll for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 12, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon October 17, 2000 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. - A request to construct single family residences on 11 in-fill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-101-18, 209-101-35, 209-101-36, 209-104-06, 209-104-34, 209-103-06, 209-121-22, 209-112-0, 209-112-17 and 209-101-23. Related files: Development Review 95-03 and 97-35. Design Review Committee Action Members Present Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon r~ U I~ L DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-56-SACRED HEART CHURCH -The expansion of the existing Sacred Heart Church with Phase one consisting of a new 20,000 square foot sanctuary building and Phase two consisting of an additional 2,200 square feet of sanctuary space and 5,400 square feet of additional classroom space on 11 acres of land in the Regional Related Commercial district of Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located at 12704 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-211-02, 24, 25 and 227-221-01 and 02. Design Parameters: The site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard across from the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. The main entrance to the site is the shared signalized entry for the shopping center (Marketplace Way). The Sacred Heart Church has occupied the site since 1958. The facilities are arranged in a campus like fashion and include the main sanctuary building, a multi-purpose building, an administration building, classrooms and playgrounds, and three residences. These buildings will remain. The site also contains a small teen center and garage building both of which will be demolished. While old, neither building has historic status. The existing buildings have an eclectic mix of materials including stucco, precision block, metal roofing, mission-style file roofing, and asphalt composition shingle roofing. Tree Removal: The site contains a number of mature trees including a remnant Eucalyptus windrow along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Most of the trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed improvements with the exception of the majority of trees surrounding the existing sanctuary building, which will remain. • Variance: The new sanctuary is proposed with a building height of 50 feet and a 59-foot curving parapet. The maximum building height permitted by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is 35 feet high with 45-foot high towers. The increased building and tower height will require the filing of a Variance application. The increase in height is necessary to accommodate the architectural design preferences of the church for the sanctuary building. The parapet element is 60 feet wide, which staff believes goes well beyond the Code intent to be flexible for "towers, campaniles and rotundas." There is nothing unusual about the shape or size of the property and no apparent hardship to justify issuance of the Variance. The applicant will also needs a Variance to allow a 6-foot high wall with a 33-foot setback where a 45-foot building setback along Foothill Boulevard is required. This is necessary to accommodate an existing home on the site, which will be preserved. Variance application has not been submitted yet. Sound Wall: The site is subject to excessive noise from the I-15 Freeway. A noise study was conducted which recommends a 240 foot long, 12-foot high sound wall along the northbound on- rampfor I-15Freeway. The off ramp is elevated above the site and the applicant is proposing that the sound wall be located at the top of slope along the off-ramp to maximize sound attenuation. Past experience has shown that Caltrans will not allow sound walls to be built within their right-of- waywhen other reasonable alternatives are available (i.e., building wall on church property line). If the wall were to be built on the church property, it would have to be as high as 38 feet to effectively attenuate noise. A 12-foot high wall along the off-ramp would obviously be aesthetically preferable to a 38-foot high wall on-site. The applicant has had preliminary meetings with Caltrans and claims that Caltrans is willing to accept the wall along the shoulder; however, two other developer requests have been denied by Caltrans in the last 12 months. • DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-56 -SACRED HEART CHURCH • October 17, 2000 Page 2 Planning Commission W orkshoo: The project was reviewed at a Planning Commission workshop in January of 1999 (see attached minutes). The Commission had the following comments/concerns: The Master Plan should show points of ingress and egress for properties to the east and west and allow reciprocal access. The Master Plan has a point of connection to the property to the west. The applicant believes that the property to the east has sufficient access from Foothill Boulevard so it is unnecessary for the church to provide access. Properties to the east have right-in and right-out access only because of median island. If these commercially zoned properties to the east were to access through the church property there could be vehicle and pedestrian conflicts; therefore, staff recommends against reciprocal access. Ensure that there is adequate parking on-site to accommodate the expanded sanctuary. Adequate on-site parking is provided. However, about half of the parking spaces are located more than 300 feet away from the sanctuary building. The church proposes to have church visitors drop off family at the main entry and then park. Also, there is apergola-covered walkway proposed to connect the northern parking area to the sanctuary building. The parking areas are scattered because they will serve the sanctuary as well as the existing school and church administration at different times. 3. Gated intersections will need to be moved. The gate at the main entry allows fortum around movement in front of the gate. • 4. Establish campus architecture for the site. The proposed sanctuary uses stucco and mission style roofing consistent with the other buildings on-site. Also, a long colonnade is proposed along the north side of the church similar to that on the existing multi-purpose building and church administration building. 5. Where there are heritage trees, preserve where possible. Many of the trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the project. The trees around the north, south, and west sides of the existing sanctuary will be preserved and some of the larger trees in the southeast comer of the site are intended to be relocated on-site. Planning Commission approval of a Tree Removal Permit is necessary to remove or relocate mature trees. 6. Consider an alternative to standing seam metal roofing. The current design has concrete mission-style roof material. 7. Provide the City with a Phasing Plan. Phase one will include the main sanctuary building and Phase two will include a small addition to the sanctuary and some additional classroom space. 8. Air quality is a concern. Consider reforestation in playground areas to provide a buffer for children along Foothill Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway. The playground areas have been relocated away from the 1-15 Freeway frontage. There are two rows of trees along the west edge of the main play area to provide a buffer from the freeway. The overall plan includes pre"nervation/relocation of 78 existing trees plus planting of 446 new trees. Sound • attenuation wall may also assist in improving air quality. 9. Staff and the Design Review Committee will work with the applicant on architecture. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-56 -SACRED HEART CHURCH • October 17, 2000 Page 3 10. Provide adequate screening to the parking lot with landscaping and berming. The Foothill Boulevard frontage is proposed to have densely landscape berms (double row of trees with 15 to 20-foot spacing) with low masonry walls. 11. Renovate the Bell Tower to be compatible with the sanctuary that is proposed. The application proposes to stucco the existing sanctuary building to match the new sanctuary. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following items will be the focus of Committee discussion: Although the building design is attractive, it does not meet height limitations of Code. Variances can only be granted where there is something unusual, such as topography that warrants design flexibility. The Committee should discuss whether or not the excessive building height could be justified. The earlier design shown at the Commission Workshop had a lower overall height but was still in excess of code requirements. Elimination of the large parapet-like wall on the south elevation would reduce the building height by 9 feet. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. Columns for the pergola connecting the northern parking lot to the sanctuary should match those of the sanctuary. 2. Parking lot landscape islands should have the typical oval shape rather than a sharp, crescent shape. The sharply pointed planters leave less room for plants to grow and can result in irrigation over spray onto the parking area. 3. Provide mostly Sycamore trees along the Foothill Boulevard frontage with some African Sumac trees mixed in consistent with Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan"' Sycamores and African Sumacs are Foothill Boulevard theme trees that Caltrans has typically not allowed within the Foothill Boulevard right of way so they must be shifted on-site. 4. Augment the berm/low wall/trees along the Foothill Boulevard frontage with shrub planting to further screen views of the parking area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All roof and ground mounted equipment and utilities shall be fully screened. 2. Surround trash enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting. 3. Trash enclosure should feature overhead shade trellis and roll-up door. • 4. Avoid having a double fence condition along the project perimeter. Church should make a good faith effort to work with adjoining property owners to remove existing chain link fence and replace with single fence. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-56 -SACRED HEART CHURCH October 17, 2000 Page 4 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Attachment Desion Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • ;' l ~{ ~~~'; ; C' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjoumed Meeting January 13, 1999 Chairman McNiel called the Adjoumed Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 10:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; DanJames, SeniorCivil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer; Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner; Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner, Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner • NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-12 -SACRED HEART CHURCH -The proposed demolition of an existing church sanctuary and two additional buildings and the construction of a new sanctuary along with the development of a Master Plan for the 10.6 acre site located in the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 227-211- 24 and 25 and 227-221-01 and 02. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process. The project architect Ted Woods and Father Porter introduced the project and gave a brief history on why they are choosing to stay on Foothill Boulevard and not pursue the Etiwanda site. Mr. Woods described the various design solutions to the church campus and architecture of the new church building. Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner, reviewed staffs comments, noting staffs support for the use remaining on site and the proposed expansion. She highlighted issues of street access and circulation, architecture, master planning for adjacent properties, and tree preservation. Chairman McNiel stated the architecture is eclectic, but that it is unique and he likes it. He expressed concerns about the sheet metal roof and indicated they should considers different type of roof material, more resistant to wind. • Commissioner Mannerino liked the idea of a campus setting for the site. He noted the side view looks different from the front view. He liked the building. He indicated he would like to see the church stay at its pres`e~n't'l~ocation and expand. Commissioner Stewart thought there are too many design styles happening on the main church building. She liked the Foothill Boulevard facade shown because it looks "Mission" style. She • preferred more of the Mission style architecture with more compatible colors. She felt the east elevation is too high. She encouraged the church to master plan for the lot to the west. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concerns regarding having children attend school on a street as busy as Foothill Boulevard for environmental reasons, but he supported the use. He advised the applicant to work with the neighbor to come up with a good plan for the west parcel. He did not feel that a gas station would be a good use for the vacant lot west of the church site. He thought the building should have some coherence in architecture to look coordinated rather than eclectic. He liked the front of the church, but felt the east elevation has too much roof and the side elevations look industrial. He requested landscaping along Foothill Boulevard to hide cars in the parking lot with a combination of banning, low walls, and landscaping. He did not think the sheet metal roof lends itself to a church. He suggested they soften the industrial look on the east side. He commented that the existing church building has a nice flavor. Commissioner Macias felt the church expansion is a great thing for the community. He asked that the applicant address the traffic and circulation comments outlined by staff. He thought it is interesting architecture, but he preferred Mission architecture in the historic winery tradition. He questioned if the existing bell tower is compatible with what is being proposed. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding enhanced landscaping and berming to hide cars parked in the parking lot. Father Porter stated the buildings along Foothill Boulevard are brick and cannot be moved. He said the renovated buildings will be stuccoed to match the sanctuary architecture with compatible colors to create a cohesive Catholic flavor and the tower will be renovated to match new building with stucco to match. Mr. Buller summarized the meeting, noting that the following items are to be addressed when the church submits a development application: 1) Master Plan to show point of ingress and egress for properties to the east and west and allow reciprocal access. 2) Ensure that there is adequate parking on-site to accommodate the expanded sanctuary. 3) Gated intersections will need to be moved. 4) Establish a campus architecture for the site. 5) Where there are heritage trees, preserve where possible. 6) Concern expressed for the standing seam metal roof proposed. Consider an alternative roof material. 7) Provide the City with a phasing plan 8) Air Quality is a Concem. Consider reforestation in playground areas to provide a buffer for children along Foothill Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway. 9) Architecture -Staff and the Design Review Committee will work with the applicant on it. 10) Provide adequate screening to the parking lot with landscaping and berming. 11) Renovate the Bell Tower to be compatible with the sanctuary that is proposed. • .... PC Adjourned Minutes -2- January 13, 1999 d • • Z Q 7 w J W r a w ~„~~ ~~~ O V O U ~ U 6 F o ~ e ~ - ° ~ u 7 _ ~ . : Y» > ~ 3 - x NO < ~1 O V~EU <<O Z ' .OiO F ONE= 2W~m ~ .. O+Y i u r6 o~Q=~su .i W~ i~zeiox ` <oi a o3.o. ...u„u3F l W 0 a u oLL ~~ >a w J y~j W ~ ~ m O~ ~_. O O ~~ I~ul m l n Q V Q ~ n 0~ ~ u `~ U Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6}i ~.Y[ ~] _~ _ .~ ;, r n Z Q W J W 2 F O Z O O V < V U < £ u r _ ~ u `o < - V ~~ 3 O ~~ = i _ + Z 2 "O i +p F_ 00 ~ 3 s2 O pi' +< u+ U..+ U3to ZVU E~ Va6 t< 2 < VVt <O U OHO F .~ +00 ~Z Fu:o~3 :»i.OZ z5'i ~~+i^w ~r.V2 ~< UUO~U~n?U3w~~o.^~~i~"V Vt<r+~VOp02 <00.'.U C.o VOaOa+^Oi~O S I -~+n~eawe ___,_~__,__+w Y Z Q W J W F N W Q O^~ v~U 1:1 U O Q Q pp I°u~ a 0 iwpui o ^ ~ v U Q Q ~ n^ n I~u~ ~ q L/ 1 q `pSn ~~o . CP_ ~ I - 6 > Q LL DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Kirt Coury October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-61 -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to construct a 49 unit, three story, 39,533 square foot senior housing facility on 1.31 acres in the High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Salina Street, and Malvern Avenue - APN: 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-026, Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development Agreement 00-02. Desiqn Parameters: The site is generally flat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is currently vacant with native trees and grasses present. Two Eucalyptus trees exist along the east property line and are designated to remain in-place. To the north of the site includes the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center and a parking area used by the City for senior parking. To the east of the site is an existing single-family subdivision. South of the site is the Cucamonga Elementary School. A parking area for the Upland Assistance League exists to the northwest. The project will include athree-story, 39,533 square foot apartment building consisting of a lobby, corridors, multi-purpose room and office. A manager's apartment will be located on the second floor and the building will be served by an elevator and three stairways. Site amenities involve outdoor seating benches and game tables, a barbeque grill, a community garden and rose garden, as well as a patio area and an outdoor fountain. The building will include a pilaster finish, re-shaven rafter tails, beams, and outriggers, a stone veneer "field ledge", white window frames and a concrete file roof. • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Replace stucco columns with wood at front lobby entrance of north elevation. Staff feels wood columns will provide more visibility for lobby. 2. Staff would suggest using atwo-tone color scheme, with darker color on base of building, to reduce height of building. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Kirt Coury DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:50 p.m. Doug Fenn October 17, 2000 GIV VIII V1V1VICIV I/1L /1JJGJJIVIGIVI MIVL! IJGV CLVrIVIOVI fILVIL VY VV-VV - IYVIIII II VYV IY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. -A request to construct 96 senior apartments on 3.2 acres of land in the Mixed Use District, with a Senior Housing Overlay District, located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, between La Grande Street and Lomita Drive -APN: 202-151-12. Related files; General Plan Amendment 00-01 A, Development Code Amendment 00-01, Development District Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. Design Parameters: The vacant site is in the heart of the historic downtown Alta Loma and was the site of the Alta Loma Citrus Heights Packing House. The site is mostly level, slopping gently to the south, and it has several trees in the northeast and southeast corners of the site. The site has been cleared under a previous demolition permit. The Alta Loma Elementary School is north of the project site. To the south and east are small commercial shops, Pacific Electric Railroad corridor, open storm drain channel, water tanks, and a multiple family residential complex. To the west are small commercial shops and asingle-family residential neighborhood. The proposed density is 30 units per acre. The gated project consists of three building pods, each surrounding a courtyard. The freestanding recreation center building will have a manager's apartment on the second floor. The apartment units vary from 599 to 820 square feet. Most of the apartment units are one-bedroom (86 units) and only 9 of the units are two-bedroom. The mangers unit is atwo-bedroom unit. All of the apartment buildings have elevator service. The units will have washer and dryer, kitchen, living and/or dining area bathroom, storage areas, and private patio areas. • The courtyard areas feature enhanced pavement, benches, and trees. A community rose and vegetable garden is planned for the northeast corner of the site, including a pedestrian seating patio with a shaded pergola. Behind the recreation building is a patio area with barbeque. The site is surrounded with a perimeter block wall with pilasters along the north and southeast property line, and a tubular steel fence with pilasters along Amethyst. The fence along the south property line adjacent to the future "Pacific Electric Trail" is interrupted with a tubular wrought iron fence where there are landscape pedestrian activity areas. The main access to the site is provided by a centralized median island with enhanced paving, which to leads to a narrower four way internal vehicular access (which also has accent paving). To the south of the property is a turf block emergency vehicular access way that connects to an existing public alley out to Amethyst Avenue. The neighborhood includes a range of architectural siyles and older homes. The proposed Craftsman architectural theme is compatible with the area. The buildings incorporate three different building materials such as: stucco finish, siding, and stone finish. The buildings are well articulated with vertical and horizontal changes and recesses to the building planes. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion: 1. SITE PLAN: a) orient 8 parking spaces from the northeast corner of the project to east of the Recreation Building, and replace with landscaping. This would strengthen and enhance patio and pergola landscape area. b) Replace turf block with other material acceptable to Fire District, such as accent paving. 2. ARCHITECTURE: a) Increase amount of horizontal siding, or introduce new areas of fish scale siding. Staff believes that the majority of the building wall should be sided. b) Replace the stone veneer with real river rock. River rock is characteristic Craftsman style buildings in the. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-60-NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV. CORP. • October 17, 2000 Page 2 3. RECREATION BUILDING: Provide elevations for Committee consent calendar review. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The existing Development Agreement must be modified to reflect the reduction of the average landscape setback along Amethyst Avenue from 45 feet to 21 feet. Otherwise a Variance application is required. Staff believes the proposed setback is appropriate in relation to other historic buildings on adjoining properties on both sides of Amethyst. 2. Provide gated pedestrian access from the Recreation Building patio to the future Pacific Electric Trail. 3. Introduce citrus trees into landscape to reflect the history of the former "Alta Loma Citrus Heights Packing House. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval subject to the above modifications. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: • Staff Planner: Douglas Fenn • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:10 p.m. Douglas Fenn October 17, 2000 ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-04-AMS CONTRACTORS - A request to construct a 10,800 square foot industrial office and warehouse building contractors building with yard area on 2.3 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located along west side of Hyssop Drive, approximately 300 feet north of 6th Street - APN: 229-271-31, 32 and 37. Design Parameters: The site has frontage along the I-15 Freeway. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there other significant vegetation on the site. The site is currently cultivated as a vineyard and indigenous vegetation. The site slopes from north to south at approximately less than 2 percent. The site is surrounded by vacant land to the north and across Hyssop Drive to the east. To the south is an existing metal industrial building. The proposed building is designed for a single story office and warehouse contractors building (tenant is A.M.S. Paving Contractors). The building design is oriented to front Hyssop Drive with a yard storage area to also front Hyssop Drive. The building will have office area (4,802 square feet) and with corresponding warehouse (6,000 square feet). The yard area portion of the project will be used to store such equipment as: pick-up trucks, dump trucks, several tanker trucks, and trailers (see attached Exhibit "A" picture of typical equipment to be stored). The yard is surrounded by an 8- foot high split face block wall with 24 inch square split face block pilasters 30 feet on center. The building incorporates three different building materials; painted split face and precision block, with horizontal stucco band accents. The building is articulated with vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane. An employee patio area is provided to the rear of the building and • is surround by awell-designed landscape area. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion t. Site Plan: Reorient building to mitigate severe Santa Ana winds. The roll-up doors are fully exposed to seasonal hurricane force winds. Ideally, the building would be plotted along the north property line with roll-up doors facing south. 2. Materials: Delete precision block because it is not considered a quality material and is contrary to architectural guidelines of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The following materials are recommended consistent with the architectural guidelines: different color split face block, fluted block, tilt-up concrete or stucco. Delete painting over split face block and allow the richness of the material to show. 3. Color: The building is white; with a dark red color trim that creates very strong color contrast. The red accent color is used for all cornices, horizontal bands, and window surrounds. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide sidewalk connection from warehouse lunchroom to employee picnic area. • 2. Columns should project out 8 inches (not 4 inches as proposed) from main wall plane. 3. Provide decorative cap, with overhang, for the 8-foot high screen wall and pilasters. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-04 - AMS CONTRACTORS • October 17, 2000 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. Landscape the freeway slope embankment along the property adjacent to I-15 Freeway or pay in-lieu of construction fee. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and return to Design Review Committee. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present Staff Planner: Douglas Fenn • • a, ' - ~'~~ ~. ? . r ' } f' : : ~ " } i} ~~~ ` fie: ', s ~ ` t ,s ,~ ~ ~ !~} \ ±; , , Y~~' ~ ~~ 1 7 tf 3;' } - ~ .Y I) .. f - - ' t .~ R i .~ q -..~ ~~ ~ • ~ ~ 4 P ; ~ ~Z P . Y ~~45.Y ~w~~~+L~ yy~] ~ Sl ` . ')M, l ~ t~ x.{~\ ( 1tr' tYi - R' _ _ (a r ~ ~ f~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ 3... M i~ ~ µ > ~l; ,r ~ , ;S; . ' C e't:: r .. .. r ~ :.^ :+ ' ~-. ~. _ y ' ~, ~ =. ~ ~" SERVICE ~ ~ . ' )~ • / +'~ `,_ 1 ~ , ;; 1,11.. / ~. ~ .~ t ~ . 4 t ~ ~ .. i.. , \ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 4~s,jl~ ~ ti~ r `fib ~ ' ~'.T-^ f . ' 1' .. ~ ~ ~ ~1:. ~, ..~ ..' ~, . _ x. ,., ~ ,;~`.`µ r ,, +~ ~ , '~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES • TUESDAY OCTOBER 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. 7:00 p.m. (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-31- LEGENDS RESTAURANT -The development of a 3,671 square foot fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, on 1.25-acre of land in Office Professional District, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Carnelian Street -APN: 207-031-29. 7:20 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-28-GATX- The development of two industrial warehouse/distribution buildings (Building III - 449,370square feet, Building IV - 468,410 square feet) totaling 917,780 square feet within the Catellus Master Plan on 44 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the northeast and northwest corners of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. 7:45 p.m. (Brent) NO.10035) - CONCORDIA HOMES-The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive -APN: 207-641- 01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. 8:05 p.m. • (Alan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-37-LPA-A request to develop a 10,000 square foot San Bernardino County Law Library on 1.75 acres at the northwest corner of Spruce Street and Red Oak Avenue located in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan -APN: 208-352-12. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ' DRC AGENDA October 3, 2000 • Page 2 8:30 p.m (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-09 - PATIEL - A request to construct a new 10,944 square foot Church with religious education school on 2.86 acres in the Low Residential District, located on the north side of Base Line Road between Lion Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 202-242-09. 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 ~J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-31- LEGENDS RESTAURANT -The development of a 3,671 square foot fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, on 1.25-acre of land in Office Professional District, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Carnelian Street - APN: 207-031-29. Design Parameters: The project site is located within the existing The Exchange, which contains a Spanish style (tile roof, arched colonnade)two-story multiple tenant office building and McDonalds restaurant with adrive-thru. The site is located on the last undeveloped parcel along Base Line Road of the approved Master Plan, under Development Review 79-24. The pad currently contains grass and is surrounded by parking stalls and landscape planters, which will not be removed with the proposed construction. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk exist along the street frontage. Vehicular access to the site exists along Carnelian Street and Base Line Road. The project site is approximately 10 feet below street level. The site slopes north to south at approximately 7 percent. To the east is Villa Del Rey senior housing. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Architectural Stvle: The futuristic, angular shaped building design is a flashback to the drive- • thru restaurants of the 1960s, when Americans were caught up in the "space race" and fascinated with the future, and fast food restaurant chains emerged. The architectural design features an abstract assemblage of geometric forms, black and white "checkerboard" file wainscot, and stainless steel cornice around dining area. Staff supports the use of "signature architecture;" however, the Planning Commission's Drive-thru Policies encourage drive-thru facilities within a Master Plan to have an architectural style consistent with the theme established within the center. If the Committee supports the proposed style, staff suggests that a second primary exterior wall material be added. The newest building to be built within the complex is the McDonalds restaurant, located on the northwest corner of the site. The McDonalds restaurant is stylistically different; however, includes some major design features of the main building of The Exchange, such as Spanish file roof, stucco exterior, and wood lattice treatment. 2. Color: The proposed color scheme should be toned down to avoid the sharp contrast in colors. The white and blue colors were used on Cowboy Burgers but were not received well by the Planning Commission. For example, softer earth tone colors should be utilized and compatible with the color scheme used within the center. In addition, the checkerboard pattern wainscoting treatment should be changed to incorporate one color to compliment the building. The McDonalds color scheme is different from The Exchange's tan stucco and brown trim. 3. Site Plan: To minimize conflicts with vehicles exiting the drive-thru and vehicles trying to park in the parking island east (see Exhibit "A"). Requires reconstruction of existing parking. See also Major Issue #5. u ' DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-31 -LEGENDS RESTAURANT • October 3, 2000 Page 2 4. Drive-Thru Screening: These alternatives would improve screening: Alternative #1 -Provide low decorative screen wall between drive-thru lane. Pro: Simplest and most cost effective solution. Con: Does not provide room for landscaping. Alternative #2 -Widen the landscape to accommodate trees and shrubs (18 inches proposed). To accomplish this the existing parking bay to the east of this pad would have to be flipped as shown in Exhibit "B" to shift the building footprint easterly. Pro: Provides maximum landscape screening and shade opportunities. Con: Expensive reconstruction of parking. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Special paving should be introduced where pedestrians cross drive aisles. • 2. Provide a sidewalk connection from Base Line Road sidewalk to the entrance of the building. 3. Signs will be a challenge because the site sits so far below Base Line Road. The sweeping fin projecting 35 feet in the air on the north elevation appears to be intended for wall signs. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the project be revised in terms of the above comments and brought to the Design Review Committee for review. Attachments: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, and Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project and did not recommend approval. The Committee did not oppose to the use of "signature architecture;" however, they opposed the proposed style of building. The Committee expressed their concerns with the proposed angular shape and color scheme of the building. The Committee recommended that abstract assemblage of geometric forms, black and white "checkerboard" file wainscote, and stainless steel cornice around dining area, should be toned down. The Committee directed the applicant to continue to work with staff on resolving the major issues presented at the meeting. The applicant agreed to address secondary issues, which included special paving at pedestrian crossings, possible sidewalk connection from Base Line Road to the • building and building signage. The applicant was directed to revise the project and return to Design Review Committee at a time and date to be set. n II A ~. ' I , ~ / E%ISTINC OFFICE BUILDING f/'~~O ~ ~ ~~ C~ / EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING > ~O ~ N \ "";µE DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Brent Le Count October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-28 -GATX -The development of two industrial warehouse/distribution buildings (Building III -449,370 square feet, Building IV - 468,410 square feet) totaling 917,780 square feet within the Catellus Master Plan on 44 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the northeast and northwest corners of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue. APN:229-011-25, 31, and 32 Design Parameters: The Catellus Master Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999. The buildings have the same basic architectural flair as the existing GATX I and II buildings to the north on the east side of Milliken Avenue. The proposed buildings represent build out of the southern portion of the Catellus Master Plan from Century Way/Millennium Court south to Arrow Route. ASemi-circular palm tree planting is proposed to provide an entry statement at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route to be consistent with the Catellus Master Plan. Building III will be located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue and will have it's truck-loading area on the south side of the building fronting Arrow Route. Fourteen-foot high architectural screen walls are proposed along the Arrow Route frontage to screen loading. While the ideal location for the loading from an aesthetic perspective would be on the north side of the building, that area is subject to high seasonal winds. Building IV will be located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue. Loading will be located along the west side of the building and thus screened by the building and afourteen-foot high screen wall relative to Arrow Route. There is an off-site rail line along the west property line. . The project has been designed so that, with minor modifications, rail service could be utilized forthe building, but the developer's preferred plan does not utilize the rail line. The main truck entry points to the site are at the southwest corner of the site off Arrow Route, and off the cul-de-sac bulb for Century Court at the north end of the site. The truck movement established by the northern entry is .awkward and angular and will likely lead to trucks driving over landscaped areas. There is a drive aisle proposed along the south side of the building connecting the southwest corner driveway to the parking area along the east side of the building. Ideally, the drive aisle would be eliminated and replaced with landscaping, but fire truck access is necessary along the south side of the building. Pre-Application Review: The project was subject to aPre-Application Review Workshop with the Planning Commission on March 22, 2000 (see attached minutes). The Commission had the following comments: The Commission is willing to accept truck loading on the south side of Building III given strong seasonal winds. However, screening of the loading area from Arrow Route is of utmost importance. Screen walls shall be architectural. Building IV should have substantial wall articulation and variation; especially along the east elevation given it's length. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. The applicant has resolved all major issues with staff. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-28 -GATX October 3, 2000 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Building IV -Provide screen walls around two northernmost outdoor employee eating areas to shield from winds and traffic noise, and to provide a greater sense of privacy. 2. Provide 2' to 4' parapet wall returns where parapets extend above the main roofline. The intent is to avoid a "fin" like appearance for the raised parapets. The GATX I and II buildings do not have these parapet returns and the new buildings would benefit by them. This was required for the Scripto-Tokai building north of GATX I. 3. Relocate wrought iron fencing to west property line for Building IV site if Public Utilities Commission will allow this close to rail spur. Obtain written verification how close to rail spur landscaping can be planted and what kind (trees, shrubs, ground cover). Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding property and streets. All roof-mounted vents shall be "low-profile" type. 2. Provide tables, chairs, and shade for the employee eating areas. 3. Exterior lighting shall be designed to avoid casting glare on adjacent property and streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved subject to the above comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to staff's comments and the following additional comment: The Committee is in favor of removing the landscape strip along the west property line so long as the southerly 200 feet of it remains intact. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:45 p.m. Brent Le Count October 3, 2000 CIV VIrSVIVIVICIVIHL HJJCJJIVICIVI HIVU UCV CLVI'IVICIVI I'ICVICVV VV-4/ (IflHl.il IV V. IVVJVI- CONCORDIA HOMES -The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive-APN: 07-641-01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. Desion Parameters: The project site has steep grades ranging from approximately 8% to 32%; hence, is subject to the Hillside Development regulations. The current Hillside Development regulations prohibit development of land in excess of 30% gradient but the site was subdivided prior to adoption of these regulations. All of the lots within the tract have frontage on Camino Predera to the north and all but five back onto an old railroad right of way that will eventually accommodate a trail. The project will impact views of the valley for existing homeowners on Camino Predera. The applicant has provided view-shed cross sections to show these view impacts. The project will also impact views of the site from the south because of the substantial number of trees that are to be removed and because of the visual prominence of the site. The homes on lots 1 through 5, 16 and 17 will have 6 to 7-foot high sound walls along the top of the slope in their rear yard areas. The bottom three feet of these walls is proposed to be decorative masonry with the remainder constructed of glass panels to preserve views. These sound walls will provide a barrier between the future homeowner's useable rear yard area and the remaining slope area beyond which may result • in property maintenance issues. Staff supports the developer's proposal that a homeowner's association be established to maintain these slope areas. The homes are tastefully designed and include 3 feet of elevation difference in the foundations to accommodate the terrain. While this is not nearly enough to truly "fit" the terrain, it is the most foundation stepping the applicant is willing to provide. Three home plans are proposed, each with three to four elevation types. The homes range in size from 2,759 square feet to 3,359 square feet. The homes are all two story with hip style roofs to preserve views. There is less than dramatic differentiation from home to home, especially for side and rear elevations. Pre-Application Review: The project was subject to two workshops with the Planning Commission (see attached minutes). At the most recent workshop, the Commission provided the following direction: It is recognized that steep slopes and high retaining walls are necessary to accommodate the development given the steep terrain on the site. However, reduce retaining wall height as much as possible. The developer showed the Commission retaining walls as high as 15 feet at the workshop. The current plans include retaining walls as high as 22 feet. 2. Mitigate the appearance of high retaining walls by use of creative landscaping. 3. Include aone-story home plan. 4. Preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible. It is acceptable to have no street trees along Camino Predera if that would help preserve views for existing homes. 5. The Commission is willing to accept a minimal (three foot) step in the home foundations so long as the overall quality of the project is commensurate with the eventual home values given the prime view location. DRC COMMENTS . DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Grading: The grading design for the project includes two alternatives: Doff-site grading within the Pacific Electric Trail railroad corridor along the south of the site, and 2) on-site grading. The proposed off-site grading within the rail corridor appears to respect the minimum of 70 feet needed to accommodate the trail design and future rail of the Pacific Electric Trail corridor (see Sections on Sheet 6). Under the off-site grading alternative, the retaining wall will be 6 feet high. Under the on-site grading alternative, the retaining wall will have to be up to 17 feet high. Both alternatives include substantially high retaining walls on- site up to 22 feet high. It is staff's opinion that the alternative with no off-site grading will have substantial visual impacts as it results in two very high retaining walls in close proximity to one another, visible from Foothill Boulevard. On the other hand, the developer will have to provide a viable means for long term maintenance of the off-site slope/wall area within the rail right-of-way for the other alternative. The high retaining walls are proposed to be of a "Loefelstien" type crib wall. This is a type of wall that has a slight slope to it and has pockets that can be planted with vines or other plants. The developer used this type of wall for Tract 14207 on Beryl Avenue, south of Heritage Park. The wall is now built and landscaped and • looks better than a traditional retaining wall. A Variance will be necessary to allow the high walls as the maximum 4-foot height allowed retaining wall height per the Hillside Development regulations is 4 feet. The developer had shown conceptual plans to the Planning Commission at workshops that included a slope stabilization technology referred to as "geo-grid." This has been dropped from the project as the slopes have been reduced from a 1:1 to 1.5:1 slope gradient. However, the Hillside Development regulations allow a maximum slope grade of 2:1; therefore, a Variance is required for the steeper 1.5:1 slope. Further, under the off-site grading alternative, slopes must be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. No Variance application has been filed as of this date; hence, staff has not fully analyzed the proposal. 2. View Impacts: Lower the pad elevations for lots 16 through 21 to preserve views from existing uphill neighbors, as much as possible, or use 1-story homes. The developer claims that there is insufficient room to accommodate single story home plans given the size of the lots and the amount of grading required. 3. Architecture: Provide stronger 360 degree architecture because the homes will be visually prominent from all angles. Upgrade the side and rear elevations of the homes to have the similar level of architectural detail and quality as the fronts including; increased use of corbels, window treatments (shutters, pot shelves, keystones, and divided light), trim, stone or brick wainscoting, and column treatments. • DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES October 3, 2000 Page 3 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. The "loefelstien" walls should be planted with a hardy vine or shrub that will eventually completely cover the walls and irrigated accordingly. The down slope side of the high retaining walls should also be well landscaped to soften the walls. Provide low maintenance landscape plant materials for the slope areas. Provide railroad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. Home sites with rear yard sound walls such as lots 1 through 5, 16, and 17 will have to have some form of gate or wall opening to permit slope maintenance. 2. Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining walls and train them to cascade down over walls. 3. All manufactured slopes shall have a natural or "contoured" look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. 4. Slope drainage features shall have a naturalized, dry streambed appearance through the use of river rock application. 5. Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to soften their • appearance and reduce visible bulk. 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 shall be decorative masonry (split faced block -both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the development. All pilasters shall have river rock or similar treatment on all sides. 2. All river rock treatment shall be natural river rock as opposed to manufactured veneer. Other rock treatment, such as slate, may be of a manufactured product. 3. Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. 4. Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees and shrubs) along the south down slope side of the homes to screen down slope elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman • Staff Planner: Brent Le Count DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 p.m. Kirt Coury October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-09 - PATIEL - A request to construct a new 10,944 square foot Church with religious education school on 2.86 acres in the Low Residential District, located on the north side of Base Line Road between Lion Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 202-242-09. Design Parameters: The site is located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 330 feet west of Hellman Avenue. The site is generally flat with less than 5 percent slope north to south. The lot is currently occupied by a vacant single-family dwelling at the (front) southwest corner of the site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped with native trees and grasses present. Single-family dwellings surround the property on the north, east, and west. Property immediately south of the site is developed with a retail commercial shopping center. Access to the site will be through an existing drive approach on Base Line Road. The project will consist of a 10,944 square foot church building with an office area, classrooms, and a prayer room. The building will be built on the 2.86 acres of land. The building will be self sufficient with independent access, parking, and utility services. Finish materials for the building exterior include archway treatments to create horizontal and vertical visual interest, white/almond stucco finish, and a red file roof. The proposed windows will be arched and treated with mullions. The overall building height is proposed at 27 feet. Two columns, 30 feet in height, mark the front entrance. The columns will be tiered and stucco finished with concrete minaret caps. The applicant proposes to develop the property in three phases. The first phase will consist of tenant improvements to the existing single-family dwelling to be converted to a worship/education facility. In addition, the front parking and driveway approach will be constructed as part of phase one. Phase two will include the development of the main prayer hall building and a majority of the central parking lot area. Construction time for phase two is estimated at approximately 2 years. Phase three of the proposed project will include the construction of the office and classroom portions of the building, the remaining parking lot area, and completion of the proposed landscaping. The time completion for this phase is estimated at another 2 years (4 years from project approval). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Staff strongly encourages a site design similar to that of Exhibit "A" (Exhibit used for reference only). The Exhibit "A" layout would meet City code requirements, provide for fire department secondary emergency access, and allow for a more expandable use of the front building area and portion of the property. 2. Enhance the architecture of the north elevation. Staff would suggest window treatments, and arched insets to provide visual relief of the blank wall. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. Provide more trees and decorative landscaping in northern portion of property encircling the proposed building to help screen visual impact of building on surrounding neighbors. 2. Add decorative paving in front of landscape planters near frontage of building to delineate pedestrian entrance walkways. DRC COMMENTS . CUP 00-09 - PATIEL October 3, 2000 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The Committee recommended approval of the project provided the applicant screen the proposed facility by adding landscaping at the north end of the property to reduce the visual impact on the surrounding neighbors. The Committee also asked that the applicant modify the front area site design to allow for a more expandable use of the front building area, as well as incorporate additional landscaping. Lastly, the Committee directed the applicant to enhance the architecture of the north building elevation (such as window treatments or arched insets) to provide additional relief to the proposed wall. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS r 1 U • OCTOBER 3, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, %~ h;' . \- Brad Buller Secretary .. ~ ~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. 7:00 p.m. (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-31- LEGENDS RESTAURANT -The development of a 3,671 square foot fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, on 1.25-acre of land in Office Professional District, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Carnelian Street -APN: 207-031-29. 7:20 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-28-GATX- The development of two industrial warehouse/distribution buildings (Building III - 449,370 square feet, Building IV - 468,410 square feet) totaling 917,780 square feet within the Catellus Master Plan on 44 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the northeast and northwest corners of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. 7:45 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47 (TRACT NO. 10035) -CONCORDIA HOMES-The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive -APN: 207-641- 01 through 10, 207-631-01 through 11. • 5 p.m. Ala ENVIR( -A request to develop a 10,000 square foot San Bernardino County Law Library on 1.75 acres at the northwest corner of Spruce Street and Red Oak Avenue located in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan -APN: 208-352-12. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. • DRC AGENDA OCTOBER 3, 2000 Page 2 8:30 p.m. (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-09 - PATIEL - A request to construct a new 10,944 square foot Church with religious education school on 2.86 acres in the Low Residential District, located on the north side of Base Line Road between Lion Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 202-242-09. 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 1, Lois Schrader, Secretary for the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 28, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~~~ ~~ • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-31- LEGENDS RESTAURANT -The development of a 3,671 square foot fast food restaurant with adrive-thru, on 1.25-acre of land in Office Professional District, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Carnelian Street - APN: 207-031-29. Design Parameters: The project site is located within the existing The Exchange, which contains a Spanish style (tile roof, arched colonnade) two-story multiple tenant office building and McDonalds restaurant with adrive-thru. The site is located on the last undeveloped parcel along Base Line Road of the approved Master Plan, under Development Review 79-24. The pad currently contains grass and is surrounded by parking stalls and landscape planters, which will not be removed with the proposed construction. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk exist along the street frontage. Vehicular access to the site exists along Carnelian Street and Base Line Road. The project site is approximately 10 feet below street level. The site slopes north to south at approximately 7 percent. To the east is Villa Del Rey senior housing. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: • 1. Architectural Stvle: The futuristic, angular shaped building design is a flashback to the drive- thru restaurants of the 1960s, when Americans were caught up in the "space race" and fascinated with the future, and fast food restaurant chains emerged. The architectural design features an abstract assemblage of geometric forms, black and white "checkerboard" file wainscote, and stainless steel cornice around dining area. Staff supports the use of "signature architecture;" however, the Planning Commission's Drive-thru Policies encourage drive-thru facilities within a Master Plan to have an architectural style consistent with the theme established within the center. If the Committee supports the proposed style, staff suggests that a second primary exterior wall material be added. The newest building to be built within the complex is the McDonalds restaurant, located on the northwest corner of the site. The McDonalds restaurant is stylistically different; however, includes some major design features of the main building of The Exchange, such as Spanish file roof, stucco exterior. and wood lattice treatment. 2. Color: The proposed color scheme should be toned down to avoid the sharp contrast in colors. The white and blue colors were used on Cowboy Burgers but were not received well by the Planning Commission. For example, softer earth tone colors should be utilized and compatible with the color scheme used within the center. In addition, the checkerboard pattern wainscoting treatment should be changed to incorporate one color to compliment the building. The McDonalds color scheme is different from The Exchange's tan stucco and brown trim. 3. Site Plan: To minimize conflicts with vehicles exiting the drive-thru and vehicles trying to park in the parking island east (see Exhibit "A"). Requires reconstruction of existing parking. • See also Major Issue #5. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-31 -LEGENDS • OCTOBER 3, 2000 Page 2 4. Drive-Thru Screening: These alternatives would improve screening: Alternative #1 -Provide low decorative screen wall between drive-thru lane. Pro: Simplest and most cost effective solution. Con: Does not provide room for landscaping. Alternative #2 -Widen the landscape to accommodate trees and shrubs (18 inches proposed). To accomplish this the existing parking bay to the east of this pad would have to be flipped as shown in Exhibit "B" to shift the building footprint easterly. Pro: Provides maximum landscape screening and shade opportunities. Con: Expensive reconstruction of parking. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Special paving should be introduced where pedestrians cross drive aisles. 2. Provide a sidewalk connection from Base Line Road sidewalk to the entrance of the building. • 3. Signs will be a challenge because the site sits so far below Base Line Road. The sweeping fin projecting 35 feet in the air on the north elevation appears to be intended for wall signs. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the project be revised in terms of the above comments and brought to the Design Review Committee for review. Attachments: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon I~ U • • 'A ~~ EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING • I 0 ~NOS~E r • • ~~~, ,~ r ~~ , i ~s_o~ .. ~ / E%ISTING OFFICE BUILDING f/'~O ~ N / \ ~\~ l DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Brent Le Count October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-28 -GATX -The development of two industrial warehouse/distribution buildings (Building III -449,370 square feet, Building IV - 468,410 square feet) totaling 917,780 square feet within the Catellus Master Plan on 44 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the northeast and northwest corners of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue. APN:229-011-25, 31, and 32 Design Parameters: The Catellus Master Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999. The buildings have the same basic architectural flair as the existing GATX I and II buildings to the north on the east side of Milliken Avenue. The proposed buildings represent build out of the southern portion of the Catellus Master Plan from Century W ay/Millennium Court south to Arrow Route. ASemi-circular palm tree planting is proposed to provide an entry statement at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route to be consistent with the Catellus Master Plan. Building III will be located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue and will have it's truck-loading area on the south side of the building fronting Arrow Route. Fourteen-foot high architectural screen walls are proposed along the Arrow Route frontage to screen loading. While the ideal location for the loading from an aesthetic perspective would be on the north side of the building, that area is subject to high seasonal winds. Building IV will be located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue. Loading will be located along the west side of the building and thus screened by the building and afourteen-foot high screen wall relative to Arrow Route. There is an off-site rail line along the west property line. • The project has been designed so that, with minor modifications, rail service could be utilized for the building, but the developer's preferred plan does not utilize the rail line. The main truck entry points to the site are at the southwest corner of the site off Arrow Route, and off the cul-de-sac bulb for Century Court at the north end of the site. The truck movement established by the northern entry is awkward and angular and will likely lead to trucks driving over landscaped areas. There is a drive aisle proposed along the south side of the building connecting the southwest corner drivewayto the parking area along the east side of the building. Ideally, the drive aisle would be eliminated and replaced with landscaping, but fire truck access is necessary along the south side of the building. Pre-Aoplication Review: The project was subject to aPre-Application Review Workshop with the Planning Commission on March 22, 2000 (see attached minutes). The Commission had the following comments: The Commission is willing to accept truck loading on the south side of Building III given strong seasonal winds. However, screening of the loading area from Arrow Route is of utmost importance. Screen walls shall be architectural. 2. Building IV should have substantial wall articulation and variation; especially along the east elevation given it's length. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. The applicant has resolved all major issues with staff. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-28 -GATX • OCTOBER 3, 2000 Page 2 Building IV -Provide screen walls around two northernmost outdoor employee eating areas to shield from winds and traffic noise, and to provide a greater sense of privacy. 2. Provide 2' to 4' parapet wall returns where parapets extend above the main roofline. The intent is to avoid a "fin" like appearance for the raised parapets. The GATX I and II buildings do not have these parapet returns and the new buildings would benefit by them. This was required for the Scripto-Tokai building north of GATX I. Relocate wrought iron fencing to west property line for Building IV site if Public Utilities Commission will allow this close to rail spur. Obtain written verification how close to rail spur landscaping can be planted and what kind (trees, shrubs, ground cover). Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding property and streets. All roof-mounted vents shall be "low-profile" type. 2. Provide tables, chairs, and shade for the employee eating areas. 3. Exterior lighting shall be designed to avoid casting glare on adjacent property and streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved subject to the above comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count Attachments: U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:45 p.m. Brent Le Count October 3, 2000 CIV VIf1V1V IVICIVIML MJJCJJIVIGIVI MIVU UCV GLVrIVICIVI f1GVIGVV VV-Y/ 11 flMVl IVV. IVVJJI- CONCORDIA HOMES -The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 21 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Pradera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive-APN:207-641-01 through 10, 207-631-Ot through 11. Design Parameters: The project site has steep grades ranging from approximately 8% to 32%; hence, is subject to the Hillside Development regulations. The current Hillside Development regulations prohibit development of land in excess of 30% gradient but the site was subdivided prior to adoption of these regulations. All of the lots within the tract have frontage on Camino Predera to the north and all but five back onto an old railroad right of way that will eventually accommodate a trail. The project will impact views of the valley for existing homeowners on Camino Predera. The applicant has provided view-shed cross sections to show these view impacts. The project will also impact views of the site from the south because of the substantial number of trees that are to be removed and because of the visual prominence of the site. The homes on lots 1 through 5, 16 and 17 will have 6 to 7-foot high sound walls along the top of the slope in their rear yard areas. The bottom three feet of these walls is proposed to be decorative masonry with the remainder constructed of glass panels to preserve views. These sound walls will provide a barrier between the future homeowner's useable rear yard area and the remaining slope area beyond which may result • in property maintenance issues. Staff supports the developer's proposal that a homeowner's association be established to maintain these slope areas. The homes are tastefully designed and include 3 feet of elevation difference in the foundations to accommodate the terrain. While this is not nearly enough to truly "fit" the terrain, it is the most foundation stepping the applicant is willing to provide. Three home plans are proposed, each with three to four elevation types. The homes range in size from 2,759 square feet to 3,359 square feet. The homes are all two story with hip style roofs to preserve views. There is less than dramatic differentiation from home to home, especially for side and rear elevations. Pre-Application Review: The project was subject to two workshops with the Planning Commission (see attached minutes). At the most recent workshop, the Commission provided the following direction: It is recognized that steep slopes and high retaining walls are necessary to accommodate the development given the steep terrain on the site. However, reduce retaining wall height as much as possible. The developer showed the Commission retaining walls as high as 15 feet at the workshop. The current plans include retaining walls as high as 22 feet. 2. Mitigate the appearance of high retaining walls by use of creative landscaping. 3. Include aone-story home plan. 4. Preserve views for existing homeowners to the degree possible: It is acceptable to have no street trees along Camino Predera if that would help preserve views for existing homes. 5. The Commission is willing to accept a minimal (three foot) step in the home foundations so long as the overall quality of the project is commensurate with the eventual home values given the prime view location. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES • OCTOBER 3, 2000 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Grading: The grading design for the project includes two alternatives: Doff-site grading within the Pacific Electric Trail railroad corridor along the south of the site, and 2) on-site grading. The proposed off-site grading within the rail corridor appears to respect the minimum of 70 feet needed to accommodate the trail design and future rail of the Pacific Electric Trail corridor (see Sections on Sheet 6). Under the off-site grading alternative, the retaining wall will be 6 feet high. Under the on-site grading alternative, the retaining wall will have to be up to 17 feet high. Both alternatives include substantially high retaining walls on- site up to 22 feet high. It is staff's opinion that the alternative with no off-site grading will have substantial visual impacts as it results in two very high retaining walls in close proximity to one another, visible from Foothill Boulevard. On the other hand, the developer will have to provide a viable means for long term maintenance of the off-site slope/wall area within the rail right-of-way for the other alternative. The high retaining walls are proposed to be of a "Loefelstien" type crib wall. This is a type of wall that has a slight slope to it and has pockets that can be planted with vines or other plants. The developer used this type of wall for Tract 14207 on Beryl Avenue, south of Heritage Park. The wall is now built and landscaped and looks better than a traditional retaining wall. A Variance will be necessary to allow the high walls as the maximum 4-foot height allowed retaining wall height per the Hillside Development regulations is 4 feet. The developer had shown conceptual plans to the Planning Commission at workshops that included a slope stabilization technology referred to as "geo-grid." This has been dropped from the project as the slopes have been reduced from a 1:1 to 1.5:1 slope gradient. However, the Hillside Development regulations allow a maximum slope grade of 2:1; therefore, a Variance is required for the steeper 1.5:1 slope. Further, under the off-site grading alternative, slopes must be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. No Variance application has been filed as of this date; hence, staff has not fully analyzed the proposal. 2. View Impacts: Lower the pad elevations for lots 16 through 21 to preserve views from existing uphill neighbors, as much as possible, or use 1-story homes. The developer claims that there is insufficient room to accommodate single story home plans given the size of the lots and the amount of grading required. 3. Architecture: Provide stronger 360 degree architecture because the homes will be visually prominent from all angles. Upgrade the side and rear elevations of the homes to have the similar level of architectural detail and quality as the fronts including; increased use of corbels, window treatments (shutters, pot shelves, keystones, and divided light), trim, stone or brjck wainscoting, and column treatments. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. The "loefelstien" walls should be planted with a hardy vine or shrub that will eventually completely cover the walls and irrigated accordingly. The down slope side of the high • retaining walls should also be well landscaped to soften the walls. Provide low maintenance landscape plant materials for the slope areas. Provide railroad tie steps or similar means to facilitate maintenance. Home sites with rear yard sound walls such as lots 1 through 5, 16, and 17 will have to have some form of gate or wall opening to permit slope maintenance. 2. Provide cascading vines or similar plant types along the top of retaining walls and train them DRC COMMENTS DR 00-47 - CONCORDIA HOMES • OCTOBER 3, 2000 Page 3 to cascade down over walls. 3. All manufactured slopes shall have a natural or "contoured" look as opposed to a harsh, angular look. 4. Slope drainage features shall have a naturalized, dry streambed appearance through the use of river rock application. 5. Provide landscape planters around the base of the homes where possible to soften their appearance and reduce visible bulk. 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 shall be decorative masonry (split faced block -both sides) with decorative masonry caps. No wood fencing shall be permitted (even between homes) given the visual prominence of the development. All pilasters shall have river rock or similar treatment on all sides. 2. All river rock treatment shall be natural river rock as opposed to manufactured veneer. Other rock treatment, such as slate, maybe of a manufactured product. 3. Provide a minimum of 15 feet of usable rear yard depth at the rear of all homes. • 4. Provide additional landscaping (additional trees, large sized trees and shrubs) along the south/downslope side of the homes to screen downslope elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. Attachments: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • • `a~ 8:05 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Alan Warren October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 0037 - LPA - A request to develop a 10,000 square foot San Bernardino County Law Library on 1.75 acres at the northwest corner of Spruce Street and Red Oak Avenue located in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 208-352-12. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Design Parameters: The site, while relative small at 1.75 acres, is at significant location along the curving Red Oak Avenue as it intersects with Spruce Avenue coming south from Foothill Boulevard. The site is adjacent to the route between the industrial office park area and the retail commercial corridor of Foothill Boulevard. As such, staff believes this building, along with the existing Best Western Hotel on the northeast corner, should provide an impressive architectural statement as part of visual gateway at this pivotal intersection. 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. Site: Initially staff had concerns regarding the building's orientation with the rear elevation facing south to the Red Oak Avenue frontage. This orientation is partially due to the existing interior drives between parcels that logically place the parking lot (and main building entry) on the north side of site. But the project architect, working with staff suggestions, added an impressive entry patio along the east elevation, facing Spruce Street and Red Oak Avenue, with walkways from the street corner to improve the view from the intersection. The south elevation is also enhanced by the addition of three evenly spaced window elements that add interest to the wall area. Architecture: The architecture exhibits a strong modern style, similar to the recently completed Kaiser Medical Center on Arrow Route and the Cucamonga County Water District Building off Central Avenue. Staff believes, that with the mix of various styles in the area, the proposed style will be a positive feature to the immediate area. The scale and building mass is appropriate for the site and surrounding situation. Materials: Staff has concerns regarding the use of predominately concrete block walls. The Planning Commission requires at least two primary building materials on commercial/industrial buildings. CMU Block "Split Face" and "Honed Cut," regardless of color, are too similar to be considered sufficiently different to satisfy this requirement. Staff is concerned that the building, with the excessive masonry block appearance, tied with the predominately unadorned walls, will have the look of an industrial storage/maintenance structure. The CMU Block "Glazed" could present the needed differentiation, but its limited use, much like a trim element, does not constitute a major portion of the building materials. Another material should be included in the design as a major element on the overall design. Also, because of the important location, as mentioned above, staff believes a high quality material needs to be exhibited as a major portion of the building. • Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Staff believes some trim details should be added to form a base (wainscot) and/or top off the highest wall area with a masonry sill or cap. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-37 - LPA • OCTOBER 3, 2000 Page 2 The use of large shrubs near the street corner will block motorists view across the corner and also block the view of the entry patio. Staff recommends low-mounding plants be substituted for the Xylosma and Euonymos at the corner and, also, near the driveway on to Spruce Street. 3. To further enhance the street corner, staff recommends that the triangular planter between the "Y" shaped walks be landscaped with colorful plant materials. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Screen parking areas from public view with mounding, landscaping, low walls, grade differentials, and building orientation. 2. Create a strong entry statement with textured pavement at project entrances. 3. Screen trash enclosures, ground-mounted equipment, and utilities from public view. 4. Avoid expanses of blank wall, devoid of any articulation or embellishment. 5. Integrate screening for roof mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet • walls) rather than have a "tacked-on" appearance. 6. Architectural details can introduce accent colors; however, avoid too many bright colors which overpower the building. 7. Consider site amenities, such as walls, hardscape, street furniture, trash enclosures, lighting, and monument signs, as part of the total architectural package for the project. 8. Integrate signs into the architectural program. 9. Articulate building entrances to create a formal entry statement. 10. Twenty percent of all trees are to be box size for industrial projects. For commercial and office projects, thirty percent of all trees are to be box size. 11. Select plants of appropriate size at maturity for their intended use to minimize maintenance or replacement when plant outgrows the available space. 12. Maintain adequate sight lines for motorists at intersections and driveways. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans incorporating the applicable items from above and any other items the Committee deems appropriate. Once revised, the plans should return for further Committee review. . Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: ~i Staff Planner: Alan Warren DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:30 p.m. Kirt Coury October 3, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-09 - PATIEL - A request to construct a new 10,944 square foot Church with religious education school on 2.86 acres in the Low Residential District, located on the north side of Base Line Road between Lion Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 202-242-09. Design Parameters: The site is located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 330 feet west of Hellman Avenue. The site is generally flat with less than 5 percent slope north to south. The lot is currently occupied by a vacant single-family dwelling at the (front) southwest corner of the site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped with native trees and grasses present. Single-family dwellings surround the property on the north, east, and west. Property immediately south of the site is developed with a retail commercial shopping center. Access to the site will be through an existing drive approach on Base Line Road. The project will consist of a 10,944 square foot church building with an office area, classrooms, and a prayer room. The building will be built on the 2.86 acres of land. The building will be self sufficient with independent access, parking, and utility services. Finish materials for the building exterior include archway treatments to create horizontal and vertical visual interest, white/almond stucco finish, and a red file roof. The proposed windows will be arched and treated with mullions. The overall building height is proposed at 27 feet. Two columns, 30 feet in height, mark the front entrance. The columns will be tiered and stucco finished with concrete minaret caps. • The applicant proposes to develop the property in three phases. The first phase will consist of tenant improvements to the existing single-family dwelling to be converted to a worship/education facility. In addition, the front parking and driveway approach will be constructed as part of phase one. Phase two will include the development of the main prayer hall building and a majority of the central parking lot area. Construction time for phase two is estimated at approximately 2 years. Phase three of the proposed project will include the construction of the office and classroom portions of the building, the remaining parking lot area, and completion of the proposed landscaping. The time completion for this phase is estimated at another 2 years (4 years from project approval). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Staff strongly encourages a site design similar to that of Exhibit "A" (Exhibit used for reference only). The Exhibit "A" layout would meet City code requirements, provide for fire department secondary emergency access, and allow for a more expandable use of the front building area and portion of the property. 2. Enhance the architecture of the north elevation. Staff would suggest window treatments, and arched insets to provide visual relief of the blank wall. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. Provide more trees and decorative landscaping in northern portion of property encircling the proposed building to help screen visual impact of building on surrounding neighbors. 2. Add decorative paving in front of landscape planters near frontage of building to delineate pedestrian entrance walkways. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-09 - PATIEL • OCTOBER 3, 2000 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Kirt Coury •