Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/04/18 - Agenda Packetr e` •~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY APRIL 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino CONSENT CALENDAR 7:00 p.m. (Brent) TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 -RANCHO SUMMIT - A request to adjust the alignment of equestrian and pedestrian trails for approved Tentative Tract 14759 in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road -APN: 226-102-17. 7:00 p.m. (Brent) TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 -LEE- A residential subdivision and design • review of detailed site plan and elevations for 22 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre),. located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue -APN: 208-091-08. 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 (Sal/Duane) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16058 -GRIFFIN HOME BUILDING GROUP- A request to subdivide an 18.8-acre site into 92 single-family residential lots, one lot for a private park, one lot (Lot I) for off-site access, and seven lettered lots for internal roadways. The site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street and is in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 210-062-31. 7:40 p.m (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-77 - CABOT - A request to construct a 561,450 square foot industrial building on 24.28 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 6th Street -APN: 210-072-14, 25,30, and 37. .~ DRC AGENDA April 18, 2000 .~ Page 2 8:20 p.m. (Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-08 -PACIFIC COMMUNITIES- Revisions to previously approved building product for Phases I and II of Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single-family homes on 45.3 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Interstate 15, and west of East Avenue. The following items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 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 April 13, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the I meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Cent Drive, ancho Cucamonga. ~I -- -- - - C~ CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 18, 2000 • TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 -RANCHO SUMMIT- A request to adjust the alignment of equestrian and pedestrian trails for approved Tentative Tract 14759 in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-102-17. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee is not in favor of changing the equestrian and pedestrian trails on Wardman Bullock Road and Summit Avenue from curvilinear to straight. Furthermore, the street furniture and entry monumentation shall be provided. The Committee may accept changes in design or construction materials if they are necessary to reduce long term public maintenance costs. • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 18, 2000 • TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 -LEE- A residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 22 single family lots on 4.39acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the revised plan, which showed a reduction from 23 to 22 lots. The Committee recommends approval. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Sal Salazar/Duane Morita April 18, 2000 • TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16058 -GRIFFIN HOME BUILDING GROUP - A request to subdivide an 18.8-acre site into 92 single-family residential lots, one lot for a private park, one lot (Lot I) for off-site access, and seven lettered lots for internal roadways. The site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street and is in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 210-062-31. Background: In November 1999, the City approved a General Plan Amendment, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment, and Development District Amendment for the project site. The project site was previously located in Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The aforementioned applications effectively removed the 18.8-acre project site from the Industrial Specific Plan and rezoned the site to Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). Tentative Tract 16058 is proposed in accordance with the recently approved applications and underlying zoning. Design Parameters: The residential lots range in size from 5,231 to 11,902 square feet. The average lot size is 6,515 square feet. The private park is 20,354 square feet or 0.47 acres. Lot I is proposed to provide access to those existing off-site lots and residences located northeast of the project site. A 26-foot wide access easement is also proposed to extend from Lot F to provide access to the existing off-site lot and residence located southeast of the project site. Refer to Exhibit "A," which presents proposed Tentative Tract 16058. The applicant proposes Tentative Tract 16058 as an extension of Tentative Tract 15727, which is contiguous to the project site to the south and east. Tentative Tract 15727 was approved by the City in 1996 and was processed by the same applicant, Griffin Homes. To provide physical connection between the two Tentative Tract maps, Lots A and E of Tentative Tract 16058, which • are roadways, will extend and connect with Sunglow Court and Cedar Glen Court, which are located within the existing residential development built by Tentative Tract 15727. Refer to Exhibit "B," which presents the location of Tentative Tract 16058 relative to Tentative Tract 15727. The overall layout of the proposed tract is consistent with the existing Griffin Community. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Extension of Lot F to Southern Property Line. As presently designed, Lot F is a cul-de-sac with a bulb, which ends about 65 feet from the southern property line. A 26-foot wide easement is also proposed to provide access to the existing residence located south of the project site. This access easement is part of the driveway approach for proposed Lot 14, which is not desirable. As a solution, it is recommended that Lot F and the cul-de-sac bulb be extended further south, closer to the property line, which will shorten the required access easement. This in turn will provide Lot 14 with more frontage for its driveway. This will also allow the access easement to be widened from 26 feet, as presently proposed, to 30 feet, which is an Engineering requirement. Refer to Exhibit "A," which presents the proposed access easement. 2. Re-design of Knuckle for Intersection of Lots F and G As presently designed, Lot G does not provide sufficient turning radius based on City Engineering standards. As a solution, it is recommended that a knuckle be provided at the intersection of Lots F and G, similar to the knuckle being provided at the intersection of Lots D and G. Refer to Exhibit "A;" which • presents the intersection location, which requires the knuckle • DRC COMMENTS TTM 16058 -GRIFFIN April 18, 2000 Page 2 HOME BUILDING GROUP Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and returned to the Design Review Committee, as a consent item, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Sal Salazar/Duane Morita The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments and the following: Revise the Tentative Tract Map to extend the cul-de-sac bulb for proposed Lot F further to the southern property line and widen the access easement to the off-site Assanelli property from 26 feet to 30 feet in accordance with Engineering recommendation. U 2. Revise the roadway transition from Lot G to Lot F to provide sufficient turning radius in accordance with Engineering standards and requirements. This issue will be addressed during plan check of the final map. 3. House plotting must comply with 45-foot setback from curb face along Archibald Avenue. r1 U ~ ~ a '~ ~ a ~ ~~ BE ~1 ~ Q F ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~f~~~ ~i ~ 8Fa a . I C S ii - ~ ~ ~ ~,~ {{E~ fib =S { 9 p% ' ~<e1~ ~ ~a9FE«~ as 613~Q8 ESE E EEi ~ _.._._ ._, ..-,-. ^.. __.._ _"- 3f1N3Atlrj ON91H02ltl-,~ ~: , ~~:. \. ~;~'. laa.("i•na yea e ~t~~r, ~ ~~.5 ~®.d ®,, is ~?, sA~, ®sa ~e ~~, 'B: n^ _ r,~: _•~ __.... i y -r - rv ) ' i'l _ - /~ 4 ~ %~~ ' i ~~ 3 ~.,.~; - ~~ ~~ i .'~ na - .,n .®= e @ ~m ..~. r o i i i ~~` ~ ~ ~~ A . C '~ •~-~. a _ ., e us < ~d e n W ,; & ~_ . ~Wm W~ a T ~ 'om' ~ k _ Z > [~ p U ,~~ N FF p~~ S 6EE.~ 5' i~~ ~ ~ < ~~' N ~~ '8. ~ ~ $E SYg/ 5• ~7E~ ~~~:~ Q S Fa i ~ R PC ~ rv V $ 3 °~~~ ~ 'i' ~ ~ a ~ j ~~ ae"~ ~a~~ ~E$~ E ~ IE ' Q S § 4 ~ ___ e T______7_ __ ___r B B B B B k a n ~-i I n ~ n 31 ' s > ~ ~ ~. .~. - .e ®~ ~ ~~~ ~ y i ~~~P/~c :N'.,2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ f ~1, . w, !F ~% ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 9 ~ ~ Iz ~1 ' 0 ~ v e ~ ~ ' ° ~ 11 `~ ~ ~ } ~~ y ~ ~ - ~ ram r~ ° 1 1r ~ i ~ t, I 1 ,, Y ~ ® ? `I ___ r (L ~ I z. e z ~~`___ m n ~-.Jri.97-~ > art ~" + . m I ~i - ,. .~ y ~ . . 3 ~ . .~~~ 1 .® i ~ -'®~~~ //pp IV's ~ ~~® VV // (.~ ~ ® CPJ / ~ ~ Vr~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Z' ® t ~~ f.,,~ 1 t__ ,.a .. ^ .. :. ' ° ; , ' ~~~ : . Sys;,:;:. y ~.. , ,i i l i" ~ B ® ® ~ . Y ~. , ~ u . 3! i ~6~ .. 1 ... `. .," _~ _ - ,,. ~ ~--.,. ..~ .. -~ o. ~„ _ i~~ n n m a n °li ~ m < ~ ~ ~~~ ~, 9~~ ~~-i 3a9~ A ~~' i' : ~ i gl .~ Sd ~~t 3 1? ~Qu ~m iu .~ 5 k~ £~~~ Q[ I~ I I I .~ ~~ -- , ~ ; I I I ~--------- ~ I I I ~'. E-------- I I I '1i I ~. I I --------------~ 6-------TI ~ I I I `_JI II I --~ - I~---~ I I I I II I I I II / ; _ ~ p. w P t ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 H ? ^i C b r ~ ~ cl •~ ~ t _ ~ ~~ ~o; ; F ~ ' ii ~ 5 ~ r•~ i ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ I • ~ ~ y e i - F a' . Il' u ~ . ~ l ~`~ 1 ~~ Lei •n' - , ~.c pp 6 .T. „ ~~+~ 8 Q ~J ` ~ . ' 9 ~~y1G 6 t H • P F .4 P ~ ® y P ` I ~ @ ~ 5 f - F• O 9 , • y~~ - e e ~ OYLOf'~ 'k A 3 - e ~ g g E _ E ~ ....... ~_ ..... ~ < d~427 'a" ~ e -~ S <; ~_ mo ; U ~s ~F E ~~ as a '9 ~ ~~ g€ ~' ~} I ~~ e k ~§~ ' i '~ ~ i O W ® w a ~ r t Y p f e DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Rudy Zeledon April 18, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-77 -CABOT- A request to construct a 561,450 square foot industrial building on 24.28 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 6th Street - APN: 210-072-14, 25,30, and 37. Desian Parameters: The site is surrounded to the north by amulti-tenant industrial center across 6th Street, to the west by vacant land across Hermosa Avenue, to the east by the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and to the south by vacant land. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. There are two existing single family homes on the southern portion of the site. The site contains approximately 13 mature trees. The applicant has submitted an arborist report to assess the condition of the trees and the possibility of preservation. The street frontages along both 6th Street and Hermosa Avenue are unimproved, with no curb, gutter, driveway approaches, sidewalks or street trees. The proposed industrial building will be oriented on a north and south axis. A gated pedestrian connection from the project site to the planned Deer Creek Regional Trail is proposed at the southeast corner of the site. The building incorporates two primary building materials: painted and sandblasted concrete. Secondary design material accents such colored panel reveals bands, and blue reflective glazed glass are also proposed. The office portions of the building will front on to the southeast corner of 6th Street and Hermosa Avenue and at the southwest portion of the site, along Hermosa Avenue. The office elevations feature a well articulated building surface, with vertical and horizontal changes to the building plane, color variation and use of sandblasted concrete with blue reflective colored glass accents. The building plane along north, south, east, and west elevations will feature 3 horizontal panel reveals bands (painted silver shimmer) and a scored reveal design theme between each building panel. In addition, two vertical parapet elements extending above the roof, along the west elevation facing Hermosa Avenue, are proposed to add relief to the long roof line elevation. The loading area of the building will front on to Hermosa Avenue and be screened by an 8-foot screen wall. The screen wall consist of painted tilt-up concrete, with horizontal panel reveals to compliment the architecturally design of the building. 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. The proposed screen wall, along Hermosa Avenue, must meet the building setback of 35 feet, as measured from ultimate face of curb. The building setback requirement also includes a 35-foot setback from curb face at all right turn lanes. The Site Plan shows a wall setback of 32 feet from curb face on Hermosa Avenue and a 20-foot wall setback from curb • face at all right turn lanes. Revise plans to comply with the 35-foot building setback code requirement. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-77 -CABOT April 18, 2000 • Page 2 2. The screen wall should be 14 feet high on truck side (see attached sketch). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. All screen gates should be automated to ensure that the gate is open the minimum time necessary to allow trucks in and out of the loading areas. 2. Increase the height of the landscape berming on the right and left sides of both gate entrances, along Hermosa Avenue, in order to reduce the wall height to the allowable 8-foot maximum height. 3. The screen wall along Hermosa Avenue should jog in and out about 2-feet, to compliment the design of the building and add visual interest to the streetscape. 4. Undulating landscaped berms at an average height of 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 31/2:1), along 6th street and Hermosa Avenue should be used in the streetscape areas to provide visual interest in areas exposed to public view. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the conditions as recommended above. • Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments. In addition, the Committee made the following comment: 1. The proposed industrial building is parked at a ratio to accommodate warehouse use only. If any portion of the building is to be used for manufacturing, the on-site parking will have to be adjusted to comply with the parking requirement of 1 parking space per 500 square feet for manufacturing use. n U C C e'°pY~Y'^'r-' \ G -t- ~~ `~ ~... ~ ~ /' I~` ~~ `~ / - -- --~ M I i i nIy I I ~, ~ ~_ ~ ~ _ .~ `1 - i 3 i Y ' ~ :k -1-- t >~, 00 ,' .~~ ra • ~~\ ILL 0 ~ ~\ ~ .~a \. ~~.. ~ - --? ,{` - -- . • ~J ~~~ .. l 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ,- , i i ~ / ,~ • i /:• S i s' 1 3 s V ~II\ VMMn ~r`~I •^y ~I~M •_~~ ..C, r~~~, C DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Debra Meier April 18, 20002 • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-08 -PACIFIC COMMUNITIES -Revisions to previously approved building product for Phases I and II of Tract 15711 consisting of 191 single-family homes on 45.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Interstate 15, and west of East Avenue. Background: Pacific Communities received design review approval in August 1999, for 191 of the total 283 lots within Tract 15711. Pacific Communities proposed two product lines consisting of 11 floor plans and a combination of over 40 elevations. Product Type I is used within Tract 15711-1 and Product II is used within Tract 15711-2 (see Exhibit "1"). Both Product I and Product II are now in the plan check process, and it was in the course of plan check review that staff identified a series of architectural modifications being proposed by Pacific Communities. After meeting with the applicant and the architect, the list of requested modification has been defined to those noted below for your review and comment. Staff Comments: A detailed outline of the architectural modifications being requested by Pacific Communities is provided on Exhibit"2," prepared by the architect. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution of Approval are provided for your reference and the applicable page numbers for the affected product type are noted below. Staff comments to each modification is provided below: Product I. Pacific Meadows • 1. Plan 1 (G-1 and G-2) -Extending the porch along the side of the house, as approved, creates the look and feel of the porches that would have historically wrapped completely around the front and sides of a home. This is the impression that the Etiwanda Specific Plan strives to achieve. Staff recommends that the porch remain as approved. 2. Plan 4 (G-8 and G-9) -The builder has chosen to add square footage within the unit by including the area that was previously proposed as a third car spot in the side-on garage. This modification does not change the building footprint, and results only in modifications to the side elevation. This change also results in a more aesthetic home entry, allowing more landscape and porch use. Staff recommends that this request be granted as requested by the builder. Product II, Pacific Vineyards Plan 1 B (G-11) -The use of the low wall, rather than the railing, adds that degree of individuality and uniqueness to this elevation that is the goal of the guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Staff recommends that the low stone wall remain as approved Plan 2A (G-14) -Although the trellis element that connects the second story projection to the roof element is unique in its application, the front elevations of building type 2A have sufficient articulation and detail to allow the removal of the trellis. Staff recommends that the committee consider removal of the trellis. 3. Plan 2A With Office (G-14) -Finding the approRiate termination point for any type of siding, trim and stone veneer, as proposed on Plan 2A depends on the location of windows doors columns, etc. to find a natural point of ending. As proposed, the stone veneer terminates • at a 45-degree angle point (refer to page F-6). Looking at Exhibit F-8, the column element at the angle point could be magnified in order to create a more substantial column and therefore a natural point to terminate the stone veneer. As an extended element of the side elevation, this will be very visible from the streetscape. . DRC COMMENTS Dr 99-08 -PACIFIC COMMUNITIES April 18, 2000 Page 2 • 4. Plan 2C (G-19 "California Ranch") -The modification from three windows to two does not have a major impact on the overall character of the.California Ranch style of the home. Staff recommends that this modification be granted as requested by the builder. 5. Plan 2D (G-19 "Early California") -The use of the balcony adds a degree of shade and shadow that will provide a unique character to this Early California style elevation. Staff recommends that the balcony element remain as approved. Plan 3B (G-21 and H-1, Lot 78) -Lot 78 is one of the units facing Etiwanda Avenue. If you refer to Exhibit H-1, which depicts the Etiwanda Avenue Street scene, lot 78 is shown with a complete veneer of siding. However, in reviewing the construction plans, the architect is struggling again with finding appropriate termination points for the siding on the front and rear elevations. Therefore, an alternate to that which was approved has been developed by the architect for your consideration. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee agreed to the following modifications to the previously approved building • elevations for Tentative Tract 15711/Development Review 99-08: Product I 1. Plan 1 -The porch should remain as previously approved. 2. Plan 4 -Increasing the building square footage by using the third garage space was acceptable as requested by the applicant. Product II Plan 1 B -The low stone wall should remain as previously approved. 2. Plan 2A -The trellis element over the garage may be eliminated as requested by the applicant. 3. Plan 2A w/Office Option -The stone veneer should be wrap around to column at front entry as suggested by staff. 4. Plan 2C -The two windows across the front elevation of the garage is acceptable as presented by the applicant. 5. Plan 2D -The balcony can be eliminated as requested by the applicant. • 6. Plan 3B -The side elevation of Lot 78, facing Etiwanda Avenue, is acceptable as presented by the applicant. No further action is necessary for the modifications noted above. Staff will verify compliance with all modifications through the plan check process. C~ S 8 i b • JE z< c p z ~ 6 ~~ L 6 ~~ h V O ~( C a a ~_ z z O f f < ~ u ~_ U U • ~ O _ _ V U Z < 6 •! I- N.5 DoE I I I --- ~1 V Iii ~-~-i i 11. ~~~ x ~ I ~ II mi i - ----... • n u I 0. ~ it I I I I I I... I' I~:~ <~ I~~ I~Q I I~~ I I~~ I Iw;~ I I II ~I zd Wd00:b0 0002 90 '~dH TS6Z Sb2 bSL : 'ON Xtid 'OOSSH-'8-SS02IJ-NJtiW : 1+~21d _= S: `~ ~ t ;: ~' ~ l r, • ~ ~c ~ ~ 3 0 J _ o_ r m Y ~~ a :O 2 ,'~ .tl O u > LL ~u Q -~ l `o_ y~ L W y ~~^X • F y~, x ~y_ Z yaj ~ OO p•'M~"T• ~ G ~ +L (~ G . I O O )ON DO IO _l_ Q Y .~~)'~~ Z RI H • u--_ _ Q \~ ~. v ' 0 8 0 :o .; 0 i °u 4 c \ '~ \ 4 9 0 '~ W °o a .: 'a J m c A N r 2 NS 6 F ~ 6 ~ ~ e a a f E V Y3 °a~ .. g i JE z+ z o ~~ a a `\ ~~ ~ A. O~ ~ e V 0 9i 6 N w a :J ~.. Z Z f a ~ u O ~ V `~ V O LL J V ~ a a n u Ext~iC3~T "G-1" ~N Y O Q J w • £d Wd00:b0 0002 90 'adtl TSbZ SbZ bTL 'ON Xdd •~ossb-~s-ssoa~-~adw : woaa ZLLLL dad o>~ G N F l N K JE ~< ~~ _< y~ ~; 0 n N A O I `' ~~ • • Z LL L o ~ N o ~ Q ~ C Z 0 l1 N v _ 2x ~ t' V el ~ d U oc 6 N = u z z o ~ E E < ~ V o ~ V V V o U V Z < ~L a ~ ~-x µi3~r '' F-~I" t~.y d- ~~ ~~ 4 y3 i • • Y n Vd Wdi0:V0 0002 90 '~dtl '[SbZ SbZ GTL 'ON Xtld a 4 S •~osstl-s-ssoa~-~atlw : woa.~ • • • 0 3 0 a 2 7 i m `. ao c a~ U a P .~ 0 v ~_ o W F~ o~ a - of ¢o S ~ ~ ~ JE °o ~ ~ ~ ~ € ~ 2 ~. ;~~. i i~i • ~ ..~`. o 01 it y V ]i n ~ ~ ~ ,~ J .~~ o d ~ ti a "\ ~'H S a W ~ ~ 6 J m 1~-~ ~ ~ ~~4 Z -_ a 5 na UW ~O s o~ r ~ ce r e V o ? O O z r a Ex~~a~t' ~ ~-8 : ~,g.~` o ~.a~y ~ Y ~ a m~ ~ 9i ~' u z 0 J V J x u z • F tt ` C ~ *fk ~~ „ ~$ ax '~ ,="1f~ ' es°o :j Tf ~ °s i . [~, n • Ex~+ia~T ~G-q'. x U 2 Q <_ 2 r Q LL J Q o U 1 U P •C O v .u i ni 6 f Y O~ 2 0 Q e r 3 € ~ ~ a~. ~ t JE C`..~ ~ r o z ~ ~< ~ ~ d a Z ~ J U A Q o W t , 4 r'1 O a i ~~ O 6' ~ w ` _ . i,~i r .~; . o q W i ~} ~' ~ s ¢ 8 '~ 4 to O 6 - _ ) lON Ua l~ _ ~ .~'~9t __-. _- Q F F Qo V o_ p, O oc 6 i 3 V~ Ei x~ ICI t ~~ N t 9i d W< -~ ~Z _~ ~~ o~ V V u. U V Z < 6 L fC ~~~ ~~ it i i r ~~ r ~ i i i ~ ~ i ~ ti ~ i i ~, ~ ~ ,~ ~, ~~ ., , , ~, ~, ~~ ~, ~~ ,~ ~~ ~J ~N ~~ ~, W d Sd WdT0:b0 0002 90 'ydtl TSGZ SbZ bTL 'ON Xtl~ '~OSSH-'8-SSOZIS-~PJtiW W02I~ ~ ~~ ~~ 0. CJ • C~ II I II I I II ___ I I [] ~> -0- I I I I I II I, I ~- rr1i I I I I II I II I 11 I I I II I II [J .~1 j I I I I I I I II ' II Ifs II I. (' ~~ N V a a WI 1 9d WdZ0:40 0002 ~ 'add SSbZ S7Z 6TL 'ON Xtid '~OS~i~8-5SOJ0-71atiW W021d ~~ ~~ t~ • I ~ I ~ I ~ I{ I ~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ - I~ I ~ r l~ I~ I~ z O a= au w OC • Ld Wd20:b0 0002 90 '~dti TSb2 Sb2 bTL 'ON Xtid 'JOSSti"'8-SSO?J'J71atiW W021d K~. _ -y 'T ye E ~-~ ~1 Y • ~~~ ~. y~ N - l ti ~- n ~ ~ V~~ ] of ~ W :o ~: Q ms's a p :~ _ o r' ~ - J :~~;1 y'a ' ~o~?S `r m m ar.a ~~ - I /C~ ~ G t \i>~ ~i ip ;:, E ` ~ q W ~° ~l ~ -: ~ ( ~ ~ ` a i W __- ion oan ~~9-~61 -~ _ r p ° ~ d r o~ a c • C~ c 0 ExH~a~T°~-1i" 7 i f F C lC~ ~ ~-NM~~n ~C ,2 b~ 4~s+e ~ P t ~`; `~ ~`~ ;~ 'af+ 3 `_ ~_ ~- a 0 -3 m O W JE Z Q Z a d ,~ U D l z F G lJ u U a pr IY ~{ti a J z E a iJ 7 U O S V Z z C JE ~° Y Z .+ Z -: = v ~ Q P i m O n '~ O~ ~ r o 'H N m' E 0 -7 v ' _ m i _ ~ ~ W _~~ 0 ~ f 9n: m0 ex~~a~r 'F-~., n O v m z O,P Oo ~~ u + O 6 ~ K n °o,~ 0 Z O V H a----- a 6 P E E o 0 ~9 ~m C n m°O m A u U m r V O 0 6 Z ~ 6 O O u 3 - ~ o Z Z < a K I u V m r z E O U V V a 4: P 9i I U Z 0 f a V V O x v Z t O O €r r ~•r Y .~ A O J V_ ~~ m /( yi a 3 ~1 2 i~ G 'e LL 1 ~~ ~i N C O A w • • Y N EX" ~~;~IT G-iti ~ ~~ o Y ~~ .0-,9Z ~~ e~ t W F~ p0 pT o~ so O 1 ~ ' I ~~ I~ L E 's Y ~y x, ~• Jai g •~ i V W .~ JI O 3 6 r Y v V ~ 9i 0 J K l[ d w ~ r U _ Z z O ~ ~ f < ~ V O ~ V U V O _ _ LL U U Z < G a~ u •+aa ~°"~0a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~a~ e s c ~ '° `. I~r,} ~ Y \ Y •~ ®® IL n u f 's "e s` ExMlalr ~~~-i~„ f 64 9 S F ~y L~ S: :7 4 'o ~ m a A ~~ 0 x c A > C L ~ w N ~ ~ v \~ O S' - i 4 uW a~ ~ ~ RS~~. ~a yM~ 6 n • .a p, vole ~ I O > A-,9L r a o a a z O LL J Q U J Q Q W JE 3 Z C 1 ~Y ~I 9~ { N w u _ Z z o ~ F E f u O ~ U V V ~ Z U 'J Z 6 a ~ n u • d {~ N ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ n ~~ Bd WdZ0:b0 0002 90 'adti TSbZ SVZ bTL 'ON XHj '~OSStl-'8-SS~1~N2lFJW W02id r-1 ~J 6d Wd£0:40 0002 90 '1dd IS6Z S42 CTL 'ON Xtl~ CY ~7I1 inn v(~un~vll~n u ~~ ~l •~st1-~s-ssoa~--raew :woad Ar, `~ ~~ !~ I~ ~~ ®®L~I /i t ~J®~ ®®i ®ouA ~ ~ ®®~ ®® ~~ • aid wdsa:oa 0aez 9a •add uvz svz eTZ : •ow xda •~ossv-~s-ssoa~-~adw : woa~ • • TTd Wdb0:b0 0002 90 'adti ~ __ __ __. ~ ©o oo. o0 ~t TSbZ SbZ bTL 'qN Xd~ r~ ~~ N~ ~~ ~i. ~~ Q ~o ~v ~~ 'posse-~-ssoa~-~aew : woa~ • A ~~ ~~ -~ ~~ V ~~ ZLd Wd70:70 0002 90 'ydH ZSb2 S7Z bTL 'ON Xtid 'JOSSH-'8-SSO?J'J~71aHW : WO?Jd Eid Wdb0:b0 0002 90 'adtl iSbZ SbZ 6TL 'ON Xtld D #N ~~ ~~ d~ s R~ ~~ 'JOSSC-'8-SS0210-NatiW W021d • .~ "V ~~~, .~ ~~ 3a o i ~ SQ'a ~~ ^r"C a3sy; ss d'~s C , t ~'~s1'`~ . a yR7 ~ '~' ~~' qg'~ :t :C :~ 0 l ~ T Cf f ~~ u a o W Q 1 n m m O v ~Z a hW u ~'o s °> °o~ a i y ;_ 1~ ~, 7 ~ ~. A t "~J~y~iY 3 n C O ~f 2 z °I r U O O z Z C 0 ti v I ~F{ )' :7 Z O E a u u 0 x u z EX~~~3 ~T' "G-21" u ExFrie ~r '' H-1'' `I i n U m~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 7[d WdS0:70 0002 ~ 'adti ZSCZ S7Z 6TL ~ 'ON Xtid '~OSSH-'8-SS021~71atilJ WOad FROM MRRK_GROSS_&_RSSOC. \J • • FAX N0. 714 245 2451 Rpr. 06 2000 04:05PM P15 4 ~~ ~'~ ~ ~~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS April 18, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad r Secretary • ({\!~\ \~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY APRIL 4, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstojr Rich Macias John Mannerino CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. 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 00-07 - FORECAST HOMES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for recorded Tract 13759 consisting of 56 single-family lots on 14 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acres), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, east side of Center Avenue and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad • right-of-way -APN: 1076-301-20 through 75. Related file: Variance 00-01 and Tree Removal Permit 00-07. VARIANCE 00-01-FORECAST HOMES - A request to increase the wall height to 9 feet along the southern boundary of recorded Tract 13759 where the Development Code allows a maximum wall height of 6 feet for Development Review 00-07 located on the west side of Haven Avenue, east side of Center Avenue and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way -APN: 1076-301-20 through 75. Related files: Development Review 00-07 and Tree Removal Permit 00-07. 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. (Emily) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-15- GAINEY TRANSPORTATION-The development of a 19,067 square foot truck maintenance facility onto an existing truck transportation facility on 10.42 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard -APN: 209-143-08. 7:40 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-05 - SCRIPTO TOKAI -The development of a 120,620 square foot industrial building on 8.3 acres • of land, within the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, a master planned development by Catellus, which is in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue -APN: 229-011-32. + DRC AGENDA April 4, 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 -~---~- -- r - -- -- - 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist II for the City of RancFid Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 30, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Ct~nter Dive, Rancho Cucamonga. • • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Rudy Zeledon April 4, 2000 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-07 -FORECAST HOMES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for recorded Tract 13759 consisting of 56 single-family lots on 14 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acres), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, east side of Center Avenue and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way -APN: 1076-301-20 through 75. Related file: Variance 00-01 and Tree Removal Permit 00-07. VARIANCE 00-01-FORECAST HOMES - A request to increase the wall height to 9 feet along the southern boundary of recorded Tract 13759 where the Development Code allows a maximum wall height of 6 feet for Development Review 00-07 located on the west side of Haven Avenue, east side of Center Avenue and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way -APN: 1076-301-20 through 75. Related files: Development Review 00-07 and Tree Removal Permit 00-07. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the revised design and recommended approval with conditions. Continue the wainscoting treatment along all elevations around to side elevations to the proposed return wall location or to a logical ending. 2. All corner, side, and return walls exposed to public view shall be of decorative masonry. 3. All two-story homes rear orside-on to Haven Avenue shall incorporate a second story deck as a standard and not an option to the homebuyer. 4. The applicant shall, in a good faith effort, work with the adjacent property owners, along the north boundary of the tract, in repainting the exterior or their walls prior to the release of occupancy. r1 U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:10 p.m. Emily Wimer April 4, 2000 REVIEW 00-15 - GAINEY TRANSPORTATION -The development of a 19,067 square foot truck maintenance facility onto an existing truck transportation facility on 10.42 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard-APN: 209-143-08. Design Parameters: The site is a 10.42 acre previously developed parcel with an office in front and a paved parking area in the rear for truck storage. The existing office building was constructed before City incorporation and features a file mansard roof. The proposal is to construct a 4- bay maintenance facility with a wash bay, parts storage, fuel island, driver's facilities and management offices with tractor/trailer repair and service. The maintenance facility also incorporates approximately 1700 square feet of storage, an equipment room, and a break room for truck drivers. Truck access will continue to use the existing driveway on the northwest corner of site. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline. for Committee discussion. Major Issues: There are no major design issues. The applicant has worked diligently to resolve design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide canopy trees within new parking area at a rate of 1 tree for every 3 parking stalls. A minimum of 20 trees is required by Code (59 stalls divided by 3 = 20 trees). 2. The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires trees around the new building at a rate of 1 tree per 30 linear feet. Staff believes that this could interfere with functionality of this maintenance facility; therefore, recommends that landscaping be concentrated at the front entryway of the new building. A planter should be provided between handicap parking spaces and building, and extend across the width of the office areas. 3. Screen existing gated entrance from street by planting accent trees at the northwest corner of site along Jersey Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the minor modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Emily Wimer • The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staff's comments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count April 4, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-05 - SCRIPTO TOKAI - The development of a 120,620 square foot industrial building on 8.3 acres of land, within the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, a master planned development by Catellus, which is in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-011-32. Design Parameters: The site is located within the Catellus Master Plan area which was approved by Planning Commission in April of 1999. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The Lowe's Home Improvement store site is currently being graded to the west of the site and GATX Building A is nearly completed to the south. The Masi Plaza automotive repair uses are under construction to the east. A six-foot high masonry wall is planned along Masi's west property line (east property line of site) which will provide screening. The building design incorporates the basic geometric and archway patterns that were established by the GATX buildings. The anticipated business activity involves large container truck loading which would occur on the south side of the building behind a screen wall. The building will be visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard, especially while the land to the north remains vacant. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The applicant has been working with staff to resolve design issues. There are no • major outstanding design 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 additional canopy trees within central parking area to provide shading of 50 percent of pavement at maturity of tree canopy. Suggest four tree wells in diamond shape. 2. Provide a solid concrete tilt-up screen wall along the north property line to provide visual separation between the industrial building and future, potentially more commercial oriented uses to the north. Wall design should include architectural elements compatible with building design. 2. Provide wall returns for vertical change of plane to convey a sense of depth. 3. Wrap reveal treatment so that no reveals terminate at exterior corners. 4. Provide glazing within arches at south end of west wall to match reminder of wall and south wall treatment and provide enhanced entry statement (entry to site is at southwest corner). 5. Wall surface treatment, such as glass columns and archway details, should be inset at least one to two feet to convey sense of depth and enhance wall surface articulation. 6. Provide berms along west screen wall so that no more than 8 feet of wall is exposed. 7. Security/entry gate shall be automatically operated so that it is open the minimum length of • time to allow truck ingress/egress. 8. Guard House design shall be architecturally compatible with building. DRC AGENDA DR 00-05 - SCRIPTO TOKAI April 4, 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: All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding property and streets. This may require increasing parapet height given roof ridge elevation. 2. Provide at least one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view plus one tree per 30 linear feet of site perimeter, and one tree per 3 parking spaces to provide shade. This is a minimum landscaping requirement. Additional trees to enhance the main entry points and complement the building architecture shall be provided. 3. Provide shade, tables and chairs within employee outdoor eating area consistent with the GATX project/Catellus Master Plan. 4. Provide decorative driveway paving consistent with Catellus Master Plan provisions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above. Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments with the following additional comments: The Committee will accept a 2 to 3-foot high solid concrete wall along the north property line with decorative wrought iron above if it can be demonstrated that the site to the north can be graded to approximately match the grade of the Script-Tokai site. If the site to the north is graded, it shall be hydroseeded in the interim to control dust. 2. It is not necessary to provide glazing within archway features at south end of west elevation. Instead, provide heavier arched trim element to cast shadow and provide surface relief. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS April 4, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfu submitted, Brad Buller Secretary • L