Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/01/16 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES • TUESDAY JANUARY 16, 2001 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 Larry Henderson 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. (Tom) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-75-MASTERCRAFTHOMES-Adesignreview of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14382, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue- APN: 225-071-70. • 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 (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66-THE B. IVAN GROUP- A request to construct a 26,686 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court -APN: 229-263-04. 7:30 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-38 - CHIPOTLE GRILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90. Related File: Development Review 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). 7:50 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), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-011-32. • • DRC AGENDA January 16, 2001 Page 2 8:20 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72-FRITO LAY - A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in Subarea 5 (General Industrial), located at 9535 Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-28. 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 • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Tom Grahn January 16, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-75- MASTERCRAFT HOMES -A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14382, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of W ilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-70. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The elevations utilized for Development Review 00-75 are the same elevations used on the previous applications, Development Review 96-27, Development Review 98-01, Development Review 99-03, and Development Review 99-64. These elevations have not been revised to reflect the comments from the previous application's Design Review Committee meeting, so the same comments were incorporated into this projects design. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom projection on the second floor of the Plan 4 elevation. 2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 46. • 3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Rudy Zeledon January 16, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66 -THE B. IVAN GROUP- A request to construct a 26,686 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court - APN: 229-263-04. Design Parameters: The site contains one vacant parcel that is 2.17 acres. The site slopes from north to south about at approximately 2 percent and is currently cultivated as a vineyard. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there any significant vegetation on the site. The site is located within an area identified as potential habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. The applicant has submitted a biological Survey for the site. The street frontages along Sixth Street and Rochester Court are unimproved with no curb and gutter, sidewalk or street side landscaping. There is an existing drive approach at the southwest corner of the site that will to shared with the industrial property to the south. To the north (across Sixth street), west and east of the project site the properties are vacant and currently cultivated as vineyards. The building incorporates primary building materials: painted and sandblasted concrete. Secondary design material accents of smooth face cut limestone panels and green tinted reflective glazed glass and sandblasted glass are also proposed. The building design is consistent with the architectural style of the Industrial Park District in which it is located. The office portion of the building will fronton to the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court. The office elevation is staggered and features areas of green tinted reflective glazed glass, sandblasted concrete and cut limestone panel accents primarily to frame the main entrance. 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: The project proposes ingress and egress at the northeast corner of the site and at the southwest corner of the site through an existing shared access with the property to the south. The General Plan classifies Sixth Street as a "Major Divided Arterial". The City's Driveway Policy requires 300-feet of spacing between driveways on arterial streets (see attachment). The Engineering Division is requiring the applicant to provide adequate spacing at the easterly property line of the project site to allow the property to the east joint access through the proposed driveway on Sixth Street. The applicant has not designed the driveway on Sixth Street to comply with the City's Driveway Policy. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant redesign the proposed driveway on Sixth Street to allow joint use with the property to the east as required by City's Driveway Policy. The proposed screen wall, at east property line, should be continued south along the entire eastern portion of the site to ensure adequate screening of loading facilities from public view. In addition, the wall height should be at a minimum of 6 feet in height. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. On Sixth Street, the parking area should be screened with berms at an average height of 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 31/2:1). I DRC COMMENTS DR 00-66 -THE B. IVAN GROUP • January 16, 2001 Page 2 2. Continue the recessed element at the top of the parapet line, as shown on the north and west elevations, to the east and south elevations. 3. Clarify if the proposed office terrace, located at the northeast corner of the building, will be used for the required employee outdoor eating area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Minimum drive aisle width adjacent to loading areas (without dock high doors) shall be 28 feet fortwo-way traffic. Site Plan shows a proposed drive aisle width of 27 feet along the east drive aisle. 2. All landscape planters shall be a minimum of 5-feet inside dimension. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the project be revised and returned to the Design Review Committee for review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson • Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staff's comments. In addition, the Committee advised the applicant to continue to work with staff in addressing all policy issues before going in front of the Planning Commission. C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count January 16, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-38-CHIPOTLE GRILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90. Related File: Development Review 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). The project was reviewed at the January 2, 2001 meeting and was sent back for revisions. The revised design will be presented at the meeting with staff's comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the applicant's revised plans and found that the updated architectural design is acceptable. However, the parking layout still has circulation conflicts. The Committee directed the applicant to revise the parking to eliminate circulation conflicts to be reviewed as a Consent Calendar item n the February 6, 2001 meeting. The applicant agreed to the requested revisions. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Brent Le Count January 16, 2001 • 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), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. The Uniform Sign Program was reviewed at the January 2, 2001 meeting and was sent back for revisions. The revised design will be presented at the meeting with staff's comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The applicant presented revised sign designs for Union Bank, Lowe's monument sign, and Farmer Boys restaurant. The Committee agreed to the revised sign designs in accordance with the following: The Lowe's monument sign shall have the restaurant pad tenant sign panel lowered six inches. The sign panel shall be painted to match the main stucco color of the monument sign. A blank sign panel painted to match the stucco shall be installed during the interim period until the pad tenant is established. • 2. The Farmer Boys wall sign shall be designed so that the copy, "Worlds Greatest Hamburgers" read as translucent letters when illuminated at night and the surrounding background opaque. It is acceptable to provide a Y<-inch white translucent surround around each letter to enhance nighttime illumination. The face material of the sign shall have a matte as opposed to glossy finish to avoid aplastic-like appearance. 3. The Committee preferred the Farmer Boys monument sign design, which does not include the green drop shadow." The sign letters shall have a matte as opposed to glossy finish to avoid aplastic-like appearance. The applicant agreed to the requested revisions. C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • • 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count January 16, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 - FRITO LAY - A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in Subarea 5 (General Industrial), located at 9535 Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-28. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count Staff walked-on a revised design for the Frito Lay Project. The applicant presented a design with decorative window treatment and a cornice feature. The Committee is in favor of the revised design but wishes to have the following refinements reviewed informally before the item goes before the entire Commission: 1. Vertical parapet projections shall have a minimum 2-foot return to convey a sense of depth and quality and avoid a Hollywood set appearance. 2. Provide some form of wall surface treatment along the east elevation of the southern entry area and the west elevation near the northwest corner of the building. 3. Plans shall be revised to accurately reflect the color scheme proposed (plans show beige scheme but applicant told Committee gray scheme is proposed). The applicant agreed to the requested revisions. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • January 16, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary I 1 U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JANUARY 16, 2001 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA • \J Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Larry Henderson 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. (Tom) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-75-MASTERCRAFTHOMES-A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14382, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of W ilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-70. 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. (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66-THE B. IVAN GROUP- A'request to construct a 26,686 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court - APN: 229-263-04. 7:30 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-38 - CHIPOTLE GRILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90. Related File: Development Review 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). 7:50 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. • DRC AGENDA January 16, 2001 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 II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 11, 2001, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • u CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Tom Grahn January 16, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-75- MASTERCRAFT HOMES -A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14382, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-70. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Tom Grahn C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Rudy Zeledon January 16, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66 -THE B. IVAN GROUP- A request to construct a 26,686 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located atthe southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court - APN: 229-263-04. Design Parameters: The site contains one vacant parcel that is 2.17 acres. The site slopes from north to south about at approximately 2 percent and is currently cultivated as a vineyard. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there any significant vegetation on the site. The site is located within an area identified as potential habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. The applicant has submitted a biological Survey for the site. The street frontages along Sixth Street and Rochester Court are unimproved with no curb and gutter, sidewalk or street side landscaping. There is an existing drive approach at the southwest corner of the site that will to shared with the industrial property to the south. To the north (across Sixth street), west and east of the project site the properties are vacant and currently cultivated as vineyards. The building incorporates primary building materials: painted and sandblasted concrete. Secondary design material accents of smooth face cut limestone panels and green tinted reflective glazed glass and sandblasted glass are also proposed. The building design is consistent with the architectural style of the Industrial Park District in which it is located. The office portion of the building will fronton to the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court. The office elevation is staggered and features areas of green tinted reflective glazed glass, sandblasted concrete and cut limestone panel • accents primarily to frame the main entrance. 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: The project proposes ingress and egress at the northeast corner of the site and at the southwest corner of the site through an existing shared access with the property to the south. The General Plan classifies Sixth Street as a "Major Divided Arterial". The City's Driveway Policy requires 300-feet of spacing between driveways on arterial streets (see attachment). The Engineering Division is requiring the applicant to provide adequate spacing at the easterly property line of the project site to allow the property to the east joint access through the proposed driveway on Sixth Street. The applicant has not designed the driveway on Sixth Street to comply with the City's Driveway Policy. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant redesign the proposed driveway on Sixth Street to allow joint use with the property to the east as required by City's Driveway Policy. 2. The proposed screen wall, at east property line, should be continued south along the entire eastern portion of the site to ensure adequate screening of loading facilities from public view. In addition, the wall height should be at a minimum of 6 feet in height. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. On Sixth Street, the parking area should be screened with berms at an average height of 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 31/2:1). DRC COMMENTS DR 00-66-THE B. IVAN GROUP January 16, 2001 • Page 2 Continue the recessed element at the top of the parapet line, as shown on the north and west elevations, to the east and south elevations. 3. Clarify if the proposed office terrace, located at the northeast corner of the building, will be used for the required employee outdoor eating area. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Minimum drive aisle width adjacent to loading areas (without dock high doors) shall be 28 feet fortwo-way traffic. Site Plan shows a proposed drive aisle width of 27 feet along the east drive aisle. All landscape planters shall be a minimum of 5-feet inside dimension. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the project be revised and returned to the Design Review Committee for review. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -ENGINEERING DIVISION DRIVEWAY POLL Y A. Proiect Submittals: A map (plan) to scale shall be provided showing the location of existing, approved, and proposed driveways and ~reets within the vicinity of the driveways proposed for the project. The required distance offsite will vary with the project type and ocation. As a general rule, 600' from the project boundaries will be sufficient; however, in some cases more or less distance will be required. B. Arterial Streets: 4 Lane (64' curb to curb width) or larger: I. Spacing (measured between driveway centerlines): a. Same side of street - 300' b. Opposite side of sweet -align or separate by 300' (preferred) , 235' minimum. Daes not apply to sweets with medians. c. Additional service only driveways may be allowed. d. Foothill Blvd. (east of Haven Ave.) -spacing shall be 660'. 2. Distance from intersections (measured from BCR to near edge of driveway): a. Signalized (existing or future) - 200' b. Other - I00' 3. For corner properties, driveways shall be resvicted to the smaller side street whenever possible. 4. Stacking (distance from sweet face of curb to nearest edge of a parking stall perpendicular to the drive aisle): a. Commercial, service, and truck drives - 75' b. Others - 50' 5. Deceleration lanes for driveways shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 6. Shared driveways with adjacent properties shall be used where appropriate for the proposed site or muter plan, to meet spacing requirements, or where located near property lines. 7. Single family residential shall not take direct access. C. Local Industrial /Commercial Streets 2 Lane (44' curb to curb width) I. Spacing (measured between driveway centerlines) • a. Same side of sweet - I50'. b. Opposite side of street -align or scparnte by I50'. 2. Distance from intersections - same as B.2. 3. Stacking - 25'. 4. Shared driveways -same as B.6. D. RcsidcntiafCollcctors 2 Lane (44' curb to curb width): I. Single family residential shall not take direct access. When absolutely necessary, provide a circular drive (preferred) or hammerhead to prevent backing into the street. 2. Driveways for larger projects (other than single and duplex residential) shall conform to Section C above. 3. This criteria shall also apply to local residential streets (36' curb to curb) that act as functional collectors carrying 1500+ ADT (now or in the future). E. General: I. Construct Drive Approaches in accordance with Standard Drawing No.101 ,a, b, or c. Driveways with medians shall have two 20' wide drive aisles separated by a 10' wide median. The median shall not extend into the public right-oF--way. 2. Driveways and the projected onsite drive aisles shall be perpendicular to the sweet. 3. Project site plans shall provide for backing onsite to prevent backing from and into public streets, except for single family residential fronting local residential streets. 4. Gated entries for residential projects shall conform to the separate "Residential Project Gated Entrance Design Guide'. Other projects will require a special design allowing for visitor truck coming. 5: In general, driveways serving comer single family units shall be placed on the approach, versus away streets, to reduce conflicu between backing out and blind right cum movements, except where the approach street is a functional collector. Driveways on away streets shall be located 50' minimum from the BCR to the near edge or the maximum distance allowed by the lot size. • 6. More restrictive requirements than stated hereon may be imposed on occasion to insure tm(Tc safety as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Rcv. 686/95 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • • 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count January 16, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT00-38-CHIPOTLEGRILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90. Related File: Development Review 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). The project was reviewed at the January 2, 2001 meeting and was sent back for revisions. The revised design will be presented at the meeting with staff's comments. Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • r 1 LJ 7:50 p.m. Brent Le Count January 16, 2001 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. The Uniform Sign Program was reviewed at the January 2, 2001 meeting and was sent back for revisions. The revised design will be presented at the meeting with staff's comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JANUARY 2, 2001 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 Larry Henderson 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 (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION -CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to amend the previously approved design review for 55 homes within Tentative Tract 15911 to be a gated community with private streets, in the Low- Medium Residential District, (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) located on the northeast corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of-way -APN: 227-141-11, 12 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 00-38 - CHIPOTLE GRILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90, Related File: DR 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). 7:30 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. 7:50 p.m. (Debra) MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 99-19-LEWISAPARTMENT COMMUNITIES - Modification to the approved Design Review of Tentative Tract 16001, including architectural elevations for the Leasing and Recreation Buildings, and all residential building types. DRC AGENDA January 2, 2001 Page 2 8:10 p.m (Sal) DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 00-55 (TT 16058) - CENTEX - A request to approve building plans and design of 92single-family residences on an 18.8-acre site. The residential subdivision was previously approved by the Planning Commission as Tentative Tract Map 16058. The site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street. APN: 210-062-31. 8:30 p.m. (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-71 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 68,750 square foot industrial building on 3.91 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue -APN: 209-461-06 through 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 CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION -CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to amend the previously approved design review for 55 homes within Tentative Tract 15911 to be a gated community with private streets, in the Low-Medium Residential District, (4 to S dwelling units per acre) located on the northeast corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of-way - APN: 227-141-11, 12 Design Parameters: The design review was approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2000. This approval was appealed to the City Council due to very high walls required for freeway noise mitigation. The appeal was resolved and the City Council upheld the Commission's decision on July 19, 2000. The site has been purchased from the previous developer by Concordia Homes. Concordia wishes to gate the entrance to the subdivision off of East Avenue and convert the internal streets to private. Concordia also anticipates filing a tentative tract map/design review for development of the property to the north of the site that would also be gated (this concept was reviewed at a Planning Commission Workshop on November 21, 2000 (the Commission was in favor of the gating concept). The proposed gate will have adequate turn around area, substantial trellises framing the pedestrian entries, substantial stone covered pilasters, ornate wrought iron gates/fencing, and a landscaped median. The overall entry statement will enhance the East Avenue streetscape. This is the only modification proposed at this time. No modification to the architecture, grading, landscaping, and sound walls are proposed. 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: There are no major or minor design issues. The proposed design is of high quality. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Ground-mounted equipment and utility boxes shall be completely screened from public view. This includes any Edison transformer boxes and boxes that might be necessary for operation of the gates. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the gating concept for the tract and recommended approval. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-38-CHIPOTLE GRILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90, Related File: DR 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). Background: The site is part of the 5-acre R.C. Hotel Master Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1999. The Master Plan specified a single restaurant for the parcel. Now two restaurants are proposed, the Chipotle restaurant and a fast food restaurant to the east. Design Parameters: The site has frontage on Foothill Boulevard with existing curb and gutter improvements in-place. The frontage of the site is also landscaped. The site has been rough graded and slopes at approximately 3 to 4 percent from north to south. There is an existing driveway spine running north/south and easUwest on the overall master plan site and the Chipotle building would lie at the northeast corner of the driveway spine intersection. The Happy Wok restaurant lies to the east and the Terra Vista Shopping Center to the north across Foothill Boulevard. There are three current entitlements approved for the overall master planned site including Kinko's under construction at the northwest corner, Haven Wine and Deli along Foothill Boulevard (just west of the Chipotle site), and the RC Hotel building to the south. All of these buildings include tower features similar to the theme established by the Applebee's and Buddy's Bistro restaurants. No architectural information is provided for the master planned fast food • drive-thru restaurant, only the Chipotle building. 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: Architecture -Restudy the overall architecture to avoid the large areas of blank stucco walls on the north, east, and south elevations. Use ofwall-mounted trellises is acceptable in small areas only but should not be relied upon as the only form of wall articulation. Extend the copper canopies around the entire building. Extend cornice treatment around all parapets. 2. Architecture -Restudy the north elevation and the northwest corner of the building to better relate to the Foothill Boulevard frontage and the entry statement forthe overall site. Consider a tower or other vertical feature to enhance the Foothill frontage. 3. Site Plan -The fast food drive-thru restaurant is planned with the widest part of the building facing Foothill Boulevard, which creates three major issues: 1) the majority of the drive-thru lane area will be in direct view of travelers by on Foothill Boulevard contrary to the design policies established by the Planning Commission, 2) creates a space of only 3-4 feet between the drive-thru lane and the Chipolte restaurant, and 3) forces Chipolte to use the drive-thru lane as their loading/unloading access point, which is a direct conflict with the fast food business. Re-orient the building so that the presence of the drive thru lane is minimized • relative to Foothill Boulevard. It is suggested thatthe building be rotated 90 degrees so that the longer part of the drive thru lane is on the east side of the building. This will also help alleviate the crowded relationship between the east side of the Chipotle building and the west side of the fast food restaurant as currently shown. DRC AGENDA CUP 00-38 - CHIPOTLE GRILL January 2, 2001 . Page 2 4. Site Plan -The parking lot arrangement for Chipolte creates an awkward "dead-end," excess pavement, and some parking spaces do not have sufficient room to back-out without hitting other parked cars or would have to back-up approximately 60 feet before being able to turn around and move forward. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues" The chili pepper logos on the building corners are signs. The total of 9 signs (3 wall signs + 6 logos) exceeds maximum number of signs -Sign Ordinance allows one sign per building face, and allows a maximum of three signs per business. The chili pepper logo could be combined with "Chipolte Mexican Grill" text to form a single sign on each face. 2. Replace 3-inch metal tube railing and woven wire mesh around patio with brick wall (similar to Applebee's) or higher quality design/materials. 3. Wrap the entire building with brick wainscoting. 4. The brick covered towers should return over the roof so that they read as actual towers rather than fancy parapets. 5. All features such as decorative paving, light standards, street furniture, etc., shall match the details established by Applebee's restaurant and Buddies Bistro. • 6. Provide dense landscaping surrounding the northern patio for the Chipotle building to help buffer the patio area from Foothill Boulevard and mitigate high seasonal winds. Provide similarly dense landscaping surrounding the western patio area to buffer from the main site entry to the west. 7. Provide decorative driveway paving at site entry points to match the remainder of the master planned site. 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 shall be fully screened from public view. This will likely require the installation of a low wall around the transformer box at the northwest corner of the site (or relocation of the box). 2. All roof drainage features shall be handled inside the building walls. No exterior gutters or downspouts. 3. Provide a minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall plus one tree per 30 linear feet of property line plus one tree per 3 parking spaces. 4. There shall be no exterior mounted roof access ladder. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. n LJ DRC AGENDA CUP 00-38 - CHIPOTLE GRILL January 2, 2001 • Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The applicant provided a revised design to the Committee. The Committee requested that the project be further revised in Tight of staff's comments and the following additional comments and brought back for further review: 1. It is not necessary to provide copper canopies on walls without windows. 2. The copper roofed tower feature on the northwest corner of the building is appropriate but should be restudied to better relate to the rest of the building. It should not look like an after thought or a tacked on feature but instead an integral part of the building. 3. Provide wall insets similar to the Haven W ine and Deli building design approved for the site to the west for the blank stucco wall areas. Wall mounted trellises can then be provided inside the insets. 4. The applicant's revised plan showed the fast food restaurant rotated 90 degrees so that the smaller side faces Foothill Boulevard. The revised layout still had parking circulation • conflicts due to odd angular parking space orientation and the awkward "U"-turn movement at the southeast corner. The parking should be restudied to avoid these conflicts. The Committee strongly suggested that the fast food restaurant may be too large to be accommodated on the site and that reducing the square footage will allow for a better parking arrangement. The applicant agreed to make the above changes, including reducing the size of the fast food restaurant. The Committee agreed to allow the case to be scheduled for the next available Design Review meeting with the plans and comments provided at the meeting. I~ U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 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. Background: The Uniform Sign Program was reviewed by the Committee on October 31, 2000 (see attached minutes). 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 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 2000. 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: Pad 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. The revised program has criteria for monument signs for the Union Bank and Farmer Boys buildings. The monuments measure 5 feet in width and 3 feet in height on top of terrain accommodating bases ranging from a few inches high to 1-foot high. This is comparable to the Macaroni Grill monument sign, which measures 2.5 feet high by 6 feet long on top of a 1 to 3-foot high base. The Farmer Boys sign copy reads, "Farmer Boys World's Greatest Hamburgers" in characteristic color, font style, and graphics. The words "World's Greatest Hamburgers" constitute a form of advertising contrary to the Sign Ordinance, which requires signs to display the business name only. Farmer Boys contends that the words, "Farmer Boy World's Greatest" is their established Trademark. This issue was raised during the Design Review of the Farmer Boys building. It was determined that the matter should be brought up for resolution with the overall Sign Program. Past court cases related to signs have established that while Cities do not have the authority to change established company trademarks, they do have the authority to not allow a given business to display their trademark. Staff suggests that the sign be amended to simply display the words, "Farmer Boys" in a basic font style • similar to the Macaroni Grill and other restaurant signs. This would apply to the Farmer Boys wall mounted signs and directional/thank you signs as well. DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 139-LOWE'S January 2, 2001 • Page 2 The Farmer Boys and Union Bank monument signs are proposed to be stucco covered aluminum cabinets with painted-on and raised metal letters, respectively. The monuments will be spot lit instead of internally illuminated. Staff does not recommend the use of painted- on copy/graphics for the Farmer Boys sign. The letters should either be raised similar to Union Bank or inset into the face of the sign. The program also now includes three square foot directional signs for Farmer Boys which read, "Drive Thru," "Do Not Enter," and "Thank you." The signs are 3 feet high and will be internally illuminated. They have a mushroom like shape with the sign face supported by a smaller post. These should be revised to have a stronger looking support to convey a sense of quality. Union Bank and Farmer Boys signs should be in the program. The revised program includes monument sign designs for these signs. No wall sign criteria is included for Union Bank beyond some conceptual designs. Wall sign details should be included for Union Bank. Note that the Sign Ordinance prohibits wall signs above 20 feet in height. The wall sign proposed for Farmer Boys is a large, 4 foot by 8 foot "can" type sign with graphics and copy. While it is recognized that this is the typical sign for this business, the overall design and copy content are contrary to the Sign Ordinance. The sign should be • revised to use channel type letters and the copy should be revised to eliminate any form of advertising as noted above for the monument sign. Provide the square footage of the sign (32 square feet shown but the sign is actually less than that due to odd shape) along with the square footage of the building face to determine compliance with area limitations. 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. The revised package is more complete but there are still references to several types of wall signs (anchor, pad tenant, shop tenant) for which there are no drawings. The program should be comprehensive in terms of text and exhibits. 4. Colors -Change item 9 to include three colors only. Suggest eliminating blue and green, as they do not read well at night. The revised program specifies three colors, white, red, and yellow. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 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. " . DONE DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 139 - LOW E'S January 2, 2001 • Page 3 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. DONE 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 of4 feet." DONE Page 5, Fabrication Standards -Change criteria under item 6 to require bronze returns instead of color to match window mullions. DONE 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. There is still a reference to Under-canopy Tenant Signs while there are nomulti-tenant type buildings shown on the Site Plan. There are now Entry Window and Delivery Entry ID signs • drawings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of the above comments pertaining to the Farmer Boys copy and brought back forfurther review. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the sign program be revised and brought back for further review in light of staff's comments and the following additional comments: The Lowe's monument sign has been revised to a simple box like shape. The previous design that matched the building architecture should be used. 2. The Farmer Boys sign copy that reads, "Farmer Boys World's Greatest Hamburgers" is in excess of what the Sign Ordinance allows because "Word's Greatest Hamburgers" is ancillary advertising. The signs (both monument and wall sign) shall be amended to read either, "Farmer Boys" or "Farmer Boys Hamburgers." Also, the letters on the wall sign shall be channel type as opposed to can or "cloud" type. The letters on the monument sign shall be individual raised metal instead of painted on. The applicant strongly wished to keep the sign as designed so staff indicated that the matter could be brought before the Commission without a recommendation for approval from the Committee. The applicant chose instead to resolve the matter with the Committee. DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 139 - LOW E'S January 2, 2001 • Page 4 3. The Farmer Boys direction signs shall be revised to avoid a mushroom like appearance. They should look more like miniature monuments. 4. The Union Bank wall sign shall be amended to respect the 20-foot maximum height limit or a Variance will need to be processed. The applicant agreed to restudy the sign program and come back for further review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Debra Meier January 2, 2001 • MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 99-19 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - Modification to the approved Design Review of Tentative Tract 16001, including architectural elevations for the Leasing and Recreation Buildings, and all residential building types. Background: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 16001 and accompanying Design Review 99-19, located in Terra Vista north of Church Street and east of Spruce Street, on November 10, 1999. The project has been through plan check for Grading. The applicant, Lewis Apartment Communities, has expressed a desire to make modifications to the architectural details; and, as they did in Tract 16000, the Recreation and Leasing Buildings have been upgraded to include additional facilities and amenities available to residents. Copies of the reduced scale approved elevations are provided for your reference and to compare to the proposed revisions as proposed. Staff Comments: Through Design Review approval of Development Review 99-19 the project reflected a traditional bungalow architectural style through the use of wood railings, shutters, garage door patterns, siding material, rafter tails, outriggers, and similar eave details. The applicant has expressed concerns regarding the level of maintenance required to maintain a high quality appearance with such an array of wood trim and siding used in the project. The revised elevations portray eliminating the use of the wood siding, and instead have introduced the use of stone veneer (not river rock cobble) to be used for columns and limited areas of building wainscot. Leasing Building: The leasing building has been redesigned to eliminate the use of siding. The use of stone has been introduced on the entry columns shown on Elevations A, B, and D., The use of stone should be extended to include the entire height of the column, or used as wainscot or similar details around the building. Recreation Buildino: The recreation building has been enlarged to provide a more complete amenity package for residents. This will include racquetball court, theater, fitness and aerobics rooms, and a multipurpose area accessible to a kitchen and wet bar. As a result, the building is considerably larger than originally planned. Thetwo-story structure is generally well detailed and proportioned, however, as noted above, the use of stone should be increased to include full columns heights and increased use as a wainscot. The right-hand side of Elevation C requires additional building detailing. Residential Buildings: Although the introduction of the stone veneer is a desirable detail, it does not carry the design theme across to the same extent that the "wood-like" siding did. Since the intent is essentially to replace the siding with the stone, then the stone needs to be used more extensively, and even carried completely across some of the lower elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the committee review the modifications to the architectural concept, and the modifications to the Leasing and Recreation Buildings of Tract 16001; recommending any modifications as desired, and approve the modifications to the building elevations with conditions that will be reviewed by staff during building plan check. • DRC COMMENTS DR 99-19 - LEW IS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES January 2, 2001 • Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Debra Meier The applicant, Mr. David Lewis provided an introduction of why the company was pursuing the design modification, and described the modified recreation building amenities. The architect provided a description of how the design had been modified to respond to staff Design Review comments. The architect increased the use of stone in the high focus building entry areas, and stone is used on the residential buildings as columns, wainscot, and patio walls. In addition, the architect has added a greater variation in shading and color tone to define and distinguish building masses and further accentuate the craftsman architectural style. Committee member McNeil stressed that and building details located in heavy pedestrian area must be wood rather than foam for long term wear. Foam may be used in non-contact areas. The committee approved the modifications as presented by the architect. All modifications will be reviewed by staff during the plan check process. r~ U C1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 p.m. Sal Salazar January 2, 2001 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 00-55 (TT 16058) - CENTEX - A request to approve building plans and design of 92 single-family residences on an 18.8-acre site. The residential subdivision was previously approved by the Planning Commission as Tentative Tract Map 16058. The site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street. APN: 210-062-31. Background: On June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 16058, which subdivided the 18.8-acre site into 92 single-family residential lots, one lot for a private park, one lot for off-site access and seven lettered lots for internal roadways. The proposed Development Review 00-55 includes building plans and elevations; and Conceptual Site, Grading, and Landscaping Plans associated with construction of the 92 single-family lots. See Exhibit "A" for a reduction of the approved Tentative Tract Map 16058. Design Parameters: The project site is presently vacant and is neighbored by existing single-family residential development to the west and south. The area to the north is vacant. Potentially historic residences are directly located on the southeast. Development Review 00-55 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 abutting Archibald Avenue. All homes will be two-story; no single-story homes are being proposed. The floor plan, for Plan 1 will range from 2,942 to 3,167 square feet in size, and will have three bedrooms, loft area, recreation room, three bathrooms, and a three-car garage. Optional features include a 14'-0" x 12'-4" fourth bedroom, 14'-8" x 14'-8" loft or • retreat, and14'-0" x 14'-8" guest room. The floor plan for Plan 2 will be 2,937 square feet in size, and will have two bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (44'-4" x 19'-0"), den or office, two bathrooms, and a 2 1/2-car garage. Optional features include an 11'-8" x 12'-0"third bedroom, 12'- 4" x 13'-4"fourth bedroom, and three-space garage. The floor plan for Plan 3 will be 3,772 square feet in size, and will have four bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (27'-4" x 18'-4"), den, three bathrooms, library, and athree-car garage. Optional features include an 11'-4" x 10'-0" fifth bedroom, 11'-4" x 12'-8" sixth bedroom, fourth bathroom, larger family room (15'-8" x 12'-0"), and "grandma" suite option (14'-8" x 17'-4"). Refer to Exhibit "B" for a reduction of proposed design and building plans. 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 dominate the front elevations of the various plans. W indow surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations, not only for the front elevations. Furthermore, the Conceptual Site Plan, building elevations, and Conceptual Grading Plan comply with the various requirements and development standards of the City's Development Code, relating to setbacks, landscaping, lot size, fences and walls, etc. The plans also comply with the Conditions of Approval established with Tentative Tract Map 16058. Refer to Exhibits "C" and "D" for a reduction of the Conceptual Site Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan, respectively. . Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-55 - CENTEX January 2, 2001 • Page 2 Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Staff finds that the proposed applications comply with the development standards contained in the City's Development Code and those Conditions of Approval established with Tentative Tract Map 16058, and will result in development of well-designed single-family residences. Therefore, there are no issues. 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, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Salvador M. Salazar The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval. C J • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:30 p.m. Rudy Zeledon January 2, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-71 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 68,750 square foot industrial building on 3.91 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-06 through 08. Design Parameters: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The original Master Plan consisted of 13 industrial buildings and specifically, 3 buildings on the parcels where this new building is proposed. The site has been rough graded previously and contains no significant vegetation and is void of any structures. The perimeter of the site along White Oak Avenue is improved with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. The street frontage along Tacoma Drive is improved with curb and gutter, driveway approaches, and no sidewalk or street side landscaping. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The building incorporates primary building materials: painted and sandblasted concrete. Secondary design material accents of brick veneer and green tinted reflective glazed glass are also proposed. The building is designed to be consistent with the architectural style of industrial park. The office portion of the building will front on to the northeast corner of W hite Oak and Tacoma Avenue. The office elevations feature areas of glass with brick veneer accents primarily to frame the main entrance. • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Staff has no major issues with this project the applicant has worked with staff in addressing earlier issues and staff is pleased with the outcome. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: On White Oak Avenue, the parking area should be screened with berms at an average height of 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 31/2:1). 2. Decorative paving at the main entrance should be extended into the handicapped parking spaces. 3. The proposed on-site trees, Carrotwood, Brisbane Box, and Jacaranda, are not durable for this areas wind and cold. Consider the use of other trees species more adaptable to our climate conditions. 4. Provide a textured pavement such as interlocking concrete pavers textured and/or patterned colored concrete, etc., across driveway entries. • 5. The landscaped area between the automobile and trailer truck parking at the southeast corner trailer court area should be extended west (the length of the trailer parking space) to provide an adequate buffer between automobile and truck trailer parking. DRC AGENDA DR 00-71 - CAPELLINO & ASSOCIATES January 2, 2001 • Page 2 Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the conditions as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staff's comments. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • JANUARY 2, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respe ully sub itte Brad Buller Secretary r1 LJ • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JANUARY 2, 2001 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA l J • Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Larry Henderson 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 (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION -CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to amend the previously approved design review for 55 homes within Tentative Tract 15911 to be a gated community with private streets, in the Low- Medium Residential District, (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) located on the northeast corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of-way -APN: 227-141-11, 12 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 00-38 - CHIPOTLE GRILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90, Related File: DR 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). 7:30 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. 7:50 p.m. (Debra) MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 99-19- LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - Modification to the approved Design Review of Tentative Tract 16001, including architectural elevations for the Leasing and Recreation Buildings, and all residential building types. • DRC AGENDA January 2, 2001 Page 2 8:10 p.m (Sal) DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 00-55 (TT 16058) - CENTEX - A request to approve building plans and design of 92single-family residences on an 18.8-acre site. The residential subdivision was previously approved by the Planning Commission as Tentative Tract Map 16058. The site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street. APN: 210-062-31. 8:30 p.m. (Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-71 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 68,750 square foot industrial building on 3.91 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue -APN: 209-461-06 through 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 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December28, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. .~ J CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS . 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION -CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to amend the previously approved design review for 55 homes within Tentative Tract 15911 to be a gated community with private streets, in the Low-Medium Residential District, (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) located on the northeast corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of-way - APN:227-141-11, 12 Design Parameters: The design review was approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2000. This approval was appealed to the City Council due to very high walls required for freeway noise mitigation. The appeal was resolved and the City Council upheld the Commission's decision on July 19, 2000. The site has been purchased from the previous developer by Concordia Homes. Concordia wishes to gate the entrance to the subdivision off of East Avenue and convert the internal streets to private. Concordia also anticipates filing a tentative tract map/design review for development of the property to the north of the site that would also be gated (this concept was reviewed at a Planning Commission Workshop on November 21, 2000 (the Commission was in favor of the gating concept). The proposed gate will have adequate turn around area, substantial trellises framing the pedestrian entries, substantial stone covered pilasters, ornate wrought iron gates/fencing, and a landscaped median. The overall entry statement will enhance the East Avenue streetscape. This is the only modification proposed at this time. No modification to the architecture, grading, landscaping, and sound walls are proposed. 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: There are no major or minor design issues. The proposed design is of high quality. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Ground-mounted equipment and utility boxes shall be completely screened from public view. This includes any Edison transformer boxes and boxes that might be necessary for operation of the gates. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 CIV VInVIVIVIGIV I/1L /1JJGJJIVIGIVI /11VV VVIYLl111VIV/-~L VJG rLnlVlll yyyo-VIIIrVILL I]nILL - A request to construct a 2,508 square foot restaurant with 495 square feet of outdoor patio area and master plan for a future 2,930 square foot fast food restaurant with drive thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90, Related File: DR 99-04 (RC Hotel Master Plan). Background: The site is part of the 5-acre R.C. Hotel Master Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1999. The Master Plan specified a single restaurant for the parcel. Now two restaurants are proposed, the Chipotle restaurant and a fast food restaurant to the east. Design Parameters: The site has frontage on Foothill Boulevard with existing curb and gutter improvements in-place. The frontage of the site is also landscaped. The site has been rough graded and slopes at approximately 3 to 4 percent from north to south. There is an existing driveway spine running north/south and easUwest on the overall master plan site and the Chipotle building would lie at the northeast corner of the driveway spine intersection. The Happy Wok restaurant lies to the east and the Terra Vista Shopping Center to the north across Foothill Boulevard. There are three current entitlements approved for the overall master planned site including Kinko's under construction at the northwest corner, Haven Wine and Deli along Foothill Boulevard Qust west of the Chipotle site), and the RC Hotel building to the south. All of these buildings include tower features similar to the theme established by the Applebee's and Buddy's • Bistro restaurants. No architectural information is provided for the master planned fast food drive-thru restaurant, only the Chipotle building. 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: Architecture -Restudy the overall architecture to avoid the large areas of blank stucco walls on the north, east, and south elevations. Use of wall-mounted trellises is acceptable in small areas only but should not be relied upon as the only form of wall articulation. Extend the copper canopies around the entire building. Extend cornice treatment around all parapets. Architecture -Restudy the north elevation and the northwest corner of the building to better relate to the Foothill Boulevard frontage and the entry statement for the overall site. Consider a tower or other vertical feature to enhance the Foothill frontage. 3. Site Plan -The fast food drive-thru restaurant is planned with the widest part of the building facing Foothill Boulevard, which creates three major issues: 1) the majority of the drive-thru lane area will be in direct view of travelers by on Foothill Boulevard contrary to the design policies established by the Planning Commission, 2) creates a space of only 3-4 feet between the drive-thru lane and the Chipolte restaurant, and 3) forces Chipolte to use the drive-thru lane as their loading/unloading access point, which is a direct conflict with the fast food business. Re-orient the building so that the presence of the drive thru lane is minimized • relative to Foothill Boulevard. It is suggested that the building be rotated 90 degrees so that the longer part of the drive thru lane is on the east side of the building. This will also help alleviate the crowded relationship between the east side of the Chipotle building and the west side of the fast food restaurant as currently shown. DRC AGENDA CUP 00-38 - CHIPOTLE GRILL January 2, 2001 • Page 2 4. Site Plan -The parking lot arrangement for Chipolte creates an awkward "dead-end," excess pavement, and some parking spaces do not have sufficient room toback-out without hitting other parked cars or would have to back-up approximately 60 feet before being able to turn around and move forward. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues" 1. The chili pepper logos on the building corners are signs. The total of 9 signs (3 wall signs + 6 logos) exceeds maximum number ofsigns -Sign Ordinance allows one sign per building face, and allows a maximum of three signs per business. The chili pepper logo could be combined with "Chipolte Mexican Grill" text to form a single sign on each face. 2. Replace 3-inch metal tube railing and woven wire mesh around patio with brick wall (similar to Applebee's) or higher quality design/materials. 3. Wrap the entire building with brick wainscoting. 4. The brick covered towers should return over the roof so that they read as actual towers rather than fancy parapets. 5. All features such as decorative paving, light standards, streetfurniture, etc., shall match the details established by Applebee's restaurant and Buddies Bistro. • 6. Provide dense landscaping surrounding the northern patio for the Chipotle building to help buffer the patio area from Foothill Boulevard and mitigate high seasonal winds. Provide similarly dense landscaping surrounding the western patio area to bufferfrom the main site entry to the west. 7. Provide decorative driveway paving at site entry points to match the remainder of the master planned site. 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 public view. This will likely require the installation of a low wall around the transformer box at the northwest corner of the site (or relocation of the box). All roof drainage features shall be handled inside the building walls. No exterior gutters or downspouts. Provide a minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall plus one tree per 30 linear feet of property line plus one tree per 3 parking spaces. 4. There shall be no exterior mounted roof access ladder. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. • Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 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. Background: The Uniform Sign Program was reviewed by the Committee on October 31, 2000 (see attached minutes). 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 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 2000. 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: Pad 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. The revised program has criteria for monument signs for the Union Bank and Farmer Boys buildings. The monuments measure 5 feet in width and 3 feet in height on top of terrain accommodating bases ranging from a few inches high to 1-foot high. This is comparable to the Macaroni Grill monument sign, which measures 2.5 feet high by 6 feet long on top of a 1 to 3-foot high base. The Farmer Boys sign copy reads, "Farmer Boys World's Greatest Hamburgers" in characteristic color, font style, and graphics. The words "World's Greatest Hamburgers" constitute a form of advertising contrary to the Sign Ordinance, which requires signs to display the business name only. Farmer Boys contends that the words, "Farmer Boy World's Greatest" is their established Trademark. This issue was raised during the Design Review of the Farmer Boys building. It was determined that the matter should be brought up for resolution with the overall Sign Program. Past court cases related to signs have established that while Cities do not have the authority to change established companytrademarks, they do have the authority to not allow a given business to display their trademark. Staff suggests that the sign be amended to simply display the words, "Farmer Boys" in a basic font style • similar to the Macaroni Grill and other restaurant signs. This would applyto the Farmer Boys wall mounted signs and directional/thank you signs as well. DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 139 - LOW E'S January 2, 2001 • Page 2 The Farmer Boys and Union Bank monument signs are proposed to be stucco covered aluminum cabinets with painted-on and raised metal letters, respectively. The monuments will be spot lit instead of internally illuminated. Staff does not recommend the use of painted- on copy/graphics for the Farmer Boys sign. The letters should either be raised similar to Union Bank or inset into the face of the sign. The program also now includes three square foot directional signs for Farmer Boys which read, "Drive Thru," "Do Not Enter," and "Thank you." The signs are 3 feet high and will be internally illuminated. They have a mushroom like shape with the sign face supported by a smaller post. These should be revised to have a stronger looking support to convey a sense of quality. 2. Union Bank and Farmer Boys signs should be in the program. The revised program includes monument sign designs for these signs. No wall sign criteria is included for Union Bank beyond some conceptual designs. Wall sign details should be included for Union Bank. Note that the Sign Ordinance prohibits wall signs above 20 feet in height. The wall sign proposed for Farmer Boys is a large, 4 foot by 8 foot "can" type sign with graphics and copy. While it is recognized that this is the typical sign for this business, the overall design and copy content are contrary to the Sign Ordinance. The sign should be • revised to use channel type letters and the copy should be revised to eliminate any form of advertising as noted above for the monument sign. Provide the square footage of the sign (32 square feet shown but the sign is actually less than that due to odd shape) along with the square footage of the building face to determine compliance with area limitations. 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. The revised package is more complete but there are still references to several types of wall signs (anchor, pad tenant, shop tenant) for which there are no drawings. The program should be comprehensive in terms of text and exhibits. 4. Colors -Change item 9 to include three colors only. Suggest eliminating blue and green, as they do not read well at night. The revised program specifies three colors, white, red, and yellow. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 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. " • DONE DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 139 - LOW E'S January 2, 2001 • Page 3 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. DONE 3. Page 4, Pad Tenant I.D -Change maximum letterheight 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." DONE 4. Page 5, Fabrication Standards -Change criteria under item 6 to require bronze returns instead of color to match window mullions. DONE 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. There is still a reference to Under-canopy Tenant Signs while there are no multi-tenant type • buildings shown on the Site Plan. There are now Entry W indow and Delivery Entry ID signs drawings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of the above comments pertaining to the Farmer Boys copy and brought back for further review. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count LJ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS •i 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. Desion 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. 2. 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 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. 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 7:50 p.m. Debra Meier January 2, 2001 • MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 99-19 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - Modification to the approved Design Review of Tentative Tract 16001, including architectural elevations for the Leasing and Recreation Buildings, and all residential building types. Background: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 16001 and accompanying Design Review 99-19, located in Terra Vista north of Church Street and east of Spruce Street, on November 10, 1999. The project has been through plan check for Grading. The applicant, Lewis Apartment Communities, has expressed a desire to make modifications to the architectural details; and, as they did in Tract 16000, the Recreation and Leasing Buildings have been upgraded to include additional facilities and amenities available to residents. Copies of the reduced scale approved elevations are provided for your reference and to compare to the proposed revisions as proposed. Staff Comments: Through Design Review approval of Development Review 99-19 the project reflected a traditional bungalow architectural style through the use of wood railings, shutters, garage door patterns, siding material, rafter tails, outriggers, and similar eave details. The applicant has expressed concerns regarding the level of maintenance required to maintain a high quality appearance with such an arrayof wood trim and siding used in the project. The revised elevations portray eliminating the use of the wood siding, and instead have introduced the use of stone veneer (not river rock cobble) to be used for columns and limited areas of building wainscot. • Leasing Building: The leasing building has been redesigned to eliminate the use of siding. The use of stone has been introduced on the entry columns shown on Elevations A, B, and D., The use of stone should be extended to include the entire height of the column, or used as wainscot or similar details around the building. Recreation Building: The recreation building has been enlarged to provide a more complete amenity package for residents. This will include racquetball court, theater, fitness and aerobics rooms, and a multipurpose area accessible to a kitchen and wet bar. As a result, the building is considerably larger than originally planned. The two-story structure is generally well detailed and proportioned, however, as noted above, the use of stone should be increased to include full columns heights and increased use as a wainscot. The right-hand side of Elevation C requires additional building detailing. Residential Buildings: Although the introduction of the stone veneer is a desirable detail, it does not carry the design theme across to the same extent that the "wood-like" siding did. Since the intent is essentially to replace the siding with the stone, then the stone needs to be used more extensively, and even carried completely across some of the lower elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the committee review the modifications to the architectural concept, and the modifications to the Leasing and Recreation Buildings of Tract 16001; recommending any modifications as desired, and approve the modifications to the building elevations with conditions that will be reviewed by staff during building plan check. Attachments Design Review Committee Action:v Members Present: Staff Planner: Debra Meier DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:10 p.m. Sal Salazar January 2, 2001 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 00-55 (TT 16058) - CENTEX - A request to approve building plans and design of 92 single-family residences on an 18.8-acre site. The residential subdivision was previously approved by the Planning Commission as Tentative Tract Map 16058. The site is located near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street. APN:210-062-31. Background: On June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 16058, which subdivided the 18.8-acre site into 92 single-family residential lots, one lot for a private park, one lot for off-site access and seven lettered lots for internal roadways. The proposed Development Review 00-55 includes building plans and elevations; and Conceptual Site, Grading, and Landscaping Plans associated with construction of the 92 single-family lots. See Exhibit "A" for a reduction of the approved Tentative Tract Map 16058. Desion Parameters: The project site is presently vacant and is neighbored by existing single-family residential development to the west and south. The area to the north is vacant. Potentially historic residences are directly located on the southeast. Development Review 00-55 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 abutting Archibald Avenue. All homes will be two-story; no single-story homes are being proposed. The floor plan, for Plan 1 will range from 2,942 to 3,167 square feet in size, and will have three bedrooms, loft area, recreation room, three bathrooms, and a • three-car garage. Optional features include a 14'-0" x 12'-4"fourth bedroom, 14'-8" x 14'-8" loft or retreat, and14'-0" x 14'-8" guest room. The floor plan for Plan 2 will be 2,937 square feet in size, and will have two bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (44'-4" x 19'-0"), den or office, two bathrooms, and a 2 1/2-car garage. Optional features include an 11'-8" x 12'-0"third bedroom, 12'- 4" x 13'-4"fourth bedroom, and three-space garage. The floor plan for Plan 3 will be 3,772 square feet in size, and will have four bedrooms, large upstairs bonus room (27'-4" x 18'-4"), den, three bathrooms, library, and athree-car garage. Optional features include an 11'-4" x 10'-0" fifth bedroom, 11'-4" x 12'-8"sixth bedroom, fourth bathroom, larger family room (15'-8" x 12'-0"), and "grandma" suite option (14'-8" x 17'-4"). Refer to Exhibit "B" for a reduction of proposed design and building plans. Depending upon the particular plan, light brown stucco exterior walls, with either brown or gray blend concrete flat the 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 dominate the front elevations of the various plans. W indow surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations, not only for the front elevations. Furthermore, the Conceptual Site Plan, building elevations, and Conceptual Grading Plan comply with the various requirements and development standards of the City's Development Code, relating to setbacks, landscaping, lot size, fences and walls, etc. The plans also comply with the Conditions of Approval established with Tentative Tract Map 16058. Refer to Exhibits "C" and "D" for a reduction of the Conceptual Site Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan, respectively. • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-55 - CENTEX January 2, 2001 • Page 2 Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Staff finds that the proposed applications comply with the development standards contained in the City's Development Code and those Conditions of Approval established with Tentative Tract Map 16058, and will result in development of well-designed single-family residences. Therefore. there are no issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: J Staff Planner: Salvador M. Salazar Attachments Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 16058 Exhibit B Building Elevations Exhibit C Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit D Conceptual Grading Plan • T 4 I I K 1,~ ~ I ~' 3n I lii ^na y$~ r • w>„ '~ N ti 1 r.:i3~ @ ~cl/ ZA 'n I `. I NO 1 I I ~ ~ ie F ~ ... 1 ___~ ___~ __ e i i ~ ~ C ~~ i! „F ~ .=_ c~a r 81m[ s ~I ~ i -g ~ I '~ I I: i i I„i r=l"i ~ i :'i I B F I~ m ~~~T ~~ yy F: i I T- . I:ql ~a~ ~:I ~ I I..11 j `~ m ~:~,~ ~m Llm m a a v m m' "a ~ d Y ar b m l6 ' V m - - ~ ~' °~- J• '= N Id a ~ • a b .y ~ a~ m I .• I rw m m Y a • N td ~ a ~ I s I ~ E __i __~i ___ V ~ ~ R~ ~ ~ ~~il 1',~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ 1• .~ .t..s 4 ~l -~ ` ' ~ 1 I r.. r ~ 7~ ~ `F- r 4 ~:,~ I BI :;I o ~ ; m l .E''I I J' e i m t c m t~ i emb S I I `\ .~ I I O I I e .. r- .. I 1 ~ t m ~ ~ ' m v ' m m I .. I ~ t I "I I :ii Q Q O O aa 1?.1 I lij . ~' ~e ~h I ~:~ ,~_ 16 6 ~ J~ I 7~ ~ I I i a i~y63 ~~5 ~1~~ / I$Im5a~~~ai~~~ ~ ~€ $ill i"! dl~~ ~ ~ R. i e o ~~ v ~ ' a ii° ~~ g ~n ~ '< z r -1 Ri n < d .m __ An -:z m ,m ~z '< ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~+~~£ n ~~ y ! 7i_ 9 ongo . ~ ® - .. N ~ ld r a ~ m .. V NI tl s a m s ~ E `~ ~ t t6 ~\ \ J ... ~ .~ .. m i~ [; a I F t' P ~ ~ ~ ~~ e~ l~ ~ ds ~ I: o ~ N ~ ~ ili@ ~~~ ~~~~ Fd~li~ a a 1'e 9~~ $f;F!! ~ Y A'~ ~i~ ~~~~# n n m m N 14 s b ~ ~ ~ ~ 31~Ij t~ t~ ~ ~ i~~~9g ~~x 4 ~ ~ a ¢ ~~~~ ~ _$ g8 dR ~ ~ d ~~ C ve - ~ R [n ~ m,~ v D 433 ll'b13 R Y 3i ' A ~~~ ~C 1 pa Z ~ 4e e o ' y~y e ~ C ~ ~ aR ni~ R ~g~ a • • ~ 1 {C~ 1> a ~ 3 ~ m z m X n n ° ~ ' ~~~ a ~ >v 7 .. 0 ~ 'rl R G ~ y o w p ~ ~ K n ~ ~ ao w '~ ~x~ w A~ ~' ... o ,..r o ~ ,~, e y w 0 ~ b ~+ ~~-:'~ ~ 3 ~ ~~'~~ ~~~ ':~GI r-~ ~ ~~::.0 C ~:::'~ aj '.i i~ a~ 36 4! 9~ 1 3 8 ~~ `EFtl rrLLLr 31i r~r€r~~rrrrFrr~[ F rI r. ~gva r oNo b -~ b • ~ m ~ Z n ~ o m ~ X b ~. ~ l 1 P"'r er W "~ R ~ ~. ,'Y O O .Z !" r n ~ C n ~ w O ~, ' T c " i m ~ fD ~ ao ~ w ~ x a y J \ r O l"r N "~ C b m w p .» ~ o p ~ y y ' rtiy .. m d . y ~ "i ~. 4 -~ gg I ! ! `.. ~~~ ~' ~ [~'~ .A ~ C • ~c.. W ~i:: ~ a a e e A r~ Y O 0 ~g r °6 g • ~ m ~ Z n -~ o m e X v 1'? C /~ l 1 ~ "" ~ ~ l"r e~ ~ ~ w "a ,~ ~ ... ~ o o A~ .~ C'1 k n H w d ' " Q • ~ ~ c m ~ ~p o 00 ~ w ~ x a ~ ~ ~7 ~n ~' ~' Q f lT A ~", p . Al m ~ '. ~ ~.y n+ O p N ~ ~ ro ® 0 p ,r l~ ~~~, ~ . ~~~ ~ ~ ~,.. ; o 1~ • , ~:: ~ ~ ~ A m a e e a P Q a m e v ~+ r ~ ~' a ~+ R N ~ F~ 5g 4C e 4 n ~ m ~ Z A ~ o m X b r. /~ l 1 d ~ ~ (~ T A ~ p R ~ ~. 7' O O ~ .~ A I"r C ~ w y d ' ' Q • T " w c p ~ d tl0 ff w ~ x a A w A~ ~ .. O 1"P A •~ O < . Al w Q .. ~ o `~ o y ro m 1 ® A ~i~ ~ _. g t ~ ~ ' t . :, ~~ ~ ~~~ fI •, ~ • I..: •'D P 1 m 0 e "< c °o [rClllitl ~~ v ~~tttdsrr~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r P a °o v i 0 ~ m ~ Z A ~ o m o >C A T C /~ l 1 >b ("~ er A N b ~ ~ ... b' O o ~s a A~ n ~ ~ Q c w y d a ' ~ • ""T °' ^ c C ~ C m 00 n .~ ~ e Q x n a r ~ e ~; ^, a O ~ ~ N p ~ ~ p ~ O M O -~ p N b ® y L ~ ~ ';, i S 99~ ~i;. ~ ~ • )~:. O I' ' 'C O a O 0 2 a 0 Rg ~~ 4~ A a 0 e , • ~ m ~ Z A ~ o m X 1'? C m r ~! rr M w ~ ~ „i n ~. ~ C o A~ .~ n ~ ~ c ~ y w = ~. ~ °' • o p ~p e ~ n w ~ x a ~~ ~ ;~ ~ o~ ~ M e ^J ~+ m w O T r i O uJ' H b 7 ~~_: i I^ l l aa ~l ~ ` j ;., ~~~ := ~ [E'' ,~ ~ • ::.C ~ ~ ..:~ R Y e 0 0 0 Q R 2 e O GO el C1 ~~ e ~~~ P ~C[ ~ fax i r 0 • ~ n ~ m L m~ X A o ~D ° ~ A ,~ 'e ~ ~ w e ~ ~ n w x 0 ~ ~ n a ,~ ~y o w p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ r w ~x A ~~ w ~~ ~,, o~ o ~ ~~, o w O .~ b "~ m ~ ry N ,~J 9 i i ~~ ~ ,~•.~ '~ ~ ~~~ `~-` • ~I:. C ~~ ~ v Q1 a~ f a~ I 9 b rtr~r~~rrrr~rr~z i 9B ~e fgzv y t 0 w b w b m ~ Z L m X l 1 l~ 'Jd (~ w ~ ~ n x 0 C] `~ a w y ~ ~ o~ w C1 w ~ ~-n o ~ ., C w ~ y~•~~~ 4q ~!:~ _i ! ~:~~~ ?p ~ 8 Fi~'..~ ~~•; ~C li:: ~ ~~ n 0 0 A .fl .+ C m CrJ Y! w A ~t 0 d m A n A a m m O 7 H b N s N a S ~_ R1 A a e e ~g a~ 4m 0 -----__• i=~ii[~Cit@~~]R~ e 6~i~g~~6tr~~r~~~ ~ ~~._ i m ~ Z i m X r' w ~ ~ n x 0 n l"r C w y w ~x w_ A~ ~-n o ~ a ~ °' O y ~::.x fq~;-: a S ~~; ~ [t'~.~ II:..O 1:..[ ~~ n 0 b R d F~ l'~ N A 0 R 7 0 A a ... A O b m b m d N z ~g a, §m e ~'Ffll ~I tt~f ~i7 ?~ if!i1~~tCtdR¢r~~ m ~ Z m X ~i~iirr I~ y~y rr /~ N Cy I~i n Ci' O ~' w y fD 00 W n w_ ~ ~-n O l"r ti C °' O "~ a ~ ~qR:~-~i ! i:~ ~ g3a slcl ~~::c ~~v n O ~i7 A b ~. e m r w tD it O 1 0 Q m d A A a r A E m 0 A VJ 0 N P Y 6 m A `m 0 P r e a I ~~ sg ti6 i4iGiFinnnnnnrrn dy'Fd~(rldddi~jdd ,'pgg FFr~df~~~t~Rrdae 16 • ^ ~ m ~ Z n ~ o m X A b C ro ~ ~ i! M ~' r ~ R A w ~ ~ ,~ ... ~ ~ o O r1 n 1"r ~ G ,~ w S • ° "~' m V,' w x ~ c w ~ ~ o ~ ' ~ A ~~ m w p .. ~ o p H ~ ~ b m 7 p9:: ~ 4g ~!;- .{ s ~ A ~~ '= ~ . ~~~ ~F'.A 19:..0 ..a 9 c j::: ~v ~ N r~ M c e d ~e i "' 4m e i=Fii[6Caii~~~P~ f~pl~e~(~I~~~rsr ~~ • ~ m ~ Z n ~ 'A1 o 0 X ~ A b '. C ~ ~ Y! (~ ~ ~ w p w ~ ,~ ... ~ p• o A~ o ,, a n ~ ~ ~ > w y p ~ • ~~ ~ p tr, O ~ a m ~ 00 y n ~p e e x (~ w ~ d trJ r e u ~ ~ o ~ •, ' p `~ r m < m • w C m '. ~ m~ o p H b ® o %:; 7C ~'::: -+ tl~~::~ N n :~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~;; • c 1;:: ~~ F1 me m 0 e ~e _e i" 4~ i:fiE [1i[i~ ~~~ ~ 6f![t~Efi~d~~t~~ I w ~ i P ~ m Z m X n fD :~ ~ w ~ n O 1"r n G ~y w w w_ ~ M~ o ~ o "~ w0 "'! r^ 1 ~~J lgg~;:.i ~~ 7 ~'• ~ ~~~ `~` A 0 0 A b '. C d .. R O e A e w '. o ~9 o d~ w 4i ~ a~ m 2 W B ,~ ~~ ~= .:, ~ F,.......... `~6nr~rr~"rg~~~ r~°Cr~6rrrrarr~~ ~ ~~ r. g6x~ o - p a N b T • n ~ a m Z A ~ o m = X ~, C Ai "' C~ ~ 3 x ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~. ~ o o .~ A~ n `"'' ~' _ y w = ~ o ""t' °' ~ fD = 00 ~ w xj a w A7 ~ o ~ m '" e ~ ~ _ • m ~ O T r a O ' ~ y ro F°1-:'7C ~~ 5 : W . ..~ 9 3 q 3 ~ [ t ! ,: 5 B~~ " '~ r,`,~ li'.'O ~ ~:.:C : I • .~ :: W e ~O i~ Sp m e C n m ~ Z ~ -1 0 m X ~ A .fl H F i..~ y~ F~ P'V M ~ ~ r ~ A N ^S p ~ r. ~ O n e c A~ ,~ a ~ ~ ~_ P 6 n ~] O a °' ~ ^ o '-7 ~ ~ °' m o ~ ~ m ao ~ w e ~ ~ n xj d r °1 lsJ " c ' e .. M O ~ !" ~P A < w Q '. ~ o `~ o b FG~ W ~~ ~',~•~ ~~~ ~~~ <<~..~ w ~4:: ~ ~~:; ~ Se 9 5m e 8 w m '< z O • n ~ m ,~u ~ Z n ,.'r'~~ ,'Y`~ ~ O m e X ti C ~~ R A w ~ ~ ,~ ~ ... ~ o o A~ .~ ('~ ~ ~ ^ ,~ w ,~' ~ m o ~ ~p o 00 ~ w ~ x a ~~ ~ ;~ ~ .. o~ ~ ~ _~ _ . m w C .. ~ o 7 y ~ I V m C~~- ~ $ i;:: .~ w Ctl gg 9 [~S`:.i ~~~ '~ ~ . [{'~ ~ ~~.~ 0 ~> 'j:. ~i:: ~ n n e e O ~g ice' S~ • ^ n r T ~ Z i m X l 1 l~ '~ ~ w p 0 n ~ a w y • "~ 0 0 ~ fD as w ~ x w A7 _ ~-n o ., ~ ~ ~ °' O fD 4~:~ i ~~ ~':. e s Sg ~ • Utl~ ~i• .l1 ..i ~?. C ~ ~~:: ~v n O 0 A b M C m H et A -~ 0 ~7 a m e m a ~7 m t m T Q e H W A 4_g _~^ S~ R i Q O e a • • I 1 N ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ 1 1 1 I ~ l lll ~ 1 i E ~ S 1 4 ° ~ ~ r u~ e~ pp pe ~ ~ ~ ry C "B i~~ ~ ~ I E E e ~1 ~ E E E E E E F E ~.m I . .°m . slaas~r min F F F 1 I 4 aj z 1 - k k 1 1 I 1 ~y `f 1 ' z = qp qp fY' qp ~ 1q y~ Tp 11O 6~ E~ E ' tW C N ~ } 1 ~------ j ~t ; m y y ~ ~~ V ;P.~• ; ~ .Ni;; I E ~ ~ ~ l 1 ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f PAILINB I E ~~ = ' E E E ~ E ~ I ~ X i a F F awn ~=i ~ F ~ ' uluPC `cr mm . _ -- 1 _ ~ 1 ~ - ` F si ~~` I S i 1 IN J E ba j F ' ada : ' P~ d9V 4 M2 ' ' 1 t t t F ~i9 , 1i F t I X 1 1 Lam I i t R E P a a9A ~ ~ ~ ~ ;e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ; ~ I m ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ E~ ~ ..______ ~____ I I ____ ° m m t p i<~ _ `` , 1 x°~ ~ e~ ~ ~ 'u~ ~ E Ir k ~~ 11 ....AA~~.. C~ ~ 6 ' F F { r + ~ ti~. v e ~F ~~ f \ ~ . pp5 ~ a ,~ ` ` ~', k ~ k t E ~ 3 . i,l=a I ` E E E ~~ F~ I I 1 I ! t ~ E N N 1 ~; ;. ~ eg ~ ~ ~ i~ I g ~ _ + _. u ~ t l ~ g ° o p C 4 1 n~ "~ J y E ______ °~ E E E~ ~ "~ ~ t E F e D 1 I ~ F F F ~~ y~ v r a ~7 z ~ AAD t~ __ Q N ciyS ~ ° I ~ ~ ~ ` 1 Tarn ! ; i ' E E I _ k<~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ e~ '~ egg sag +~ ,"~ ~ - s ~I_ a-==___-----___ ----~~---- a seava-° ~aaun=.~r~'e_oe=~aa` ... .,~ , 1 = i a.~ i -,+ ~ °~ -I 1 ~ "' it r t ~ ~ t c of 1 I -- ® ® ® ! ~_~ ~ ~ __ __ t y .p~~ f z D m Fny N __ a_luee • s-9 r -~ _ - ~ ` -~ y f7 n p ~~#~ i,i i f ~ ~~ _ t' y z' 4 ~ .. e, ~ ~ ® a a 4 .~-~- a I _ a .. ~. ' f f f :; ~; :, ~ ~ ,> I I T_ "~ _ _ D 1 I I ; \~ II ® ~ ' ; ~ ~v t F .I~ 1 ,y M f I _jy Fy:r a cif I i i Y g~ I I -;ei f ® ® ~ M ~ a. _ L~ I.r _ ;a ~ E »'' i 'v ~.~~i_ O P .i. I C:.: a Y Y y I I 4 $ i \ I I I ~ I ~ .. 4 -1-----~-------~ t:, a ® ` or t a a ,a .€ f i ~ _;n E t }~ t a I I 1 I :a I o: I ,,, ~ ..: I s .~ .. I I I I I c. € ,..f I I ., I I I I I f y e®®® spp geq eg a +______________y__ t t x f }9U~A~I ~: p6~a n ) ~En ~ j "° y F ~~ 1~ ° t 4 A ~a9aga~~t~ all o A~. - - --- g~ ~ e~~a~i i, i m Ff a. ... y W~ ~~ ~ F~.p s ~ 3i ~i f • a i O ~p ~n ~z k „K _ ' F €I d~~ 4u~ y y 1 ~ gg ~ Ra ~ ~~~~~apE ~ ~ R~ D f~ ~ ~ n ~- ^ a8p~ t f 11§e AA 9f~ !'~F@6@A ~ 1 e~j~l" i t ~ ~2r m ~en$ 8~ $a z ¢:§ ` fi! D !g ~~~14t3 ~ ~ t ~ ~4~ ~ ¢ b s d i 3~ 98 = nl§1~ c ~' ffP DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:30 p.m. Rudy Zeledon January 2, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-71 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES -A request to construct a 68,750 square foot industrial building on 3.91 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-06 through 08. Design Parameters: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The original Master Plan consisted of 13 industrial buildings and specifically, 3 buildings on the parcels where this new building is proposed. The site has been rough graded previously and contains no significant vegetation and is void of any structures. The perimeter of the site along White Oak Avenue is improved with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. The street frontage along Tacoma Drive is improved with curb and gutter, driveway approaches, and no sidewalk or street side landscaping. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The building incorporates primary building materials: painted and sandblasted concrete. Secondary design material accents of brick veneer and green tinted reflective glazed glass are also proposed. The building is designed to be consistent with the architectural style of industrial park. The office portion of the building will fronton to the northeast corner of W hite Oak and Tacoma Avenue. The office elevations feature areas of glass with brick veneer accents primarily to frame the main entrance. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Staff has no major issues with this project the applicant has worked with staff in addressing earlier issues and staff is pleased with the outcome. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: On White Oak Avenue, the parking area should be screened with berms at an average height of 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 31/2:1). 2. Decorative paving at the main entrance should be extended into the handicapped parking spaces. 3. The proposed on-site trees, Carrotwood, Brisbane Box, and Jacaranda, are not durable for this areas wind and cold. Consider the use of other trees species more adaptable to our climate conditions. 4. Provide a textured pavement such as interlocking concrete pavers textured and/or patterned colored concrete, etc., across driveway entries. • 5. The landscaped area between the automobile and trailer truck parking at the southeast corner trailer court area should be extended west (the length of the trailer parking space) to provide an adequate buffer between automobile and truck trailer parking. DRC AGENDA DR 00-71 - CAPELLINO & ASSOCIATES • January 2, 2001 Page 2 Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the conditions as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon n