Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/08/15 - Agenda Packet • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY AUGUST 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. Committee Members Alternates: PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino 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. (Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-23-LEWISRETAIL CENTERS-The development of two retail pad buildings totaling 9,000 square feet on 0.84 acres of land within the Terra Vista Town Center, in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive. APN: 1077-421-87. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 99-26 Sav-On. 7:40 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15866-FIELDSTONE - A residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 24 single family Tots with a separate lot for future expansion of GTE facilities on 8 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive -APN: 225-251-47. Related File: Variance 00-05. 8:10 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-15 - FARMER BOY'S RESTAURANT -The development of a 2,827 square foot fast food restaurant, with a 630 square foot outdoor eating area and adrive-thru, on t-acre of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. 8:40 p.m. (Kirt) HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of East Avenue, southwest of the I-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road in the Etiwanda Specific Plan -APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related file: Variance 00-04, Tree Removal Permit 00-25. u DRC AGENDA August 15, 2000 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 9:10 p.m. (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-77-CABOT - A request to construct a 600,078 square foot industrial building on 27.75 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Sixth Street-APN: 210-072- 14, 25, 30, 37 and APN: 210-371-08. 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 II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 10, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the • meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Ce ter Dr'v Rancho Cucamonga. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Debra Meier August 15, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-23- LEW IS RETAIL CENTERS-The developmentof two retail pad buildings totaling 9,000 square feet on 0.84 acres of land within the Terra Vista Town Center, in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive. APN: 1077-421-87. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 99-26 Sav-On. Design Parameters: Pad Buildings G and H are the final components of the northwest quadrant of Terra Vista Town Center. The pad buildings are situated immediately south of Sav-On (Conditional Use Permit 99-26), westerly of Target (Conditional Use Permit 99-40 Target expansion), and south and westerly of Polar Ice (Conditional Use Permit 00-21). With the approval and eventual development of these projects this entire northwest portion of Town Center will be complete. This will also complete the parking, landscaping and pedestrian circulation connections between the Pad A to the south (Big 5 Sporting Goods, et al.), Edwards Cinema to the east, and to both Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive. With the approval of Sav-On, Pad G was offset to the south of Sav-On. That concept has been modified with Pad G now proposed abutting the south elevation of Sav-On. During plancheck for Sav-On, the City Planner allowed Sav-On to proceed through plancheck and obtain building permits by requesting that the applicant post a cash deposit for the value of the architectural detail, as approved by the Planning Commission, that will be withheld in the hopes that Pad G will be approved and constructed in the near future. When Pad G is constructed the cash deposit will be released to the applicant. • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Both buildings G and H will be expected to be consistent with the various building materials and colors, including the random stacking of tiles, file wainscot, plaster patterns, and the specific design details of the cornices, corbels, etc. All street furniture, trash enclosure design, hardscape and landscaping shall also match and/or be consistent with the Terra Vista Town Center Guidelines. BUILDING GELEVATIONS -The west and south elevations incorporate small-scale tower elements and covered walkway along the storefronts. The design incorporates the file wainscot and rafter details typical of Terra Vista town Center. The rear elevation (facing east) requires some additional attention to detail, particularly at the southeast corner, which has exposure to the circulation aisle, which provides access both northerly toward Sav-On, and easterly between Polar Ice and Target. It may be appropriate to consider a raised roofline near the building corner with increased shadow line from the building face, to accentuate this corner. 2. BUILDING HELEVATIONS-Building H is astand-alone pad; therefore, exposed to view on all sides. The northeast corner forms a focal point at the westerly end of the drive-aisle behind Target and Polar Ice. The colonnade should extend 3/a the width of the north elevation. 3. SITE PLAN -Relocate the trash enclosure on the east side of Building H, to the southeasterly corner of the Building H pad. This will allow the applicant to develop a more appropriate landscaping focus at the end of the drive aisle. This space will then allow building architectural elements to wrap the building corner and provide landscaping at this L~ DRC COMMENTS DR 00-23 - LEW IS RETAIL CENTERS August 15, 2000 • Page 2 4. LANDSCAPING -Landscaping around Buildings G and H is minimal (see attached). There are only 4 trees proposed along the 340 linear feet between the northwest corner of Sav-on Drugs to the southwest corner of building H, 11 trees should be provided consistent with the Development Code standard of one tree every 30 feet. Trees may be clustered in groups. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above modifications. Attachment Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier Building G -The architect presented a design solution based on staff comment of the rear elevation that was acceptable to the Committee. Building H -The architect presented the modifications to the north elevation of Building H as suggested by staff. This alternative was acceptable to the Committee. Site Plan -The applicant agreed to the relocation of the trash enclosure as suggested by staff comments. • Landscaping -The applicant acknowledged the landscape requirements along the building face as identified in the staff comments. The Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff to resolve the remainder of the landscape details. There were no further comments by the Committee, and the Committee recommended Cily Planner approval of the retail pad buildings. i' 1 U ~~ a~ ~_ o~ o0 ~ ~ ~~ _~ 03 • 0 LL II( N °i U V N ~ N /~ ('J N C7 T/ I \ h\ Y w~ ~~ ~; m I 1 ~( u'~I = N~ ~ (~ I-LL~y Q C~ d~ W t1") ~/ 'o Q~~ N N hl~` I~ ~~ ---q LL e ~ N ___ h m U o ® ~ `~ J ,: ` ~. ® W. [. ® r.. a ti': ~~~4 ~ ,., ~. _8 ® ~ ^TMy x g~ ~ mi ~ -~ ~' os u3 Y~ w= ~ m ii ¢ao ~ !~j aw y U ~ Q ® 2 ~~ - H y r DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count August 15, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15866 -FIELDSTONE - A residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 24 single family lots with a separate lot for future expansion of GTE facilities on 8 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located atthe southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive - APN: 225-251-47. Related File: Variance 00-05. Design Parameters: The site is located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between the future Route 30 Milliken off-ramp to the south and Vintage Drive to the north. The site is surrounded by existing single-family homes in the Caryn Planned Community to the north and east, and single- family homes to the west. There is a GTE facility at the southeast corner of the tract, which will be parceled out to GTE with the subdivision for future expansion of their facility. Up to a 10-foot high sound wall is required along the south tract boundary to mitigate noise from the Route 30 Freeway. The applicant has submitted a Variance request for the increased wall height. The applicant, Fieldstone Homes, intends to use the same home product, as they are currently building within Tract 15814 at the southwest corner of Rochester and Highland Avenues. This home design was the subject of significant negotiations through the design review process. The proposed homes are larger and feature more architectural enhancements than the adjoining Caryn developments. The Tentative Tract 15814 project was built under the Innovative Standards of the Victoria Community Plan, which required architectural enhancements such as front porches, trellis covered courtyards near the front door, and garaged tucked behind the front porch/entry in exchange for reduced lot size and reduced setbacks. The current project retains the architectural enhancements but is being built under Basic Development Standards so no reductions in setbacks • or lot size are being requested. The side and rear elevations do not have quite the same level of architectural enhancement as the fronts but they still represent an upgrade over existing surrounding homes by using window surrounds, divided light, and second story balconies, which allow the developer to achieve the front enhancements. Code Inconsistencies: The following are technical issues that staff will address through the Technical Review Committee. Adjust home plotting for Lots 11 and 17 to provide minimum 27-foot corner side yard dimension. Adjust home plotting for Lots 2 and 9 to provide minimum 20-foot deep rear yards. Adjust frontage of Lot 10 to provide minimum 40-foot lot frontage at the front property line (right-of-way line). 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: Replot house on Lot 10 to provide greater setback from property line and the adjoining GTE facility. Although the proposed 5-foot setback complies with Code standards, it does not meet the intent to provide adequate light, air and open space for the residents. One possible replotting is shown in Exhibit "A." 2. Provide a decorative view fence at right-of-way line along Street "B" to secure Lot 25 for the purpose of discouraging dumping, graffiti or other undesirable activities until such time as GTE expands. If left open, Lot 25 could become an attraction for nuisance. Open "view" • fencing is preferred for police and public surveillance. Also, developer should provide written notice to potential buyers that Lot 25 is intended for expansion of the GTE facility. DRC COMMENTS TT 15866 -FIELDSTONE August 15, 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: There is a 22-25 foot high slope between Lots 15/16 and 22/23, which will be visible by northbound traffic on Milliken Avenue. The developer is proposing substantial tree planting on the 20-foot high slope and decorative masonry block for the rear yard fencing of Lots 15 and 16. 2. Provide at least two trees per each home's front yard exclusive of street trees 3. The 10-foot high sound wall along the south tract boundary should have the tan split faced block with fluted block accent to match the remaining Route 30 Caltrans walls. 4. All walls shall be stuccoed on both sides and all pilasters shall have natural river rock application on all sides. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Corner side yard fences/walls should be setback 5 feet behind sidewalk to provide a planter strip. Lots 11 and 17 must be revised. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. • Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and recommends approval subject to staff's comments with the following revision: The rear and side yard fencing for Lots 15 and 16 may be translucent glass to permit views from these lots at the discretion of the ,developer. The glass fencing must meet the requirements of noise mitigation per the noise study for the project. C~ • ~Ml~if 'SAO G7E ~` Imo(' ~o DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:10 p.m. Brent Le Count August 15, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-15 -FARMER BOY'S RESTAURANT -The development of a 2,827 square foot fast food restaurant, with a 630 square foot outdoor eating area and adrive-thru, on 1-acre of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Background: On June 20, 2000, the Design Review Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review (see attached minutes). The applicant agreed to explore design revisions accordingly. The applicant's revised design incorporates many of the architectural features of the Lowe's building, such as a colonnade around key portions of the building. It also includes a substantial trellis feature and a pone-cochere over the drive-thru lane. The main east-west drive aisle between the Farmer Boys site and the Union Bank site to the east has been eliminated (this will help avoid a short vehicle stacking distance on the north-south entry to the site east of Union Bank). It is staff's opinion that the revised design successfully incorporates the direction provided by the Committee and recommends approval. 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: 1. Provide a planter wall (heavy wall with planter on top) surrounding the outdoor eating area • on the north side of the building to buffer the outdoor eating area from cars in the drive thru lane and to mitigate high seasonal winds. 2. Provide planters with trees and shrubs between parking lot and building, flanking entry. No Conceptual Landscape Plan was provided to clarify what areas are hardscape or landscaping. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Change base of building to a Sawteel 12-inch by 12-inch file material to match Lowe's. 2. Signs -Ancillary information such as, "World Famous Hamburgers" or the like is prohibited by the Sign Ordinance. Business name only is allowed. Policy 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 and utilities shall be fully screened. 2. Surround trash enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting. 3. Provide a double door vestibule at the main entry to mitigate strong seasonal winds. 4. Trash enclosure should feature overhead shade trellis and roll-up door. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above conditions. Attachment DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-15 -FARMER BOY'S RESTAURANT August 15, 2000 • Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman , Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommends approval subject to staff's comments and the following additional comments: . The content and final design of the wall sign shall be resolved through the Uniform Sign Program pending City review. 2. The Committee is willing to accept an alternative to the sawteel file wainscoting to match the Lowe's wainscoting. The buff colored file with teal colored accents that Farmer Boys showed the Committee are acceptable. A double door foyer for wind protection was strongly recommended. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 20, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-15- FARMER BOY'S RESTAURANT -The development of a 2,775 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru on 1- acre of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Design Parameters: The site is located within the Catellus Master Plan area, which was approved by the Planning Commission in April of 1999, and within the Lowe's Home Improvement center approved by the Commission in May of 1999. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent. The site will be graded so that it sets approximately 3 to 4 feet below the level of Foothill Boulevard. The building design incorporates some of the basic architectural features that were established by the Lowe's building. The restaurant is proposed to have adrive-thru lane which will wrap around the north and west sides of the building. The building and drive-thru lane will be visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard and will contribute to the entry experience to the Lowe's center. No outdoor dining is proposed. The project represents a modification to the Catellus Master Plan, which did not include a drivethru use in this location. However, the project meets the basic intent of the Drive-thru Design Policy in that it'is located 300 feet from an intersection and other drive-thru uses and the drive-thru lane respects the 45-foot setback. 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. Exterior should be completely redesigned, starting with the elimination of the mansard roof. The building lacks a strong architectural statement,which detracts from the quality desired for a building so prominently located on Foothill Boulevard at the entrance to Lowe's. The strongest element is a file mansard roof, which gives the building a dated appearance. This style of mansard roof has become synonymous with the "corporate" design of fast food drive thru chains. Suggest incorporating gable and/or hip roof elements, and curved arches, consistent with architectural theme established by Lowe's (see Exhibit "A"). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Eliminate or smooth out the awkward curve in main east-west drive aisle between Farmer Boys and Union Bank to avoid potential headon collisions. 2. Provide low screen wall to enhance screening of drive-thru lane. See Carls Jr. at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive, or Texaco/Taco Bell at Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue. 3. Provide Porte-cochere or large member trellis out over the drive-thru lane on the north side of the building to help minimize the presence of the drivethru lane and incorporate it with the overall building. 4. East Elevation -Entry feature should project more by making columns same depth as width (i.e., 2 feet 9 inches) to provide a true covered entry. 5. Change base of building to a Sawteel 12 inch by 12-inch file material to match Lowe's. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-15 -FARMER BOY'S RESTAURANT June 20, 2000 Page 2 6. Signs -Ancillary information such as, "World Famous Hamburgers" or the like is prohibited by the Sign Ordinance. Business name only. Plant trees between north side of building and drive-thru lane. 8. Extend enhanced paving into both handicap stalls at building entry. 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. The low 15-foot parapet height may not be sufficient to screen roof-mounted equipment from public views along Foothill Boulevard because building pad is 3 feet below Foothill Boulevard. Restaurants typically have larger/taller roof equipment because of cooking facilities. A detailed cross section should be provided to demonstrate screening. 2. Surround trash enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Attachments: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested thatthe project be redesigned and brought back for further review subject to staffs comments and the following additional comments. The applicant agreed to explore design revisions accordingly. The Committee also recommended: If the applicant wishes to include an outdoor dining area it must be protected with decorative walls, etc., from strong seasonal winds out of the northeast and the outdoor dining area must be included in overall parking calculation. 2. That a double door vestibule be provided at the main entry to mitigate strong seasonal winds. 3. The drive-thru lane be screened either by the use of a low wall or a berm or a combination thereof. 4. The applicant agreed to completely restudy the architectural design of the building to provide a higher quality architectural statement consistent with Foothill Boulevard design standards and the remainder of the Lowe's development. __.. 0 '~` V +~' W ~ '~ C ~_~a, DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:40 p.m. Kirt Coury August 15, 2000 TENTATIVE TRACT 16105 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00 -34 -FORECAST HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single- family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of East Avenue, southwest of the I-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road in the Etiwanda Specific Plan -APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related file: Variance 00-04, Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Design Parameters: The site is vacant and relatively flat, with four existing stands of windrows on- sitethat are proposed for removal. The site is bounded to the east by East Avenue and to the west by the I-15 freeway. To the north is a proposed C.C.W.D future water reservoir and to the south is an approved single-family residential development, Tract 15711. The site will be developed under the Low-Medium Residential Basic Development Standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Five house plans are being proposed, each having three different architectural styles: California Ranch, Prairie, and California Bungalow. All plans have 2-car garages broken into various configurations as follows: Plan 1 is single-story, 1,910 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a two bedroom with aden/option bedroom three. Plan 2 is two-story, 2,302 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front • porch. The plan is a three bedroom with aloft/option bedroom four. Plan 3 is two-story, 2,370 square feet, and features a 2-car side-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a three bedroom with aden/option bedroom four and IofUoption bedroom five. Plan 4 is two-story, 2,528 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a three bedroom with aloft/option bedroom four. Plan 5 is two-story, 2,740 square feet, and features a 2-car side-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a three bedroom with aloft/option bedroom four and den/option bedroom five. Variance: The applicant has submitted a Variance application requesting to increase the wall height to 14-feet along the I-15 freeway. The Development Code allows a maximum wall height of 6-feet. The Variance for the wall is necessary to help mitigate freeway noise; however, Caltrans has rejected allowing the sound wall at the freeway shoulder (on top of slope). The noise study must be revised to determine the wall height necessary at tract boundary (toe of slope). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be the focus of the Committee's discussion regarding this project: • 1. Special "enhanced architecture" should be given to lots that side (lots on eastern boundary) or rear onto East Avenue. Consideration shall be given to include a mixture of second-story pop-outs; greater use of window mullions, shutters, and pot shelves on lots that side or rear on East Avenue. DRC COMMENTS TT 16101 & DR 00-34 -FORECAST HOMES August 15, 2000 • Page 2 2. Front yard landscaping should include, at a minimum, one 15-gallon size tree, one 5-gallon size tree, seeded ground cover, and a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees. 3. The high sound wall along the north and west tract boundary should have the two-tone tan split faced block with fluted block accent to match the approved sound wall for Tract 15911 (Ryland) to maintain a uniform treatment along the 115 corridor. Also, plant trees and . climbing vines to soften appearance. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The river rock stone pilasters should be placed at the most northern and southern ends of the East Avenue perimeter wall. 2. The 6-foot split-face block wall (interior wall returns), and the southern boundary block wall (proto type II precision block wall) should be developed with double-sided split face block. Code Requirements: The following items are required by Ordinance, Development Code or Specific Plan and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: • 1: Plant new Eucalyptus windrows to replace those removed. 2. The decorative perimeter wall along East Avenue should incorporate large river rock stone pilasters and a river rock planterwall in its design, developed at a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches each. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The Committee reviewed the project and did not recommend approval. The Committee directed the applicant to continue to work on resolving the major issues presented at the meeting (modify the lots at ends of cul-de-sacs Street "E"and "F,"adjust awkward 5-foot side yard to rear yard relationships, and enhance architecture to lots that rear onto East Avenue). The Committee supported adding river rock stone pilasters to the ends of the East Avenue perimeter wall, supplementing double-sided split face block to interior wall returns, as well as using accent treatment to the proposed sound wall. The applicant should revise the project and return to the Design Review Committee on September 5, 2000, as a Consent Calendar item. In addition, the Committee recommended the following change be incorporated in the revised plans: 1. Provide landscape treatment to minimize concrete effect at the bulb ends of cul-de-sacs • Street "E" and "F." CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 9:10 p.m. Rudy Zeledon August 15, 2000 ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-77-CABOT-A requestto construct a 600,078 square foot industrial building on 27.75 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Sixth Street -APN: 210-072-14, 25, 30, 37 and APN: 210-371-08. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project as a consent item and recommended approval and directed the applicant to work with staff on the following issues: Provide a driveway along the frontage of Sixth Street or create a turn around at the northeast end of the parking area to help on-site circulation. 2. Provide landscaping along the northeast elevation. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • AUGUST 15, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respecttully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary ~J DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES • TUESDAY AUGUST 1, 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 PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-24-DARRYL L. HANN The development of amulti-tenant office/warehouse building totaling 34,493 square feet on 2.17 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on east side of Elm Avenue, just north of W hite Birch Drive -APN: 208- • 961-23. 7:30 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-25-STEFAN A. SMITH The development of two multi-tenant office/warehouse buildings totaling 27,000 square feet on 1.74 acres of land in Subarea 8 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Birch Drive - APN: 208-961-23 CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 8:00 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-12 - TOMRA PACIFIC. INC. - A request to expand an existing recycling facility from 2.49 acres to 4.79 acres of land in Subarea 5 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9910 East 6th Street-APN: 209-211-42, 43. Related files: Conditional Use Permit 99-42. 8:10 p.m. (Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-35 - KAUFMAN AND BROAD -Design review of building elevations and site plan for two new single family plans for Tract 15875, located east of Day Creek Boulevard, between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road • -APN: 227-351-65; 227-393-01 and 02; 227-401-78; and 227-091-41. DRC AGENDA August 1, 2000 • Page 2 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 July 27, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 atr~1,0~5,.0, 0 Civic C ter Dri ,Rancho Cucamonga. r1 L_J • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Warren Morelion August 1, 2000 CIV V 11"iV IV IVI CIV I ML MJJ CJJIVICIV I F11V V UC V CLVrIVI LIV I nL V IGVV VV-cY - Vnnn I ~ ~. I IlIIYIY The development of amulti-tenant office/warehouse building totaling 34,493 square feet on 2.17 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on east side of Elm Avenue, just north of White Birch Drive - APN: 208-961-23. Design Parameters: The 2.17 acre site is vacant and slopes south at approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing industrial development, and to the south and west by vacant land. The property to the south is currently being proposed for development (Development Review 00-25). The site has a street frontage along Elm Avenue with two proposed drive approaches. Truck loading is proposed on the south side of the building away from the street frontage. The building is architecturally designed to fit the rectangular shape of the site and is consistent with surrounding industrial development. A number of trees exist at the west portion of the property along Elm Avenue. 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. Articulate building elevations to eliminate long continuous plane and flat roofline. Design the • office portion as the architectural focus point of the building by providing vertical variation between it and the warehouse portion of the building. 2. Redesign west elevation to eliminate large expanse of fluted area in center of building design. To make the elevation more architecturally compatible with the north elevation, the applicant should design the area between storefronts the same. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Relocate the drainage swale near north drive approach so it does not interfere with the decorative driveway paving design. 2. Provide landscape berms in front landscape areas to provide visual interest and further screen loading areas from public view. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in terms of the above comments and brought back for review under consent calendar. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Warren Morelion • The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following: Redesign west elevation to match design of north elevation (i.e., add glazing). DRC COMMENTS DR 00-24 - DARRYL L. HANN • August 1, 2000 Page 2 2. Relocate drainage Swale so it does not interfere with decorative driveway paving design. 3. Provide landscape berms in front landscape areas. 4. Enhance employee-eating area by adding lunch tables. 5. Revise 12-inch color stripe/treatment on building so it is complimentary with color stripes/treatments on proposed building to the south. • u DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Warren Morelion August 1, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-25 - STEFAN A. SMITH The development of two multi-tenant office/warehouse buildings totaling 27,000 square feet on 1.74 acres of land in Subarea 8 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Birch Drive-APN: 208-961-23. The 1.74-acre site is vacant and slopes south at approximately 1 percent. The site is surrounded to the south and east by existing industrial development, and to the north and west by vacant land. The property to the north is currently being proposed for development (Development Review 00-24). There are two buildings proposed on the site. One building is 12,800 square feet and the other building is 14,200 square feet. Street frontage for the project is along Elm Avenue and White Birch Drive. There are two drive approaches proposed on White Birch Drive with truck loading areas away from the street frontage. The buildings are architecturally designed to fit the shape of the site and are consistent with surrounding industrial development. A numberof trees exist atthe west and south portion of the property along Elm Avenue and W hite Birch Drive. 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. Articulate building elevations to eliminate long continuous plane and flat roofline. Design the office portion as the architectural focus point of the buildings by providing more glass treatment and by providing vertical variation between them and the warehouse portion of the • buildings. 2. Incorporate sandblasted concrete treatment on all building elevations. 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 landscape berms in front landscape areas to provide visual interest and further screen loading areas from public view. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in terms at the above comments and brought back for review under consent calendar. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following: Incorporate sandblasted concrete treatment on all building elevations. Provide landscape berms in front landscape areas. • 3. Enhance employee-eating area by adding lunch tables. 4. Revise 12-inch color stripe/treatment on building so it is complimentary with color stripes/treatments on proposed buildings to the north. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Warren Morelion August 1, 2000 ovv invivm~iv i n~r~oo~oomov i r~ivv ~.vivv~ i ivivr~~ ~o~ r~nrvn ~ w- ic- i vmnn rr~~ar~~ INC. - A request to expand an existing recycling facility from 2.49 acres to 4.79 acres of land in Subarea 5 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9910 East 6th Street - APN: 209-211-42, 43. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-42. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval. • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 8:10 p.m. Douglas Fenn August 1, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-35 - KAUFMAN AND BROAD -Design review of building elevations and site plan for two new single family plans for Tract 15875, located east of Day Creek Boulevard, between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 227-351-65; 227-393-01 and 02; 227-401- 78; and 227-091-41. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Douglas Fenn The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval. u • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS AUGUST 1, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary u