Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/11/19 - Agenda Packet• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY NOVEMBER 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: John Mannerino Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias Larry McNiel CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00749 -RANCHO VISTA VILLAS PHASE III - Arequest toconstruct 42 Duplex units of the previously approved Rancho Vista Villas Phase III, on 4.41 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District, located southwest corner of 7th Street and Hellman Avenue -APN: 209-451-31 thru 74, 82- 86. 7:05 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00720 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to modify the approved master site plan for the Rancho Cucamonga Town Square (DRCDR00-79), and review of elevations for a specialty market building and freestanding restaurant building therein, on 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCDR00-79, DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179, and PAR00-07. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:15 p.m (Rick) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00511 - DI CARLO -A request to construct one industrial building totaling 20,887 square feet on 2.52 acres of land in Subarea 8 of the General Industrial District, located at 8657 Pecan Avenue -APN: 229-181-09,12. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00778. 7:30 p.m. (Alan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00601 - SOMMERVILE-CONZELMAN COMPANY, LP - A request to develop 168 apartments in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) on 12 acres of land, located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 207-211-06 and 36. • DRC COMMENTS November 19, 2002 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 • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS . 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn November 19, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00749 -RANCHO VISTA VILLAS PHASE III - A request to construct 42 Duplex units of the previously approved Rancho Vista Villas Phase III, on 4.41 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District, located southwest corner of 7th Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 209-451-31 thru 74, 82-86. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: This project is the last phase of the previously approved project. No changes are being proposed to the elevations, the final product will match the existing duplexes. Staff has worked closely with the applicant; therefore, there are no issues that need to be discussed before the Design Review Committee. The project conforms to the Development Code . Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved as proposed. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Mannerino, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • The Committee approved the project as proposed. • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS . 7:05 p.m. Doug Fenn November 19, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00720 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to modify the approved mastersite plan forthe Rancho Cucamonga Town Square (DRCDR00-79), and review of elevations for a specialty market building and freestanding restaurant building therein, on 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCDR00-79, DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179, and PAR00-07. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Staff has worked closely with the applicant; therefore, there are no issues that need to be discussed before the Design Review Committee. The project conforms to the Development Code and with the approved Rancho Cucamonga Square Master Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved as proposed. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present Larry McNiel, John Mannerino, Dan Coleman • Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee approved the project as proposed. C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Rick Fisher November 19, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00511 - DI CARLO - A request to construct one industrial building totaling 20,887 square feet on 2.52 acres of land in Subarea 8 of the General Industrial District, located at 8657 Pecan Avenue-APN: 229-181-09,12. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00778. Design Parameters: The project site is comprised of two lots that total 2.52 acres in size. A lot line adjustment is required to move the existing lot line 175 feet to the east so that the building can be sold or leased to two buyers or tenants, each on their own lot. A reciprocal access agreement will be provided in order to allow vehicular access to the rear lot (Suite B). The proposed building will be located toward the rear of the property and will be divided into two tenant spaces. Suite A (the western portion of the building) will be 11,412 square feet in size and Suite B (the eastern portion of the building) will be 9,475 square feet in size. Each suite will contain an office and mezzanine in frdnt with a warehouse area in the rear. The warehouse areas will be served by surface level loading doors. Landscaping will surround the building on all sides except for the loading areas. An outdoor patio area with tables, benches and umbrellas will be provided on the south side of the building for each suite. A total of 52 parking spaces are required and have been provided. Even though the parking area will be screened by an 8-foot high decorative concrete block wall, tree wells and finger islands will be provided to breakup the large asphalt area. The 35-foot front yard landscape setback area will contain a 3-foot high undulating berm covered with grass and accented by a combination of shrubs and trees. • The exterior of the concrete tilt-up building will contain a variety of accent features. The office entrances will be surrounded with green tint mirror glass and spandrel glass, while 12-inch square with 1-inch deep impressions will be provided on the fagade of all sides of the building. The parapet walls will be staggered to provide visual interest. In fact, an arched shape parapet will be located directly above the main entry doors. Otherfeatures include a painted tube steel canopy that,will be intermittently installed on the sides of the building along with 2-inch wide impression bands near the top and middle of the building. The building footprint will be staggered to further break up the linear appearance that is common to industrial buildings. A Tree Removal Permit application was submitted for 6 existing trees that are proposed for removal. An Arborist Report was required to analyze the viability of maintaining or moving these trees. At the time of this writing, the Arborist Report has not been submitted for staff to review. 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: None -the applicant has been working diligently with staff since May 2002. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Relocate the monument sign out of the line-of-sight for drivers exiting project. • 2. Provide a physical separation (e.g., wall/fence, raised curb, etc.) between material storage yards and parking lots. Purpose is to protect parking lot and maintain a 24-foot wide two-way drive-aisle. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00511 - DI CARLO • November 19, 2002 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approved the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Mannerino, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rick Fisher The applicant agreed to the secondary issues and the Committee recommended approval. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:35 p.m. Alan Warren November 19, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00601 - SOMMERVILE-CONZELMANOOMPANY, LP-A request to develop 168 apartments in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) on 12 acres of land, located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-06 and 36. Design Parameters: The site is vacant and leveled with a slight slope to the south. One large Eucalyptus tree is located near the front half of the site. The surrounding uses to the east and south are multiple-family developments with an improved flood control channel along the west property line. A large mature Blue Gum (Eucalyptus) tree is located in the front portion of the site. The heavily traveled Vineyard Street is the most significant impact to the site. The environmental concerns from this feature are the impact from traffic noise and access limitations that the vehicle traffic places on the project. The site plan provides sufficient and centrally placed common open space in the middle of the site with a circular drive that proposed apartment buildings on each side of the main drive. Par course exercise facilities are disbursed through-out the site along pedestrian walks. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. The large mature Blue Gum Eucalyptus, that is centrally located in the front portion of the site, can significantly affect the design if retained. The development application includes the removal of the tree from the site. The tree is in apparent good health and exhibits good structure. The applicant's arborist, however, questions its long-term health if retained within a significantly altered environment (grading and hardscape). Staff believes that the tree's size and majestic form make it a worthy candidate for retention within the development. The main problem is the tree's location in regard to the main entry drive from Vineyard Avenue. If retained, as the design is presently configured, the tree trunk would be very close to a building and the south edge of the driveway, which is obviously unacceptable (root compaction, etc.) for such a large mature tree. The applicant has provided an alternative site plan (Sheet ST-A) that provides a greater distance from the apartment structure but retains the same distance from the driveway; however, a portion of the tree canopy would still have to be removed. Blue Gum trees are prone to branch drop and toppling; hence, are poor candidates for preservation near homes. The main driveway apron of Vineyard Avenue should not be moved as it satisfies the City's location requirements by aligning it with a driveway for an existing apartment on the opposite side of the street. Therefore, any thought of keeping the tree in-place, would need to consider on-site realignment of the driveway northerly once it clears the public right-of-way from the drive apron's presently proposed location. The Fire Division recommended that the driveway remain straight for between 40 to 60 feet beyond the driveway apron. The tree is about 60 • feet from the apron. Therefore, staff recommends that Plan "ST" be approved and the tree be removed and replaced with a 48-inch box specimen in a prominent location near the main entry. A noise study for the project recommends the use of a perimeter wall of up to 7.5 feet in height along the Vineyard Avenue frontage and barriers of 6.5 feet (roughly the top of the windows) DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00601 - SOMMERVILE-CONZELMAN COMPANY, LP • November 19, 2002 Page 2 along the second floor balconies to mitigate the traffic noise impact to those units closest to the roadway. In the case of the perimeter barrier, the extra wall height (above the standard 6 feet) can be visually reduced by providing landscape mounding along the wall's base. For the second story balconies, the noise study lists '/a-nch thick glass or lexan as an acceptable barrier. Staff recommends that the sound attenuation for the balconies be a combination of stucco veneer over wood frame (lower portion) with glass above to the 6.5 feet height, and that the design details be subject to City Planner approval. 3. Eliminate the symmetrical design scheme by providing architectural variations between each "half" along any given elevation. Possible variations include massing, hip vs. gable roof, color, and details. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. The color change on the right and left elevations on Building "AX" should occur near the second floor height to visually reduce the expanse of the wall area. This will "tie in" with the color change and relief detail that is exhibited on the corners of the front and rear elevations. 2. Vary garage door design. 3. Increase the number of decorative pavement crossings of the main circular drive aisle. The cross walks should be placed in the middle portions of the circular drive aisle. • 4. Integrate trash enclosures with architectural design of garages they adjoin. 5. Mail boxes should be designed into a structure consistent with architectural design of buildings. 6. Provide landscape planters between garages. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. Screen exterior trash areas, storage areas, utility equipment (i.e., transformers, meters, backflow valves), and air conditioning units., etc. from view using elements compatible with architecture and landscaping. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the DRC2002-00601 with the above listed modifications. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Mannerino, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee recommended approval of the proposal subject to compliance with all issues listed • above and amended as follows: 1. In response to Major Issue #3, the applicant shall provide building elevation variations of modified architectural details and color schemes to the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to the project being forwarded to the Planning Commission. The modified roof plan, shown at the meeting, is not to be included with the architectural modifications. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • NOVEMBER 19, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B Buller Secretary • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA • Committee Members: John Mannerino Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman Larry McNiel The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically theyare'items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00749 -RANCHO VISTA VILLAS PHASE III - Arequest to construct 42 Duplex units of the previously approved Rancho Vista Villas Phase III, on 4.41 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District, located southwest corner of 7th Street and Hellman Avenue -APN: 209-451-31 thru 74, 82- 86. 7:05 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00720 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to modify the approved master site plan for the Rancho Cucamonga Town Square (DRCDR00-79), and review of elevations for a specialty market building and freestanding restaurant building therein, on 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCDR00-79, DRCGPA01-016, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179, and PAR00-07. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:15 p.m (Rick) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00511 - DI CARLO-A request to construct one industrial building totaling 20,887 square feet on 2.52 acres of land in Subarea 8 of the General Industrial District, located at 8657 Pecan Avenue -APN: 229-181-09,12. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00778. 7:30 p.m (Alan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2002-00601 - SOMMERVILE-CONZELMAN COMPANY, LP - A request to develop 168 apartments in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) on 12 acres of land, located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 207-21 1-06 and 36. DRC COMMENTS November 19, 2002 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, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 14, 2002, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~ ~-~// - n ' . -\ ~,/ ~®~ " ~7 / (XX~.tJ S///7(.IiLF'G.~l~ • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn November 19, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00749 -RANCHO VISTA VILLAS PHASE III - A request to construct 42 Duplex units of the previously approved Rancho Vista Villas Phase III, on 4.41 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District, located southwest corner of 7th Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 209-451-31 thru 74, 82-86. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: This project is the last phase of the previously approved project. No changes are being proposed to the elevations, the final product will match the existing duplexes. Staff has worked closely with the applicant; therefore, there are no issues that need to be discussed before the Design Review Committee. The project conforms to the Development Code . Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved as proposed. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:05 p.m. Doug Fenn November 19, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00720 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to modify the approved master site plan for the Rancho Cucamonga Town Square (DRCDR00-79), and review of elevations for a specialty market building and freestanding restaurant building therein, on 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCDR00-79, DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179, and PAR00-07. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Staff has worked closely with the applicant; therefore, there are no issues that need to be discussed before the Design Review Committee. The project conforms to the Development Code and with the approved Rancho Cucamonga Square Master Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved as proposed. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present • Staff Planner: Doug Fenn n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Rick Fisher November 19, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00511 - DI CARLO - A request to construct one industrial building totaling 20,887 square feet on 2.52 acres of land in Subarea 8 of the General Industrial District, located at 8657 Pecan Avenue-APN: 229-181-09,12. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00778. Design Parameters: The project site is comprised of two lots that total 2.52 acres in size. A lot line adjustment is required to move the existing lot line 175 feet to the east so that the building can be sold or leased to two buyers or tenants, each on their own lot. A reciprocal access agreement will be provided in order to allow vehicular access to the rear lot (Suite B). The proposed building will be located toward the rear of the property and will be divided into two tenant spaces. Suite A (the western portion of the building) will be 11,412 square feet in size and Suite B (the eastern portion of the building) will be 9,475 square feet in size. Each suite will contain an office and mezzanine in front with a warehouse area in the rear. The warehouse areas will be served by surface level loading doors. Landscaping will surround the building on all sides except for the loading areas. An outdoor patio area with tables, benches and umbrellas will be provided on the south side of the building for each suite. A total of 52 parking spaces are required and have been provided. Even though the parking area will be screened by an 8-foot high decorative concrete block wall, tree wells and finger islands will be provided to breakup the large asphalt area. The 35-foot front yard landscape setback area will contain a 3-foot high undulating berm covered with grass and accented by a combination of shrubs and trees. • The exterior of the concrete tilt-up building will contain a variety of accent features. The office entrances will be surrounded with green tint mirror glass and spandrel glass, while 12-inch square with 1-inch deep impressions will be provided on the fagade of all sides of the building. The parapet walls will be staggered to provide visual interest. In fact, an arched shape parapet will be located directly above the main entry doors. Other features include a painted tube steel canopy that will be intermittently installed on the sides of the building along with 2-inch wide impression bands near the top and middle of the building. The building footprint will be staggered to further break up the linear appearance that is common to industrial buildings. A Tree Removal Permit application was submitted for 6 existing trees that are proposed for removal. An Arborist Report was required to analyze the viability of maintaining or moving these trees. At the time of this writing, the Arborist Report has not been submitted for staff to review. 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: None -the applicant has been working diligently with staff since May 2002. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Relocate the monument sign out of the line-of-sight for drivers exiting project. • 2. Provide a physical separation (e.g., wall/fence, raised curb, etc.) between material storage yards and parking lots. Purpose is to protect parking lot and maintain a 24-foot wide two-way drive-aisle. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00511 - DI CARLO November 19, 2002 • Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approved the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Rick Fisher • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:35 p.m. Alan Warren November 19, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00601 - SOMMERVILE-CONZELMANOOMPANY, LP-A requesttodevelop 168 apartments in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) on 12 acres of land, located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-06 and 36. Design Parameters: The site is vacant and leveled with a slight slope to the south. One large Eucalyptus tree is located near the front half of the site. The surrounding uses to the east and south are multiple-family developments with an improved flood control channel along the west property line. A large mature Blue Gum (Eucalyptus) tree is located in the front portion of the site. The heavily traveled Vineyard Street is the most significant impact to the site. The environmental concerns from this feature are the impact from traffic noise and access limitations that the vehicle traffic places on the project. 3. The site plan provides sufficient and centrally placed common open space in the middle of the site with a circular drive that proposed apartment buildings on each side of the main drive. Par course exercise facilities are disbursed through-out the site along pedestrian walks. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. The large mature Blue Gum Eucalyptus, that is centrally located in the front portion of the site, can significantly affect the design if retained. The development application includes the removal of the tree from the site. The tree is in apparent good health and exhibits good structure. The applicant's arborist, however, questions its long-term health if retained within a significantly altered environment (grading and hardscape). Staff believes that the tree's size and majestic form make it a worthy candidate for retention within the development. The main problem is the tree's location in regard to the main entry drive from Vineyard Avenue. If retained, as the design is presently configured, the tree trunk would be very close to a building and the south edge of the driveway, which is obviously unacceptable (root compaction, etc.) for such a large mature tree. The applicant has provided an alternative site plan (Sheet ST-A) that provides a greater distance from the apartment structure but retains the same distance from the driveway; however, a portion of the tree canopy would still have to be removed. Blue Gum trees are prone to branch drop and toppling; hence, are poor candidates for preservation near homes. The main driveway apron of Vineyard Avenue should not be moved as it satisfies the City's location requirements by aligning it with a driveway for an existing apartment on the opposite side of the street. Therefore, any thought of keeping the tree in-place, would need to consider on-site realignment of the driveway northerly once it clears the public right-of-way from the drive apron's presently proposed location. The Fire Division recommended that the driveway remain straight for between 40 to 60 feet beyond the driveway apron. The tree is about 60 feet from the apron. Therefore, staff recommends that Plan "ST" be approved and the tree be removed and replaced with a 48-inch box specimen in a prominent location near the main entry. 2. A noise study for the project recommends the use of a perimeter wall of up to 7.5 feet in height along the Vineyard Avenue frontage and barriers of 6.5 feet (roughly the top of the windows) • DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00601 - SOMMERVILE-CONZELMAN COMPANY, LP November 19, 2002 Page 2 along the second floor balconies to mitigate the traffic noise impact to those units closest to the roadway. In the case of the perimeter barrier, the extra wall height (above the standard 6 feet) can be visually reduced by providing landscape mounding along the wall's base. Forthe second story balconies, the noise study lists '/o-nch thick glass or lexan as an acceptable barrier. Staff recommends that the sound attenuation for the balconies be a combination of stucco veneer over wood frame (tower portion) with glass above to the 6.5 feet height, and that the design details be subject to City Planner approval. 3. Eliminate the symmetrical design scheme by providing architectural variations between each "half" along any given elevation. Possible variations include massing, hip vs. gable roof, color,' and details. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. The color change on the right and left elevations on Building "AX" should occur near the second floor height to visually reduce the expanse of the wall area. This will "tie in" with the color change and relief detail that is exhibited on the corners of the front and rear elevations. lJ 2. Vary garage door design. 3. Increase the number of decorative pavement crossings of the main circular drive aisle. The cross walks should be placed in the middle portions of the circular drive aisle. 4. Integrate trash enclosures with architectural design of garages they adjoin. 5. Mail boxes should be designed into a structure consistent with architectural design of buildings. 6. Provide landscape planters between garages. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Screen exterior trash areas, storage areas, utility equipment (i.e., transformers, meters, backflow valves), and air conditioning units., etc. from view using elements compatible with architecture and landscaping. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the DRC2002-00601 with the above listed modifications. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Alan Warren i • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY NOVEMBER 5, 2002 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: John Mannerino Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman Larry McNiel 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. (Emily) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00742-CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES-The review of house plans for 8single-family lots on 4.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings units per acre) on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue-APN: 201-182-30. Related File: TTT16237. • 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. (Karen) DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00721 -CENTRAL PARK PHASE 1 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of site plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Central Park, consisting of a +/- 50,000 square foot Senior/Community Center and 10-20 acres of park and open space, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue between Base Line Road and the Southern Pacific Rail Road right-of-way- APN: 1076-591-01 through-11. 7:30 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2002-00116 -EAGLE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -The development of a 25,622 square foot warehouse in the Industrial District, Subarea 13, located at 9275 Charles Smith Avenue -APN: 229-283-02. 7:50 p.m. (Donald) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00808 -THOMAS SOTO - A request to construct a 3,674 square foot single-family home on .86 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, located at 4946 Skyline Road -APN: 220-441-37. • 8:10 p.m. (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2001-00675 - COPART, INC. - A proposed 14,873 square foot office structure to support a weekly auto auction on 42.9 acres of land, located at 12167 Arrow Route in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) -APN: 229-121-15. DRC ACTION AGENDA November 5, 2002 Page 2 • 8:30 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTENTATIVEPARCELMAPSUBTPM16010 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 7.4 acres of land into five parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway -APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00750 - RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of five industrial building's totaling 117,790 square feet on 7.4 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway-APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPSUBTPM16009 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 4.86 acres of land into four parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue -APN: 229- 263-05; 229-283-04 and 05. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00751 - RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of four industrial buildings totaling 54,662 square feet on 4.86 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue -APN: 229-263-05: 229-283-04 and 05. • 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. Emily W imer November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00742 -CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES -The review of house plans for 8single-family lots on 4.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings units per acre) on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue - APN: 201-182-30. Related Rile: TTT16237. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved The Tentative Tract Map on February 13, 2002. The original developer has sold the property, and is aware of the conditions of approval at that time. Stonebridge Development has worked diligently with staff to incorporate all outstanding conditions. The site is located approximately 160 feet west of Haven Avenue, on the south side of Wilson Avenue. To the west is vacant property in the Very Low Residential District, to the east is the Latter Day Saints church and parking lot and to the south is a'single-family tract, zoned Low-Medium residential. The property is currently vacant and slopes southeasterly at approximately 2-5 percent with no significant drainage courses, roads or other topographical feature. The elevations consist of three separate Floor Plans and three elevation options for each Floor Plan. Santa Barbara, Italiante, and Monterey are the main architectural styles. The elevations incorporate many design details including trellis, wood pot shelves, shutters, corbels, and recessed plaster detail. The Floor Plans include courtyard areas and front porch entries. The standard 3-cargarage • provides a split layout in toe of the three plans. Floor Plan square footage range in size from 3,642 to 4,220 square feet and range form 5 to 6 bedrooms. The Floor Plans have a one 12-inch step located in the center of the homes to mitigate the grading and manufactured slope. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve any major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: As a condition of approval on the original tract map, the Engineering Department required a 30-foot wide driveway access be granted as an easement; which is shown on the approved Tract Map. Staff suggests that the applicant landscape on both sides of the paved access with 5-gallon shrubs planted 24 inches on center. 2. Fence line should be shown at the toe of slope on Lots 4 and 5. 3. All homes have been plotted with a 42-foot front setback, as measured from curb face, rather than varying setbacks +/- 5 feet as required by Code; however, staff believes that the extensive articulation of the front elevation wall planes, and variety of attached and detached garage treatments, when combined with the lot size, satisfies the intent of the Code • regulation to provide streetscape variety. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00742 -CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES November 5, 2002 • Page 2 On corner side yard areas, a 5-foot minimum setback is required between the wall and back of sidewalk. Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above revisions. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee responded favorably to the elevations, which have been approved on a previous site in the City. The Committee also concurred with staff's recommendation to provide additional landscaping on both sides of the 30-foot driveway easement. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:10 p.m. Karen McGuire-Emery November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00721 -CENTRAL PARK PHASE 1 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of site plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Central Park, consisting of a +/- 50,000 square foot Senior/Community Center and 10-20 acres of park and open space, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue between Base Line Road and the Southern Pacific Rail Road right-of-way - APN: 1076-591-01 through -11. Background: The Central Park Project has been ongoing in the City since 1985. Originally approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in 1987, the Master Plan architectural style and design features were further refined, through the design development process, and were reviewed before the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission in the early 1990's. At that time, an architectural vocabulary, which was a blend of early California and contemporary styles, was developed under the direction of the Planning Commission, and became "the look of Central Park." With an unsuccessful library grant submittal and the economic downturn in the 1990's, the project was placed on hold until the late 90's. At that time, a community group in support of building Central Park approached the City. This effort culminated, however, with an unsuccessful Bond Measure in early 2000. • Throughout this time, the City has been actively researching and pursuing any potential funding source for the development of the project, and recently has been successful in acquiring State and federal grant money, and securing private donations which will allow for a Phase I development, to include a 50,000 square foot Senior/Community Center Building and 10-20 acres of park and open space. The original master plan for Central Park included an area, which was intended to be the recreational/cultural hub of the City. Termed the Omni Center, it was to incorporate a library, performing arts center and the Senior/Community Center. With the development of the library and performing arts facilities at the mall site however, the Senior/Community Center is the last component remaining of the original Omni Center. It is planned, however, to also provide a location for a future library site adjacent to the Senior/Community Center building. An interdepartmental City planning team, with members from Planning and Engineering, has been working very closely with the architect to ensure that the original architectural program, which was previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, is adhered to. Staff has spent many hours in design and master plan meetings to ensure that the original intentions of the Commission and Council are met. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends thatthe Committee allowthe architectthe opportunity for a presentation of information as desired, and approve the project as proposed. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman • Staff Planner: Karen McGuire-Emery DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00721 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA November 5, 2002 • Page 2 The committee had no negative comments regarding the project, and in fact, felt that the design of the project, emulating the early California "mission" style of architecture, was quite attractive. The Site Plan and architectural characterfollowed the original intent of the Central Park project as it was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in the early 1990's. It was discussed that a detail that showed concrete walls with pilasters and wrought iron appeared slightly tall, and that perhaps the top of the pilaster/wrought iron should be 6 feet maximum. In addition, the architect pointed out that at areas of focal interest, the lower portion of the building exterior walls would be constructed with abuilt-up stucco band of an enhancing color, if funds were available for this detail. Otherwise, if the project budget is strained, the detail would only include a color band and no furred out base or wainscot tile. It was also noted that the exterior walls of the arcades would be devoid of this treatment, providing more of a Spanish stucco appearance. Another minor comment was made to extend the roof eave at the main entry "tower" or recess the windows to add architectural articulation. The Committee recommended that this project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. • n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Emily Wimer November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-001 1 6 -EAGLE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -The development of a 25,622 square foot warehouse in the Industrial District, Subarea 13, located at 9275 Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 229-283-02. Design Parameters: The project was approved at the Design Review Committee meeting on August 6, 2002. The Committee members discussed the window materials, and it was conditioned that the applicant would provide Solar gray glass on the I-15 Freeway elevation of the building (see attached condition #6 of Design Review Committee action dated August 6, 2002). If clear glass is allowed the window of the building could lead to advertising and signage, which cannot be restricted. Staff has informed the applicant thatthe modification of the condition would require approval by the Design Review Committee. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee deny the requestforclearglasson the freeway elevation. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Emily Wimer, Warren Morelion The Design Review Committee concurred with the original decision to not allow clear glass on the building. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff and present an opaque style of glass for all elevations. n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Donald Granger November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00808 -THOMAS SOTO - A request to construct a 3,674 square foot single-family home on .86 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, located at 4946 Skyline Road - APN: 220-441-37. Background and Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,674 square foot, two-story home. The proposed house has variation in the Roof Plan, using gable and hip elements. All elevations are well articulated, and all wall planes have been embellished using a variety of elements, such as pot shelves, window surrounds, keystones, true divided light windows, and corbels. The house is primarily a Mediterranean architectural theme, which is compatible with the homes in the surrounding area. The home is setback 68 feet from curb face along Skyline Road, and 51 feet from the curb face on Inspiration Drive. The proposed two-story house is designed with a single pad elevation over native terrain with a grade change of 4 feet. The house has afour-car, attached garage, oriented away from the street. The proposed house requires a vertical fill of 5.5 feet, and has combined cuUfill earthwork quantities of 1,740 cubic yards and has natural slopes up to 40 percent. Under Hillside Development Regulations, projects that have greater than 5 feet of vertical cuUfill, natural slopes of 15 percent of greater, or have earthwork quantities in excess of 1,500 cubic yards require review by the Design Review Committee and action by the Planning Commission. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Regulations. • 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: Grading: The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize grading, utilize architectural design techniques that allow buildings to follow the native terrain and preserve the natural topography. The major concern is the single-pad elevation of the pad. Staff does not believe that the proposed design, with single pad elevation, is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance because the proposed pad has been raised by several feet over the native elevation. Also, no architectural design techniques that reduce grading, such as a split pad, have been incorporated into the design. The single-pad elevation does not allow the house to follow the native terrain, which is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The graded area south of the garage should be redesigned with contoured slopes and a variety of slope grades. Graded slopes should be rounded-off and contoured to blend with the land, avoiding uniform slope direction and percentage. Straight, uniform slopes should be avoided. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic-coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00808 -THOMAS SOTO November 5, 2002 • Page 2 All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls, shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face or slump stone). 3. The project is located in a high fire hazard area and fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for review by the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Donald Granger The Committee reviewed the project and requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review. The Committee stated that the proposed design does not meet the guidelines of the Hillside Ordinance. The applicant did not present any revised plans. The Committee instructed the applicant to consider alternative design techniques that will reduce the amount of grading and allow the house to conform to the native terrain. The Committee further instructed the applicant to work with staff on developing a design that meets the Hillside Ordinance and that will receive a favorable recommendation from the Grading Review Committee. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • • 8:10 p.m. Debra Meier November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00675-COPART, INC. - A proposed 14,873 square foot office structure to support a weekly auto auction on 42.9 acres of land, located at 12167 Arrow Route in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) - APN: 229-121-15. Background: COPART was approved on January 23, 2002 and is now under-construction. The project was approved featuring asplit-face concrete block structure, with fluted and smooth surface blocks used to accent the structure. The fencing on the perimeter of the property is a combination of spilt-face block in areas of greatest public view, and textured metal fencing along the other side property tines. The applicant has requested permission to paint all block and fencing surfaces. Staff has denied the request based on the approved building material and elevations. The approved elevations, along with samples of the painted block surfaces will be available for the Committee to review and discuss with the applicant. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the applicant's samples discuss the revisions with the applicant and give appropriate direction to the applicant. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier Item withdrawn by applicant. C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:30 p.m. Warren Morelion November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM 16010 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 7.4 acres of land into five parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway-APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00750 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of five industrial buildings totaling 117,790 square feet on 7.4 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway -APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. Design Parameters: The project site is located on three vacant parcels at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway. The applicant intends on subdividing the three parcels into five parcels. The site is bordered by vacant land to the east, the I-15 Freeway to the west, one industrial building to the north, and one industrial building to the south. Access into the site will be from 6th Street and Hyssop Drive. The project, "The Vineyards East," will consist of five .industrial buildings ranging in size from 19, 052 square feet to 27,412 square feet. Accompanying this project is another proposal (SUBTPM16009/DRC2002-00751) forfour industrial buildings on the westside of the I-15 Freeway, "The Vineyards East." Both projects have been submitted by the same developer and are similar in • design. The five industrial buildings have been designed with one cohesive architectural style that includes painted tilt-up concrete with a sandblasted treatment. The sandblasting is used substantially on Buildings 4 and 7, primarily at the base of the buildings, and sparingly on the base of Buildings 3, 5, and 6. To enhance the building designs, the office areas on all the buildings include glass and column treatments to make them easier to identify. The project went through a Preliminary Review (DRC2002-00241) and has addressed many of the issues identified. One of the main concerns mentioned was the location of the project as it relates to the I-15 Freeway, and the need for attractive screening of work, loading, and storage areas, as well as all roof- and ground-mounted equipment from freewayviews. With this submittal it is still unclear how all rooftop equipment will be screened. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The project is located on the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway where it is highly visible from the raised I-15 Freeway. Ultimately, slope planting along the freeway will provide some screening. A sight line section through the I-15 Freeway travel lanes has not been provided. The Committee should discuss the different options of screening that best suits the proposed development. Per Development Code requirements, all roof, wall, and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from all sides and architecturally integrated into the building designs. • Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16010 & DRC2002-00750 - RKW DEV.CORP. • November 5, 2002 Page 2 1. Buildings 3, 5 and 6 have been designed with substantially less sandblasting treatmentthan Building 4 and 7; however, staff believes that this variety provides an overall appearance for the project consistent with the City's Design Guidelines. 2. The sandblasting treatment is located primarily at the base of the buildings. To increase its visibility, sandblasting should be higher on elevations where it is visible. 3. Provide decorative textured paving at project entries. 4. Provide 5-foot landscape planters along the west sides of all buildings to satisfy Code requirements. Trees are required at a rate of 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building elevation on all sides, and a rate of 1 tree per 3 parking stalls. 5. A 5-foot minimum landscape planter would normally be required in the side yard of Building 7; however, due to the adjoining existing building this elevation will not be visible to the public along Hyssop Drive. The Planning Commission has authority to waive side yard setbacks in master planned developments. 6. Add berming in front landscape setback where possible (average of 3 feet in height and undulated). Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be • incorporated into the project design without discussion: 2. Provide tables and chairs/benches in employee lunch/eating areas. 3. Provide bicycle parking/racks as part of project design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approve the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The architect brought revised plans to the meeting to address all of the above-mentioned comments. The Committee liked the revisions and recommended the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:30 p.m. Warren Morelion November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16009 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 4.86 acres of land into four parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6'" Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 229-263-05; 229-283-04 and O5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00751 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of four industrial buildings totaling 54,662 square feet on 4.86 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 229-263-05: 229-283-04 and 05. Desiqn Parameters: The project site is located on three vacant parcels at the southeast and southwest corners of 6`h Street and Charles Smith Avenue. One parcel is located on the west side of Charles Smith Avenue, and two parcels are located on the east side. The applicant intends on subdividing the two parcels on the east side into three parcels. The site is bordered by one office building and one industrial building to the south, the I-15 Freeway to the east, and vacant land to the north and west. Access into the site will be from Charles Smith Avenue. Two residential homes exist on-site, that have been determined non-historic, and are proposed to be removed as part of this development. • The project, "The Vineyards West," will consist of four industrial building ranging in size from 8,317 square feet to 17,537 square feet. Accompanying this project is another proposal (SUBTPM16010/DRC2002-00750) forfive industrial buildings on the east side of the I-15 Freeway, "The Vineyards East." Both projects have been submitted by the same developer and are similar in design. The four industrial buildings have been designed with one cohesive architectural style that includes painted tilt-up concrete with a sandblasted treatment. The sandblasting is used substantially on Buildings 2 and 4, primarily at the base of the building, and sparingly on the base of Buildings 1 and 3. To enhance the building designs, the office areas on all the buildings include glass and column treatments to make them easier to identify. The project went through a Preliminary Review (DRC2002-00241) with staff and has addressed many of the issues identified. One of the main concerns mentioned was the location of the project as it relates to the I-15 Freeway and the need for attractive screening of work, loading, and storage areas, as well as all roof and ground mounted equipment from freeway views. 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. The project is located on the southeast and southwest corners of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenues where it is highly visible from the raised I-15 Freeway. Ultimately, slope planting along the freeway will provide some screening. A sight line section through the I-15 Freeway travel lanes has not been provided. The Committee should discuss the different options of screening that best suits the proposed development. Per Development • Code requirements, all roof, wall, and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from all sides and architecturally integrated into the building designs. DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16009 & DRC2002-00751 - RKW DEV. CORP. November 5, 2002 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Buildings 1 and 3 have been designed with substantially less sandblasting treatment than Building 2 and 4; however, staff believes that this variety provides an overall appearance for the project consistent with the City's Design Guidelines. The sandblasting treatment is located primarily at the base of the buildings. To increase its visibility, sandblasting should be higher on elevations where it is visible. 2. Provide decorative textured paving at project entries. 3. A 5-foot minimum landscape planter is required in the side yard of corner lots (Buildings 1 and 2).Due to the screening provided by the I-15 Freeway of Building 2's east elevation, this is more of an issue along the west elevation of Building 1. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide tables and chairs/benches in employee lunch/eating areas. 2. Provide bicycle parking/racks as part of project design. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approve the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The architect brought revised plans to the meeting to address all of the above-mentioned comments, exceptforthe 5-foot minimum landscape planter required on the side yards of Buildings 1 and 2. The Committee liked the revisions that were done and recommended the project be forvvarded to the Planning Commission for review and action with the following additional comments: The Committee thought it would not be necessary in this case to require landscaping on the east side of Building 2 because of the future landscaping of the freeway right-of-way. 2. The Committee also felt that landscaping on the west side of Building 1 would not be necessary because development of the parcel to the west would likely create a landscape planter on that side of the building in the future. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • November 5, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Br _ ler Secretary • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 5, 2002 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: John Mannerino Pam Stewart Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman Larry McNiel 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. (Emily) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00742 -CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES - The review of house plans for Ssingle-family lots on 4.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings units per acre) on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue -APN: 201-182-30. Related Rile: TTT16237. 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. (Karen) DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00721 -CENTRAL PARK PHASE 1 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of site plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Central Park, consisting of a +/- 50,000 square foot Senior/Community Center and 10-20 acres of park and open space, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue between Base Line Road and the Southern Pacific Rail Road right-of-way- APN: 1076-591-01 through -11.7:10 p.m. 7:30 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2002-00116 -EAGLE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -The development of a 25,622 square foot warehouse in the Industrial District, Subarea 13, located at 9275 Charles Smith Avenue -APN: 229-283-02. 7:50 p.m. (Donald) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00808 -THOMAS SOTO - A request to construct a 3,674 square foot single-family home on .86 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, located at 4946 Skyline Road -APN: 220-441-37. 8:10 p.m. (Debra) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDDEVELOPMENTREVIEWDRC2001-00675 - COPART, INC. - A proposed 14,873 square foot office structure to support a weekly auto auction on 42.9 acres of land, located at 12167 Arrow Route in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) -APN: 229-121-15. • DRC AGENDA November 5, 2002 Page 2 8:30 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTRND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM 16010 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 7.4 acres of land into five parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway -APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00750 - RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of five industrial buildings totaling 117,790 square feet on 7.4 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway -APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPSUBTPM16009 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 4.86 acres of land into four parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue -APN: 229- 263-05; 229-283-04 and 05. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00751 - RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of four industrial • buildings totaling 54,662 square feet on 4.86 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue -APN: 229-263-05: 229-283-04 and 05. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist ll for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 31, 2002, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. . OU ..• CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Emily W imer November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00742 -CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES -The review of house plans for 8single-family lots on 4.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings units per acre) on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue - APN: 201-182-30. Related Rile: TTT16237. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved The Tentative Tract Map on February 13, 2002. The original developer has sold the property, and is aware of the conditions of approval at that time. Stonebridge Development has worked diligently with staff to incorporate all outstanding conditions. The site is located approximately 160 feet west of Haven Avenue, on the south side of Wilson Avenue. To the west is vacant property in the Very Low Residential District, to the east is the Latter Day Saints church and parking lot and to the south is asingle-family tract, zoned Low-Medium residential. The property is currently vacant and slopes southeasterly at approximately 2-5 percent with no significant drainage courses, roads or other topographical feature. The elevations consist of three separate Floor Plans and three elevation options for each Floor Plan. Santa Barbara, Italiante, and Monterey are the main architectural styles. The elevations incorporate many design details including trellis, wood pot shelves, shutters, corbels, and recessed plaster detail. The Floor Plans include courtyard areas and front porch entries. The standard 3-car garage provides a split layout in toe of the three plans. Floor Plan square footage range in size from • 3,642 to 4220 square feet and range form 5 to 6 bedrooms. The Floor Plans have a one 12-inch step located in the center of the homes to mitigate the grading and manufactured slope. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve any major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: As a condition of approval on the original tract map, the Engineering Department required a 30-foot wide driveway access be granted as an easement; which is shown on the approved Tract Map. Staff suggests that the applicant landscape on both sides of the paved access with 5-gallon shrubs planted 24 inches on center. 2. Fence line should be shown at the toe of slope on Lots 4 and 5. 3. All homes have been plotted with a 42-foot front setback, as measured from curb face, rather than varying setbacks +/- 5 feet as required by Code; however, staff believes that the extensive articulation of the front elevation wall planes, and variety of attached and detached garage treatments, when combined with the lot size, satisfies the intent of the Code • regulation to provide streetscape variety. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00742-CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES . November 5, 2002 Page 2 Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. On corner side yard areas, a 5-foot minimum setback is required between the wall and back of sidewalk. Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above revisions. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Emily Wimer • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:10 p.m. Karen McGuire-Emery November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2002-00721 -CENTRAL PARK PHASE 1 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of site plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Central Park, consisting of a +/- 50,000 square foot Senior/Community Center and 10-20 acres of park and open space, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue between Base Line Road and the Southern Pacific Rail Road right-of-way-APN: 1076-591-01 through-11. Background: The Central Park Project has been ongoing in the City since 1985. Originally approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in 1987, the Master Plan architectural style and design features were further refined, through the design development process, and were reviewed before the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission in the early 1990's. At that time, an architectural vocabulary, which was a blend of early California and contemporary styles, was developed under the direction of the Planning Commission, and became "the look of Central Park." With an unsuccessful library grant submittal and the economic downturn in the 1990's, the project was placed on hold until the late 90's. At that time, a community group in support of building Central Park approached the City. This effort culminated, however, with an unsuccessful Bond Measure in early 2000. Throughout this time, the City has been actively researching and pursuing any potential funding • source for the development of the project, and recently has been successful in acquiring State and federal grant money, and securing private donations which will allow for a Phase I development, to include a 50,000 square foot Senior/Community Center Building and 10-20 acres of park and open space. The original master plan for Central Park included an area, which was intended to be the recreational/cultural hub of the City. Termed the Omni Center, it was to incorporate a library, performing arts center and the Senior/Community Center. With the development of the library and performing arts facilities at the mall site however, the Senior/Community Center is the last component remaining of the original Omni Center. It is planned, however, to also provide a location for a future library site adjacent to the Senior/Community Center building. An interdepartmental City planning team, with members from Planning and Engineering, has been working very closely with the architect to ensure that the original architectural program, which was previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, is adhered to. Staff has spent many hours in design and master plan meetings to ensure that the original intentions of the Commission and Council are met. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Committee allow the architect the opportunity for a presentation of information as desired, and approve the project as proposed. Desion Review Committee Action: Members Present: . Staff Planner: Karen McGuire-Emery DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Emily W imer November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00116 -EAGLE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -The development of a 25,622 square foot warehouse in the Industrial District, Subarea 13, located at 9275 Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 229-283-02. Design Parameters: The project was approved at the Design Review Committee meeting on August 6, 2002. The Committee members discussed the window materials, and it was conditioned that the applicant would provide Solar gray glass on the I-15 Freeway elevation of the building (see attached condition #6 of Design Review Committee action dated August 6, 2002). If clear glass is allowed the window of the building could lead to advertising and signage, which cannot be restricted. Staff has informed the applicant that the modification of the condition would require approval by the Design Review Committee. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee denythe request for clear glass on the freeway elevation. Attachment Desian Review Committee Action: Members Present: • Staff Planner: Emily Wimer • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 'j 7:40 p.m. Emily Wimer August 6, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00116 -EAGLE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -The development of a 25,622 square foot warehouse in the Industrial District, Subarea 13, located at 9275 Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 229-283-02. Design Parameters: The project site is situated on the east side of Charles Smith Road on approximately 1.25 acres of land. The property is bordered to the east by the 1-15 freeway, to the south by Cardlock filling station, and to the north is an industrial warehouse building. The 25,622 square foot speculative warehouse building also includes a 5,104 square foot mezzanine. The property is generally flat with less than a 2 percent slope. The proposed project is a speculative building targeting warehouse distribution tenant with limited office space. A total of four loading docks, two of which are small truck loading only, and two 14-foot by 50-foot loading docks on either side. A total of two truck parking spaces are proposed. Additional parking for expansion of the office space has been included in the parking calculations. Finish materials forthe building exterior include Greylite glass, beige Travertine stone, and painted tilt-up concrete. The applicant will be providing a range of hue tones for the tilt-up concrete at Design Review Committee. The landscape setback of 25 feet will allow for bench seating at the front of the building. The applicant will also provide a model at the Committee meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. •) Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Colors: The Committee should review the proposed materials sample board and color chips, which are different than the colored elevations. Green is proposed on the majority of the building with gray accent stripes. The applicant has provided samples of at least a half dozen shades of green for your consideration. The Travertine stone color should compliment the main material of the building (although both gray and beige tones will work with green, the accent stripes should match the Travertine stone color). The Industrial Districts architectural guidelines state that, "building materials, colors, and textures shall be compatible with those of adjacent or nearby buildings." Photographs of the adjoining buildings will be provided at the Committee meeting. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All doors and roll-up dock doors shall be painted to match the building. (Doors on freeway elevation are called out as the color of gray glass.) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with incorporation of modifications. Design Review Committee Action: . Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong ~ Staff Planner: Emily W imer DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00116 -EAGLE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP August 6, 2002 • j Page 2 The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a minimum 8-foot by 8-foot color test panel on the building for Design Review Committee review and approval. If the Committee does not approve the color, the applicant shall submit a different color for the building, subject to Design Review Committee review. 2. The raw edges of the travertine material shall not be exposed. 3. The perimeter wall (east property line) will be constructed of split face block with a decorative cap. 4. Grooved concrete walls will be provided on all screen walls as illustrated on the elevations. 5. Additional trees will be required on site on the east elevation, facing the freeway. 6. Solar gray glass will be provided on all windows. •~ • ; DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:50 p.m. Donald Granger November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00808 -THOMAS SOTO - A request to construct a 3,674 square foot single-family home on .86 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, located at 4946 Skyline Road -APN: 220-441-37. Background and Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,674 square foot, two-story home. The proposed house has variation in the Roof Plan, using gable and hip elements. All elevations are well articulated, and all wall planes have been embellished using a variety of elements, such as pot shelves, window surrounds, keystones, true divided light windows, and corbels. The house is primarily a Mediterranean architectural theme, which is compatible with the homes in the surrounding area. The home is setback 68 feet from curb face along Skyline Road, and 51 feet from the curb face on Inspiration Drive. The proposed two-story house is designed with a single pad elevation over native terrain with a grade change of 4 feet. The house has afour-car, attached garage, oriented away from the street. The proposed house requires a vertical fill of 5.5 feet, and has combined cuUfill earthwork quantities of 1,740 cubic yards and has natural slopes up to 40 percent. Under Hillside Development Regulations, projects that have greater than 5 feet of vertical cuUfill, natural slopes of 15 percent of greater, or have earthwork quantities in excess of 1,500 cubic yards require review by the Design Review Committee and action by the Planning Commission. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Regulations. • 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: Grading: The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize grading, utilize architectural design techniques that allow buildings to follow the native terrain and preserve the natural topography. The major concern is the single-pad elevation of the pad. Staff does not believe that the proposed design, with single pad elevation, is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance because the proposed pad has been raised by several feet over the native elevation. Also, no architectural design techniques that reduce grading, such as a split pad, have been incorporated into the design. The single-pad elevation does not allow the house to follow the native terrain, which is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The graded area south of the garage should be redesigned with contoured slopes and a variety of slope grades. Graded slopes should be rounded-off and contoured to blend with the land, avoiding uniform slope direction and percentage. Straight, uniform slopes should be avoided. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic-coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00808 -THOMAS SOTO November 5, 2002 Page 2 2. All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls, shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face or slump stone). 3. The project is located in a high fire hazard area and fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for review by the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Donald Granger ~I DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:10 p.m. Debra Meier November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00675-COPART, INC. - A proposed 14,873 square foot office structure to support a weekly auto auction on 42.9 acres of land, located at 12167 Arrow Route in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) - APN: 229-121-15. Background: COPART was approved on January 23, 2002 and is now under-construction. The project was approved featuring asplit-face concrete block structure, with fluted and smooth surface blocks used to accent the structure. The fencing on the perimeter of the property is a combination of spilt-face block in areas of greatest public view, and textured metal fencing along the other side property lines. The applicant has requested permission to paint all block and fencing surfaces. Staff has denied the request based on the approved building material and elevations. The approved elevations, along with samples of the painted block surfaces will be available for the Committee to review and discuss with the applicant. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the applicant's samples discuss the revisions with the applicant and give appropriate direction to the applicant. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Debra Meier n DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS n U 8:30 p.m. Warren Morelion November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM 16010 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 7.4 acres of land into five parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway -APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00750 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of five industrial buildings totaling 117,790 square feet on 7.4 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway -APN: 229-283-08, 10 and 11. Design Parameters: The project site is located on three vacant parcels at the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway. The applicant intends on subdividing the three parcels into five parcels. The site is bordered by vacant land to the east, the I-15 Freeway to the west, one industrial building to the north, and one industrial building to the south. Access into the site will be from 6~" Street and Hyssop Drive. The project, "The Vineyards East," will consist of five industrial buildings ranging in size from 19, 052 square feet to 27,412 square feet. Accompanying this project is another proposal (SUBTPM16009/DRC2002-00751) forfour industrial buildings on the westside of the I-15 Freeway, "The Vineyards East." Both projects have been submitted by the same developer and are similar in • design. The five industrial buildings have been designed with one cohesive architectural style that includes painted tilt-up concrete with a sandblasted treatment. The sandblasting is used substantially on Buildings 4 and 7, primarily at the base of the buildings, and sparingly on the base of Buildings 3, 5, and 6. To enhance the building designs, the office areas on all the buildings include glass and column treatments to make them easier to identify. The project went through a Preliminary Review (DRC2002-00241) and has addressed many of the issues identified. One of the main concerns mentioned was the location of the project as it relates to the I-15 Freeway, and the need for attractive screening of work, loading, and storage areas, as well as all roof- and ground-mounted equipment from freeway views. W ith this submittal it is still unclear how all rooftop equipment will be screened. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The project is located on the southeast corner of 6th Street and the I-15 Freeway where it is highly visible from the raised I-15 Freeway. Ultimately, slope planting along the freeway will provide some screening. A sight line section through the I-15 Freeway travel lanes has not been provided. The Committee should discuss the different options of screening that best suits the proposed development. Per Development Code requirements, all roof, wall, and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from all sides and architecturally integrated into the building designs. C~ DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16010 & DRC2002-00750 - RKW DEV.CORP. • November 5, 2002 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Buildings 3, 5 and 6 have been designed with substantially less sandblasting treatment than Building 4 and 7; however, staff believes that this variety provides an overall appearance for the project consistent with the City's Design Guidelines. 2. The sandblasting treatment is located primarily at the base of the buildings. To increase its visibility, sandblasting should be higher on elevations where it is visible. 3. Provide decorative textured paving at project entries. 4. Provide 5-foot landscape planters along the west sides of all buildings to satisfy Code requirements. Trees are required at a rate of 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building elevation on all sides, and a rate of i tree per 3 parking stalls. 5. A 5-foot minimum landscape planter would normally be required in the side yard of Building 7; however, due to the adjoining existing building this elevation will not be visible to the public along Hyssop Drive. The Planning Commission has authority to waive side yard setbacks in master planned developments. • 6. Add berming iri front landscape setback where possible (average of 3 feet in height and undulated). Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide tables and chairs/benches in employee lunch/eating areas. 2. Provide bicycle parking/racks as part of project design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approve the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 p.m. Warren Morelion November 5, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16009 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The subdivision of 4.86 acres of land into four parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6cn Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 229-263-05; 229-283-04 and 05. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00751 -RKW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of four industrial buildings totaling 54,662 square feet on 4.86 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner and southwest corner of 6`" Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 229-263-05: 229-283-04 and 05. Desion Parameters: The project site is located on three vacant parcels at the southeast and southwest corners of 6~' Street and Charles Smith Avenue. One parcel is located on the west side of Charles Smith Avenue, and two parcels are located on the east side. The applicant intends on subdividing the two parcels on the east side into three parcels. The site is bordered by one office building and one industrial building to the south, the I-15 Freeway to the east, and vacant land to the north and west. Access into the site will be from Charles Smith Avenue. Two residential homes exist on-site, that have been determined non-historic, and are proposed to be removed as part of this development. • The project, "The Vineyards West," will consist of four industrial building ranging in size from 8,317 square feet to 17,537 square feet. Accompanying this project is another proposal (SUBTPM16010/DRC2002-00750) for five industrial buildings on the east side of the I-15 Freeway, "The Vineyards East." Both projects have been submitted by the same developer and are similar in design. The four industrial buildings have been designed with one cohesive architectural style that includes painted tilt-up concrete with a sandblasted treatment. The sandblasting is used substantially on Buildings 2 and 4, primarily at the base of the building, and sparingly on the base of Buildings 1 and 3. To enhance the building designs, the office areas on all the buildings include glass and column treatments to make them easier to identify. The project went through a Preliminary Review (DRC2002-00241) with staff and has addressed many of the issues identified. One of the main concerns mentioned was the location of the project as it relates to the I-15 Freeway and the need for attractive screening of work, loading, and storage areas, as well as all roof and ground mounted equipment from freeway views. 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. The project is located on the southeast and southwest corners of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenues where it is highly visible from the raised I-15 Freeway. Ultimately, slope planting along the freeway will provide some screening. A sight line section through the I-15 Freeway travel lanes has not been provided. The Committee should discuss the different options of screening that best suits the proposed development. Per Development • Code requirements, all roof, wall, and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from all sides and architecturally integrated into the building designs. DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16009 & DRC2002-00751 - RKW DEV. CORP. • November 5, 2002 Page 2 Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Buildings 1 and 3 have been designed with substantially less sandblasting treatment than Building 2 and 4; however, staff believes that this variety provides an overall appearance for the project consistent with the City's Design Guidelines. The sandblasting treatment is located primarily at the base of the buildings. To increase its visibility, sandblasting should be higher on elevations where it is visible. 2. Provide decorative textured paving at project entries. 3. A 5-foot minimum landscape planter is required in the side yard of corner lots (Buildings 1 and 2).Due to the screening provided by the I-15 Freeway of Building 2's east elevation, this is more of an issue along the west elevation of Building 1. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide tables and chairs/benches in employee lunch/eating areas. 2. Provide bicycle parking/racks as part of project design. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approve the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion r1 U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY NOVEMBER 5, 2002 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM 2002 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: John Mannerino Pam Stewart CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS 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. 5:00 p.m. (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690-FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT-A request to construct approximately 500,000 square feet of retail and commercial buildings on 147 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; 227-161-35, 36, and 38; 227-171-22, and 23; 227- 211-24, 39, and 40 t0 43. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for Development Agreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716 approved by the City Council on February 20, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 5:00 p.m. Brent Le Count November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct approximately 500,000 square feet of retail and commercial buildings on 147 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; 227-161-35, 36, and 38; 227-171-22, and 23; 227-211-24, 39, and 40 t0 43. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for Development Agreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716 approved by the City Council on February 20, 2002. Plans will be available at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, John Mannerino, and Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count and Brad Buller Lighting -The applicant presented the results of a site lighting study with both 15-foot and 30-foot high parking lot lighting standards. Both heights can satisfy City's minimum standard of 1-foot candle illumination. The applicant concluded that 30-foot high parking lot light standards are necessary to provide adequate and uniform parking lot illumination, according to the major • department store criteria. The applicant stated that these criteria are intended to promote safety. The department stores typically require 60-foot high parking lot light standards, such as those at Ontario Mills, so the applicant believes the minimum that they will be able to convince department stores to accept is 30 feet in height. The applicant showed the differences in site illumination that occur with 15-foot high light standards, per the Development Code requirements, and the requested 30-foot high lights. The Committee expressed concern about adopting new standards forthe project not in compliance with Development Code Requirements. The Development Agreement for the project does not include light standards, so the matter will require either a Development Agreement Amendment or a Development Code Amendment. Staff suggested that there does not appear to be any evidence to support an argument that there are any special conditions applicable to the project that do not apply to other large shopping centers in the City and, therefore, suggested that the Code amendment process is the most appropriate. The applicant agreed to have the matter brought before the Planning Commission at a later time to discuss the viability of modifying the Development Code to allow for higher light standards. Architecture -The applicant also presented revised architectural plans for the various buildings within the project. The buildings have been revised to comply with the comments and suggestions made by the Committee at past meetings, such as increased use of high quality.materials, increased column depth, and specialized treatment of side and rear building elevations. The Design Review Committee was in favor of the revised architecture and recommends approval. Landscaping -The applicant presented the overall landscape concept for the site, including enhanced paving areas along the downtown streets and special areas. The Committee received the overall design favorably, but recommends that decorative paving be included at the entrances to • parking lot areas and to define pedestrian circulation routes linking parking areas to the retail core. Route 66 Area -The Committee brought up for discussion the matter of the Route 66 area site planning and circulation. The Committee expressed concern for the number of drive aisle intersecting at odd angles, poor pedestrian circulation, the chopped-up nature of the parking lots, DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00690 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT November 5, 2002 • Page 2 and the excessive number of driveway entrances off Shiraz. The Committee requested that the Route 66 area layout be re-studied and that the applicant work with staff to develop a revised plan for further Design Review. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • November 5, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitt ~` ,i ._~ Brad Buller Secretary • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 5, 2002 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CYCAMONfiA CIVIC CEN*ER CONFERENCE ROOM ZOOZ OSOO CIVIC CENTER oR1YE RANCHO CYCAMON6A Committee Members: John Mannerino Pam Stewart CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS 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. 5:00 p.m. (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct approximately 500,000 square feet of retail and commercial buildings on 147 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; 227-161-35, 36, and 38; 227-171-22, and 23; 227- 211-24, 39, and 40 t0 43. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for Development Agreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716 approved by the City Council on February 20, 2002. 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 Ocfober 31, 2002, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 5:00 p.m. Brent Le Count November 5, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct approximately 500,000 square feet of retail and commercial buildings on 147 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; 227-161-35, 36, and 38; 227-171-22, and 23; 227-211-24, 39, and 40 t0 43. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for Development Agreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716 approved bythe City Council on February 20, 2002. Plans will be available at the meeting Desion Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count n U •