HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/06/17 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
+, ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY JUNE 17, 2003 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
CONFERENCE ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Alternates: Richard Fletcher Cristine McPhail
CONSENT CALENDAR
Nancy Fong
The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typicallythey are items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
7:00 p.m.
(Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690-FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT
- A request for completion of Design Review of the site plan for the "Route 66
Out Parcels" associated with the Victoria Gardens Regional Center, located
within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future
Victoria Gardens Lane to the north, the I-15 Freeway to east, Day Creek
• Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south -APN: 0227-201-45.
7:15 p.m.
(Brent) DESIGN REVIEW OF CULTURAL ARTS CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE -
DRC2002-00730 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of exterior
building elevations for the two parking structures associated with the Cultural
Arts Center, located in the Victoria Gardens Regional Center.
7:25 p.m
(Nancy) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM N0.134-TOWN CENTER SQUARE-Arequest
to review the new tenant sign for Petsmart within the existing building (adjacent
to Stein Mart) in the Town Center Square, located at the northeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue.
7:35 p.m.
(Debra/Ken) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-
00791 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES -The Design Review of
677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of Tentative Tract 16157) in the
Medium (5-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per
acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts of the Terra
Vista Community Plan located on Lots 1 through 9 of Tentative Tract 16157 at
the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway -
,r APN: 227-151-30.
• 7:45 p.m.
(Emily/gene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT 16421 -JONG - A request to subdivide 2.8 acres into 8single-family lots
in the Low Residential District located at 10213 and 10217 Wilson Avenue.
APN: 0201-182-03 and 06.
•
DRC AGENDA
June 17, 2003
Page 2
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.
7:55 p.m.
(Debra/Cam) CONDITONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00097-INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL
COMPOSTING AUTHORITY - A request for a Conditional Use Permit for the
purpose of establishing a regional composting facility to process approximately
150,000 tons of biosolids per year within an existing 410,000 square foot building
with 40,500 square feet of additional building space, located at 12645 6th Street,
on 24.24 acres of land, in the Heavy Industrial District (Subareal5 -
APN: 0229-283-61.
8:20 p.m.
(Warren/Ken) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2003-00212-GEORGE FASCHINGlfOM ENNIS-A requestto modiiythe
previous Los Osos Plaza Conditional Use Permit Master Plan (DRC2002-00018)
to include a 6,885 square foot full service car wash in place of the approved
3,600 square foot retail space building with drive-thru capability on approximately
1.08 acres of land at the west end of the site, located at 10432 Alta Loma Drive -
APN: 0201-262-40 and 30.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
•
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 17, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT - A request for
completion of Design Review of the site plan for the "Route 66 Out Parcels" associated with the
Victoria Gardens Regional Center, located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally
bounded by the future Victoria Gardens Lane to the north, the I-15 Freeway to east, Day Creek
Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 0227-201-45.
The Plan continues to show a drive-thru use at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day
Creek Boulevard, contrary to conditions of approval established with the Development Agreement.
To refresh, the Design Review Committee was not in favor of the previous site planning for the
Route 66 Out Parcels, that is the 15 "pad" buildings planned at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The applicant has been working with staff and has revised the
plan to respond to City concerns. Outstanding issues include provision of decorative paving within
driveways and to delineate pedestrian pathways. The individual buildings will be subject to their own
Design Review; however, the applicant is installing the backbone of driveways, parking fields, and
pads within which the same level of decorative ground plane treatment as that in any other shopping
center in the City is expected. This is an item that can be resolved during plan check and should
staff discover inadequate design features the matter can always be referred back to the Design
Review Committee.
Design Review Committee Action:
• Members Present: Richard Fletcher, Christine McPhail, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
This project has been continued to a later date.
•
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:15 p.m. Brent Le Count June 17, 2003
DESIGN REVIEW OF CULTURAL ARTS CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE - DRC2002-00730-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of exterior building elevations for the two parking
structures associated with the Cultural Arts Center, located in the Victoria Gardens Regional Center.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Richard Fletcher, Christine McPhail, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The project was continued to the July 1, 2003, meeting.
•
u
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:25 p.m. Nancy Fong June 17, 2003
UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 134-TOWN CENTER SQUARE-A requestto review the new
tenant sign for Petsmart within the existing building (adjacent to Stein Mart) in the Town Center
Square, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue.
Design Parameters: Petsmart is considered as a Sub-major Tenant under the Uniform Sign
Program. The sign criteria allows a maximum 36-inch sign height. The proposed Petsmart sign with
its curve design and graphic logo placed above the sign copy is 5 feet 8 inches high. See attached
Exhibit "A." A criteria in the Uniform Sign Program allows a tenant who desires to have a larger sign
to submit the design for Design Review Committee review and approval. A review of the proposed
sign shows that the letter height for the sign copy is 36 inches. It is the curve design and the graphic
logo placed above the sign copy that makes the sign height exceeds the maximum. Staff believes
that that proposed sign placed above the building entry is proportionate to and visually balanced with
the tower element.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Richard Fletcher, Christine McPhail, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
The Committee approved the wall sign as submitted.
C ~
J
•
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:35 p.m. Debra Meier June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00791 - LEWIS
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES -The Design Review of 677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of
Tentative Tract 16157) in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling
units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts of the Terra Vista
Community Plan located on Lots 1 through 9 of Tentative Tract 16157 at the northwest corner of
Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-30.
Background: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 16157, along with the
accompanying Development Review DRC2001-00791, on December 18, 2002. Subsequently, the
applicant has been in the construction plan review process. During this process staff has identified
modifications that have been made to two of the nine proposed building types within the project for
which we would like Design Review Committee review.
Staff Comments: In the process of preparing the building construction plans, the applicant has
changed the second story elevation of the Building 3 and 6 combinations. Although the modification
by itself is not significant, the effective result of the modification may be significant when considered
within the scope of the project as a whole. By removing the element of uniqueness on this
elevation, all second story elements that sit atop garages become nearly identical throughout the
entire project.
Maior Issues: Staff has enclosed copies of the building elevations as approved by the Planning
• Commission (noted as Exhibits "E2"through "E19," excerpted from the Planning Commission Staff
Report). The portions of the elevations of Building types 3 and 6 are circled on Exhibit Sheet "E2
and E7;" the remaining elevations are included to portray the context of the architectural theme
carried out within the project.
The portions of the Building elevations of Buildings 3 and 6 are excerpted from the
construction plan set, and the affected segment of the elevation is circled for comparison.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee uphold the original Planning
Commission approval for the elevation of Building types 2/3 and 5/6.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Richard Fletcher, Christine McPhail, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The applicant presented several alternatives for the rear elevation of Buildings 3 and 6 for
Committee consideration. The Committee choose Option E, as identified on the sheet labeled
"Building 3 Optional Elevations", with the additional modification to include the arched window on the
most protruded portion of the elevation.
•
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:45 p.m. Emily W imer June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT 16421 - JONG - A
request to subdivide 2.8 acres into 8single-family lots in the Low Residential District located at
10213 and 10217 Wilson Avenue. APN: 0201-182-03 and 06.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING.
Background: The project was originally submitted on December 10, 2002, with a submittal to
subdivide the property. The applicant was informed that the General Plan land use was not
consistent and a General Plan Amendment was necessary. On February 6, 2003, the applicant
submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use to Low Residential.
The General Plan Amendment was approved on May 21, 2003. The applicant may now move
forward with the Tentative Tract Map.
Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing 8single-family lots, which well exceed the Low
Residential requirements. The average lot size proposed is 12,475 square feet, which is
4,475 square feet larger than required by the Development Code (8,000 minimum). The applicant is
proposing to subdivide only with no house product at this time. The applicant will submit the house
product at a later date.
Since the project's lots are less than 1/2 acre, horse keeping is prohibited; therefore, the proposed
equestrian easements should be eliminated from the map. Staff will address this issue at the
• Technical Review and Grading Committees.
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 worked diligently with staff to resolve any major issues.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Christine McPhail, Richard Fletcher, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: EmilyWimer
The Committee recommended approval of the proposed subdivision.
•
DESIRN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:55 p.m. Debra Meier June 17, 2003
CONDITONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00097 -INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL COMPOSTING
AUTHORITY - A request for a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of establishing a regional
composting facility to process approximately 150,000 tons of biosolids per year within an existing
410,000 square foot building with 40,500 square feet of additional building space, located at 12645
6th Street, on 24.24 acres of land, in the Heavy Industrial District (Subareal5-APN: 0229-283-61.
Design Parameters: The Regional Compost Facility is proposed by the Inland Empire Regional
Compost Authority, which is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) between the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (IEUA) and Los Angeles County Sanitation District (IACSD). The JPA served as the lead
agency for CEQA compliance and has certified an Environmental Impact Report, which addressed
the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The City will rely on the documents certified by
the JPA for project review and evaluation.
The Regional Compost Facility is proposed within an existing warehouse located on the south side
of 6th Street, immediately west of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency Water Treatment Plan No. 4.
The West Valley Detention Center is located immediately to the south, and the Big Lots
warehouse/distribution center is located immediately to the west. Southern California Edison has
undeveloped land along the north side of 6th Street, which lies south of the Reliant Energy plant.
The existing structure was built in 1985 as a warehouse for IKEA; the site contains the existing
410,000 square foot structure and is largely paved as a result of the large degree of on-site truck
• maneuvering area. The landscaping on the site is concentrated at the north end, along 6th Street,
the driveway entries, and at the primary building entries. The interior of the site is screened along
the 6th Street frontage by a block wall and the driveway entries are gated, therefore views from off-
site are very limited.
The JPA proposes to modify the existing building in order to conduct all compost activities inside the
building. In addition to the existing 410,00 square feet, the applicant's propose to add
39,500 square feet to the existing structure, and develop a 1,000 square foot detached
administration building. The facility will also include a 3 acre area that is designed as a 'biofilter',
which will filter the air that is captured from inside the building and forced through a layer of wood
chip material for odor control.
The Regional Compost facility is designed to process 150,000 wet tons of biosolids that will be
received from both the IEUA and the LACSD. Biosolids is a term applied to the solid portion of
waste that remains after treated wastewater from domestic sources has been treated (also known
as sewage sludge). A portion of the compost is blended with other natural ingredients to make
compost products that are marketed to wholesalers for bulk horticulture. The technical design and
operation of the facility has been analyzed in a Design Report that has been reviewed in detail with
the Fire District and Building and Safety staff.
The project involves the use of the existing warehouse structure, with a 32,000 square foot addition
on the west elevation along with a 7,000 square foot maintenance shop that is covered by a
standing seam metal canopy; and a 7,500 square foot addition on the east elevation. The additions
will match the material and the construction elements of the existing structure, and the entire
building will be repainted. In addition, a detached 1,000 square foot administration building will be
constructed near the northwest corner of the site, in front of the truck scales. The administration
• building is astucco-surfaced structure with a standing seam metal roof
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00097 -INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL COMPOSTING AUTHORITY
• June 17, 2003
Page 2
Because of the heavy industrial zoning and nature of the operation, landscaping on the site will be
focused on the northern portion of the site, including the streetscape, around the employee parking
area, the administration building, and the employee break room. The existing trees along 6th Street
will be maintained, while the majority of on-site trees must be removed and/or replaced because of
necessary on-site construction. Along the 6th Street frontage, the applicant's have proposed to
retain the existing Alder trees, and incorporate a meandering sidewalk behind the trees through the
streetscape area. The designated street trees for 6th Street is Magnolia; therefore, the City Planner
has suggested that as a condition for allowing the Alders to remain, any future replacement that is
necessary would be with the approved street tree.
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 - Throughout the process the applicant's have responded to suggestions and
recommendations by staff to enhance the site planning, access and drainage issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
• 1. Provide a straight sidewalk along 6th Street. Meandering sidewalks are only used as a
community design element on "special boulevards" and 6th Street is not a "special
boulevard" east of the I-15 Freeway.
2. Add trees in landscape planters where landscaping should be supplemented in order to
enhance opportunities for shade around the northwest parking lot, around the operations
and control building/employee eating area, or where existing trees should be added or
replaced because of grading or construction impacts.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for approval.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members present: Richard Fletcher, Christine McPhail, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The Committee concurred with the secondary recommendations made by staff and had no further
design issues pertaining to the facility; they therefore recommended thatthe project be forwarded to
the Planning Commission for review and approval.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Warren Morelion June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00212 -
GEORGE FASCHING/TOM ENNIS-A requestto modifythe previous Los Osos Plaza Conditional
Use Permit Master Plan (DRC2002-00018) to include a 6,885 square foot full service car wash in
place of the approved 3,600 square foot retail space building with drive-thru capability on
approximately 1.08 acres of land at the west end of the site, located at 10432 Alta Loma Drive -
APN:0201-262-40 and 30. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2001-00236, Conditional Use
Permit DRC2002-00018, Variance DRC2002-00246, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024, and
Preliminary Review DRC2002-01034.
Background: The proposed project in located on a site that was previously approved under
Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018 for the development of a commercial center that included a
Jack in the Box restaurant, a 7-Eleven convenience store with gasoline dispensing; and a
3,600 square foot multi-tenant retail building with drive-thru capability. The applicant is requesting to
replace the multi-tenant retail building with a 6,885 full service carwash.
Design Parameters: The project site is on the south side of Alta Loma Drive, east of Revere
Avenue. The site is vacant and slopes southerly at approximately 3 percent. The site is bordered to
the north by an approved Tutor Time day care facility, to the east by the balance of the Los Osos
Plaza, and to the west bysingle-family development. The southern boundary of the project site is
formed by the westbound on-ramp of the 210 Freeway. A retaining wall is proposed along the
• southern boundary varying in height from 1.5 feet to 12.5 feet in order to eliminate a grade changes.
The retaining wall will parallel a freeway sound wall along the west half of the site boundary.
The canvash facility is designed to match the approved architecture of the commercial center. The
buildings have tower elements and are made primarily of a stucco material, with a 6-inch by 6-inch
ceramic file wainscot treatment around the bases. A retaining wall is proposed along the north
boundary to allow for grade changes.
An acoustical report has been completed analyzing the noise impact associated with operation of
the car wash facility. The report concluded that the facility's operation would not adversely impact
the existing single-family development to the west, or the existing condominium complex and
approved Tutor Time daycare facility to the north.
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 worked diligently with staff to resolve all major design issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide a 6-inch by 6-inch ceramic file wainscot around the base of the entire car wash and
detail shop buildings.
• 2. Provide wall-mounted steel trellis frameworks and planters around the car wash and detail
shop where possible to allow for vine plantings. The trellises should match the approved
wall-mounted trellises on the other buildings in the center.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00212-GEORGE FASCHINGlTOMENNIS
• June 17, 2003
Page 2
3. Recess the upper parapet from the lower parapet on the car wash and detail shop a
minimum of 2 1/2 feet to match the other approved buildings in the center.
4. Plant a minimum of four 36-inch box trees to mitigate removal of existing trees on the
commercial site.
5. Add pilasters to the retaining wall that is proposed on the north and west side of the site.
The retaining wall should be designed to match the other retaining walls on-site.
6. Provide additional landscaping on the north side of the car wash building to make sure the
bypass lane is screened from Alta Loma Drive.
7. Provide pilasters at the ending points of the proposed wrought iron security fencing. Revise
the wrought iron fence to end at the handicap-parking stall.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
All street furniture, trelliswork, and light fixture shall match those proposed and provided by
other buildings in the center.
2. Provide potted plants for additional shade and aesthetics in patio area.
• 3. All decorative paving shall match the paving proposed by the other buildings in the center.
4. Design all the landscape planters within drive aisles and parking areas with rounded
corners.
5. Provide a hammerhead at the west end of the west parking area for ingress and egress.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee forward the project to the Planning
Commission for approval subject to the above-mentioned comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Richard Fletcher, Christine McPhail, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Warren Morelion
The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions:
Provide ceramic file wainscot around the entire base of the car wash and the detail shop
buildings.
2. Provide wall-mounted steel trellis framework and planters around the car wash and detail
shop where possible to allow vine plantings. The trellis shall match the approved ones in the
center.
• 3. The applicant agreed to recess the upper parapet of the buildings as much as feasible to
match the design of the other approved buildings in the center.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00212 -GEORGE FASCHING/TOMENNIS
• June 17, 2003
Page 3
4. Plant a minimum of four 36-inch box trees to mitigate the removal of existing trees on the
site.
5. Add pilasters to the retaining wall on the north and west side of the site. The retaining wall
shall match the design of other retaining walls in the center.
6. Provide additional landscaping on the north side of the car wash building to screen the
bypass lane from Alta Loma Drive.
7. Provide pilaster at the ending points of the proposed wrought iron security fencing. Revise
the wrought iron fence to end at the handicap-parking stall.
8. The applicant agreed to address all policy issues listed in the staff report
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
`~•
JUNE 17, 2003
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respecttully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
C~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY JUNE 17, 2003 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
CONFERENCE ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher
CONSENT CALENDAR
Cristine McPhail
The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
7:00 p.m.
(Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690-FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT
- A request for completion of Design Review of the site plan for the "Route 66
Out Parcels" associated with the Victoria Gardens Regional Center, located
within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future
Victoria Gardens Lane to the north, the I-15 Freeway to east, Day Creek
Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south -APN: 0227-201-45.
7:15 p.m.
(Brent) DESIGN REVIEW OF CULTURAL ARTS CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE -
DRC2002-00730 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of exterior
building elevations for the two parking structures associated with the Cultural
Arts Center, located in the Victoria Gardens Regional Center.
7:25 p.m
(Nancy) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM N0.134-TOWN CENTER SQUARE-Arequest
to review the new tenant sign for Petsmart within the existing building (adjacent
to Stein Mart) in the Town Center Square, located at the northeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue.
7:35 p.m.
(Debra/Ken) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-
00791 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES -The Design Review of
677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of Tentative Tract 16157) in the
Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per
acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts of the Terra
Vista Community Plan located on Lots 1 through 9 of Tentative Tract 16157 at
the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway -
APN: 227-151-30.
7:45 p.m.
. (Emily/gene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT 16421 - JONG - A request to subdivide 2.8 acres into 8single-family lots
in the Low Residential District located at 10213 and 10217 Wilson Avenue.
APN: 0201-182-03 and 06.
• DRC AGENDA
June 17, 2003
Page 2
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.
7:55 p.m.
(Debra/Cam) CONDITONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00097 -INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL
COMPOSTING AUTHORITY - A request for a Conditional Use Permit for the
purpose of establishing a regional composting facility to process approximately
150,000 tons of biosolids per year within an existing 410,000 square foot building
with 40,500 square feet of additional building space, located at 12645 6th Street,
on 24.24 acres of land, in the Heavy Industrial District (Subareal5 -
APN: 0229-283-61.
8:20 p.m.
(Warren/Ken) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2003-00212-GEORGE FASCHING/TOM ENNIS-A requestto modifythe
previous Los Osos Plaza Conditional Use Permit Master Plan (DRC2002-00018)
to include a 6,885 square foot full service car wash in place of the approved
• 3,600 square foot retail space building with drive-thru capability on approximately
1.08 acres of land at the west end of the site, located at 10432 Alta Loma Drive -
APN:0201-262-40 and 30.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 12, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic enter i ,Rancho Cucamonga.
u
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 17, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00690 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT - A request for
completion of Design Review of the site plan for the "Route 66 Out Parcels" associated with the
Victoria Gardens Regional Center, located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally
bounded by the future Victoria Gardens Lane to the north, the I-15 Freeway to east, Day Creek
Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 0227-201-45.
The Plan continues to show adrive-thru use at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day
Creek Boulevard, contrary to conditions of approval established with the Development Agreement.
To refresh, the Design Review Committee was not in favor of the previous site planning for the
Route 66 Out Parcels, that is the 15 "pad" buildings planned at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The applicant has been working with staff and has revised the
plan to respond to City concerns. Outstanding issues include provision of decorative paving within
driveways and to delineate pedestrian pathways. The individual buildings will be subjectto theirown
Design Review; however, the applicant is installing the backbone of driveways, parking fields, and
pads within which the same level of decorative ground plane treatment as that in any other shopping
center in the City is expected. This is an item that can be resolved during plan check and should
staff discover inadequate design features the matter can always be referred back to the Design
Review Committee.
Attachment
. Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
•
i•
i•
i•
I ,
~!
~`
\,
.~~
~ ~\
UI'llllglUc
~ _
~~~~ -
..~Fe _~
~~~$
_~ // ~~
a
Z
w
w
J
- Y Y
$ Y
~ Y
8 1E
«« $
~ fI
~ Y
~ f
R 7E
R Y
8 Y
~ Y
~^«~ 7i
~ Y
L Y
~ n
~ m
R ~
R ~
~ $
° v°,
~
R
R ~
R 4
%
A w
: ~
R ~
:.
R J~
St
~
0
~
~
~
R
~
p
~
R a
y
8
a
~
~
R
+
F
34
~
R
~
R
~
R
dt
«
a%
S
~
R
M
S
y
R
,zi,
F
i
°~ W
i
~
#
¢
~
~
3
~
~
~
~i
~
W
r~r
H
~
~
~
~c
3
P
a
O
m
J `o v
e•~
o ~
W
V
R ~ r r
~ P ~ E ~,.
r v
d
cn
t0 C = 3 0 ~ a~
i~ ;'O ~W
< ~~ o ~.
Y<~ v ~ "'a
O
~ ® -~~
z ~
,~
nrcrc
q7q
8888
~o
~~~
ii ~
ii
ii
ii
~~
~i
~~
~~
~~
~ p ~s^~
~ is
i tl
J
s ~\
_,
~~~;
' .~
~ ~ ~~
_~~
' ------a
I •-
I
I ~ n
~~~~
€ii
€~i
ii
ii
+ii
;ii
'(~I
I I I I I U
I ~ ~ I ~ U G
A
I I I I I U
I I I I I U
I I I I I U
IIIII U'~~
~~
~~
---~
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:15 p.m. Brent Le Count June 17, 2003
DESIGN REVIEW OF CULTURAL ARTS CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE - DRC2002-00730-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -The review of exterior building elevations for the two parking
structures associated with the Cultural Arts Center, located in the Victoria Gardens Regional Center.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING.
Desictn Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
U
•
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:25 p.m. Nancy Fong June 17, 2003
UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 134-TOWN CENTER SQUARE-A requestto review the new
tenant sign for Petsmart within the existing building (adjacent to Stein Mart) in the Town Center
Square, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue.
Design Parameters: Petsmart is considered as a Sub-major Tenant under the Uniform Sign
Program. The sign criteria allows a maximum 36-inch sign height. The proposed Petsmart sign with
its curve design and graphic logo placed above the sign copy is 5 feet 8 inches high. See attached
Exhibit "A." A criteria in the Uniform Sign Program allows a tenant who desires to have a larger sign
to submit the design for Design Review Committee review and approval. A review of the proposed
sign shows that the letter height for the sign copy is 36 inches. It is the curve design and the graphic
logo placed above the sign copy that makes the sign height exceeds the maximum. Staff believes
that that proposed sign placed above the building entry is proportionate to and visually balanced with
the tower element.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
•
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
• SLOPE OF WORK:
36" PETSMART (LED) flush
o
# 17 63
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA ~°~Q{~~~
DRAWING # 33932 -OPTION 2 .ANN{A~INNO CONPl1NT ING
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
• SCOPE OF WORK:
36" PETSMART (LED) flush
m
~~'g~~'' # 1163
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA TI'IOMAS
DRAWING # 33932 -OPTION 2 eiaxaaratMO COrw~n iae
tI4'-8'
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
• SCOPE OF WORK:
36" PETSMART (LED) flush
~~'s~~r # 1163
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA T9'IOMAS
DRAWING # 33932 -OPTION 2 "°""°'~'°`°'~""'°`
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
• SCOPE OF WORK:
36" PETSMART (LED) flush
o
~E'1'S~R~ # 7163
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA THOMAS
DRAWING # 33932 -OPTION 2 aloe""m'°`°'~a"r'"`
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
• SCOPE OF WORK:
36" PETSMART (LED) flush
m
~'~'sM~-RP # ~ ~ 6s
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA THOMAS
DRAWING # 33932 -OPTION 2 "°"""~'°`°'~"""'"`
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
SLOPE OF WORK:
36" PETSMART (LED) flush
a
~E"f'~~~~` # 7163
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA THOMAS
DRAWING # 33932 -OPTION 2 .mxa~rmwcorvu+r ixe
r]
L
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
SCOPE OF WORK
36" PETSMART (LED) flush
~~S~R~ # 7163
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA THOMAS
DRAWING # 33932 -OPTION 2 "°"'°'°10C01°""'"`
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:35 p.m. Debra Meier June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00791 - LEWIS
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES -The Design Review of 677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of
Tentative Tract 16157) in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling
units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts of the Terra Vista
Community Plan located on Lots 1 through 9 of Tentative Tract 16157 at the northwest corner of
Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-30.
Background: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 16157, along with the
accompanying Development Review DRC2001-00791, on December 18, 2002. Subsequently, the
applicant has been in the construction plan review process. During this process staff has identified
modifications that have been made to two of the nine proposed building types within the project for
which we would like Design Review Committee review.
Staff Comments: In the process of preparing the building construction plans, the applicant has
changed the second story elevation of the Building 3 and 6 combinations. Although the modification
by itself is not significant, the effective result of the modification may be significant when considered
within the scope of the project as a whole. By removing the element of uniqueness on this
elevation, all second story elements that sit atop garages become nearly identical throughout the
entire project.
Maior Issues: Staff has enclosed copies of the building elevations as approved by the Planning
• Commission (noted as Exhibits "E2"through "E19," excerpted from the Planning Commission Staff
Report). The portions of the elevations of Building types 3 and 6 are circled on Exhibit Sheet "E2
and E7;" the remaining elevations are included to portray the context of the architectural theme
carried out within the project.
The portions of the Building elevations of Buildings 3 and 6 are excerpted from the
construction plan set, and the affected segment of the elevation is circled for comparison.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee uphold the original Planning
Commission approval for the elevation of Building types Z3 and 5/6.
Attachments
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
u
Z
O
1=
Q
w
J
W,
H
Z
O
w
C(7
~~
L~
~~
'•4
.~
,0
.~
r o a ~; s-
~~
V, V`
~~
~.o
v
•~ ~
.~
~~
~-fi
=s
za
IW
~o ~
k
~ ('~
a
4$0
~ ,.0-
0
0
~~
~~
~ ~
~T O
n
i rn ~'
(~(~~ ~~
v ~--J ~
N
I
M
n ~ _.
z
0
a
w
J
W
H
Z
O
r1
LJ
•
a'~t ~'
~ r,,~~ i €91p
9 ~ H;'} ~ 81f0t
~.EI.1i1 a 91i![~
~'9
i
6ii~~ ~~
i€~ ! r~~~~!9 !p~'
..
~ ~r~i1~~~ii4BB9li~ !E
f ......_...~,~.. .
~'.l~f-~IB~T'~`.
a
~~
~~_
~~
N (~
v
(J
0
..I
m
Z
0
F
O
b
N
h
(~
O
m
O
Q
W
Z
C
~ T ~:~
^~' G
~ .m
~ i~il. s
14;I
i I I~, ~1!,", @
e
3 : ~_
2
C
~ O
a y
N c3
Z
2p O
v Q
O
~~
O~
•
•
~
~~F9~ ~~~6 ¢ ap
~~t~~ ! f.~~ ~ pS
~fi~
~ ? ~i~j ~ Ei
aa
~~Hf3'~ 566 ~
~ ~' sA
i~:tEf(
~ ~ ~
EI~ ; E:
.
J
r~
~~~ !
¢~I~ !!
li~~~~~~~` ~'
~~ , t~~E~~I~B ~ B~
E ..
C~ ~all~~~!~~999a1E ~{
........neevvv .
~t'~!/f3lT ~3
W
O
O
F-
J
W
F-
Q
i ~ ~ d~~ °
l~; ~ e
~ ~' ~!id
,u
,. ~
2
s~: ~~
C
O
G
W
W
QI
a
C
O
O
U
2e
~>
~~
ti
~~
5 ~~ @~~I
@R
~ 134 ~ I'~~
~?i~~ ~
~~F
~ ~I~~ ~11
H
;
E ~1~3
3
~
[
{F `
`
~ 6
~
yy
p
€
@3~i@i6 g
@~i
~: ~ @~
i
.
S
r .,.
~~9
it@~ §~
1, I j ~aEE~ @ I~
~~
9~'~ @ 3~i°~~6~9 ~ 1
E~d~g ~~~@ifi~ii3~ ~I
~iiC~~~~~~~ll~@6E ~~
~~~ ~ ~~~~~QYtQit .
~~~/B~ ~~
2
O
F
W
N
2
C
W
2
G
W
S
K
2
O
F
W
C
C
O
F
W
W
i 6
i ~ It~!~
~ l,i i~, 1_~_
f 2
@ . ~$
V Q
Z~
~~
O~
~~
O~
•
j ~i' l~~i . ~iid
~f6f~ 1 'ii~~ 'i~EsE
,~~ ! I~f~ ~ Ei~~l
~:.~ 1
. ~~gF~ ~ c 3E~~ ~ iA '~
~ ! i~~~~f$ ~ i36~6~ ~ a~~~l
F .... B ..... 6 ....,
(E i
9fi a jf~l~f f~ii'~ !1
E~~fB ~IBB@€ii{:~i1 ~I
f ~~~li~~fffi6~610, EE
O
F
W
2
O
>F
W
..J
W
U'
O
G
C
2
O
G
W
.J
i
a
2r~r^^
~ vJ
~~
W
~~
Om
,_
lj~~j e
~~1 ~
~,,~
•
~rs~~ ° ~~~~ { p ~s~
!9°jl I i~~~ ~ ;$~j
4~i~j ~ ji~j ~ ~~ajq
(~ a~~f~i{ i Q~~iEI i iili~
['~
gi~g~ ti
9`BB ( a
~~'t a ~~~pi)0 oE~ 1~
~!~~@ €€IiBt€ii~~~ i~
(~ii~~if~~~~{dB~IE ~E
Z
W
O
2
F
W
I-.
~ ~
W
1~'1 ~
u lt:~l.
~n,i
•2
~~
O p
F
~ U
W p
W U
J
2~
O
~~
ti
0~
~. ~ . ~ ~.
eta .~h~
•~,t 311 ``
~.~pE ~ ~1~p!
j ~ Z E~(f?f ~ 7 A~!!!t
a 99iiil ~ 9~ilE,
~.
~:
~~ ,
~ ~~
8
m
F
i
W
J
W
Zti
O
LL
~~
1
! ~,
! ~.
m
t
P
•
i~
~ii~~ sl
!' ~~°~° i
~~~ ~ iEai~~is~li :~
Q~ ~~~61~~f~~4d~9dii 9~
~/-~/63!`T ~ .
m
tl
h
W
O
O
m
2
i
W
W
2
K
,,~
m
tl
h
W d
C25
f
m V
F v
eT$
W ~ {.
J
O
~~
O ~'
=o
•
~~
~J
i ~ SEE i,..
,t~e[ 1 ~t3i E ~it6~
i
~~'~~ ~ s~~~ ~ i~~~s
~il~i ~ Ej~~ ~ ~li~l
A j,?Ep. 0 is@. 0 - is ~'
~ E48EE~~ ;4 Ei41~~ i/ 61 li
:~~
6~~1~5 ~~
~~ . [~~l~~9~9 F ~~
~~~€B-~~8@@~~i~i~ ~~
~ ~r~[f~~(~i~~a49~g ~E
~'.~N1~rr~~
z
0
F
w
0
LL
>F
W
J
W
~ i
C
z
0
F
rc
6
Q
W
W
w~
.J
2 ~'
~~
W~
~~
=m
~a
1411 z
ly,~
;qh
~r~...
~ ~E6 ~ ~j~6 . ~~
€ ~ ~s~a.! . g~~~q€9
@i,~~(ii ~ @3~.~1i
~ : ~eE~
~ @~~~
B
i~t~e ~~
~~e ? ~~~~~~@~pi~ 1
~I~~jiR~~~j~~~99~ ~E
~al'N/~3~T' ~-l
z
0
W
O
LL
O
F
J
W
F-
C
F
W
K
O
G
W
J
~~~~~ ,@,1 0
WWII@Cii n
@u~t m
~I11 •
I!~ •1;~@
= 2
e ~: ~€
2~
~~
~~
~~
O
•
•
s ~~ ~ lg~a , 1;~~I
~~lii ~ E~~~ ~ 4~i~=
i:~E. q 's~~- a f ~1~~4
~,6l~Ei~ ~ Ei~tii ~ 8i~l~
a ..... ~ ..... ~ .....
3~~ ~
gEil~p 4f
~~i a ~ii~~geiail ~1
~~~~i ~EQii~~~r~1 ii
~ ~ryl~~~~~~~~~~~ii 4E
~,~~//.~31~" ~l0
G
J
W
ti
Z
Z
W
~ ~
C
1 ~~!~ E
R t !
el
~4Ei ~
~~: ~~
W
0
c $
U
W ¢?
C
2~
~W
O~
•
G
FZW
O
2
O
W
t,
0
F
fL
W
C
2
O
F
r
W
W
J
.Pr n
~ ~fjl a
u j'I;i ~
III, ~~~;_
~.
i~: ~~
O
2
2
~
'^
~, V
Vie!
9
W ~' W
iIi
y~€
O coo ~~~
~J
j gi ! ~6 9:e
~0
bp i .
~I~~! ~ 3
~
~ ~ E
a!~~i
g
`
~
6~jg~ ~
~ t
E~~
~ ~I~q~
!
s~=1g
t
~ I
'~ - s1~9
i~
~
E9itf~ ~ sPil~f ~ 3
i
I
'~~
E;'
:.
z
J
W
O
u..
i - _ ____
._..^J ._ ~___
2
F
J
W
~-
U'
3 ~ 1 9 r; +^"emu o
~~I 11 ~<<.~:
f ~ 8 ~ ~;;~
`` r
~I~ I ~iEE6ii~~j~ it '~ ~ ~' ~~
.w; ., .
~~~i~~~~ll(fi~9oE ~E ...J,.
p1 ~Y
F
W
K
G
J
1 i~7
~ ICY -f N
19Ei
~ ~,i viii
~~: ~~
W p
W
~' V
O
U ~6t
1
I U ~
W
~ ~~
o
~
O
'
/_~ ~~
^$e
yeS ~ 1a~6 a el
• ~'s~~ 0 3~~t € ai~i
~~~~! a 3~~~ ! i~~l
p p I
~41~~ ? ~11~ ! ~~~
~''p 1 9,~8 ~~~
~e~d r 3.~ - .6
elIt€~ ; ei~i$€ ~ ~~~~
1~9
1 a
~iBi~ if
~t~ @ t~~?I~a~j~~ ~~
gE~~6 ~~nliii€~1 ~I
~ ~t f1~~~~4~~6d@sl ~€
f ......_....~,,. .
2
0
F
i
W
..J
FW
Z
O
2
F
i
J
W
.T.
~ I II'1
e ~ ,fl! 9
Iq;t a
!~ III, ,~11; ~
:.
2
f
t ~ Oa
w~
_~
Z Q3
O
a
0
z
0
G
K
O
F
W
2~
~j
O~
~~
O~
•
5~I i 1"3~
7 rF
g g s 31 9g ~~.ta
~~~~! ~~E6i~~3ij~ ~f ~ P:~$
At
2
F
O
O
F
W
C ~
P ~~€ ~ 1 ~6 . ~ }~~~t
~~~i~ ° i'gj i ~~gp~
~dig~ ~ ~1~~ ~ ~g9~~
iE=ip. g ~=E. g ~~ g
~ ~ ii6f g~ ~ i8~g~~ ~ i8 ~.
g Bg,6l~~ a €~fit~~ g s~~l~
k 1.
.:
D
-~ =..
~ ~i~~
r ghs~ `
~~: ~~
F
W
C
2
~
W V
p
2
2 r~r
^^
_
v!
'
V ~63
~s[
W
~ o
~
~,
O
= c0 ~~
~°-~
•
C
n
i
i ~i6 ~ 9~~i . ~ ~~0
~t7~~ 1 i' ~ ~ i••6t
~~I~q q ~ii0 F ~li!~
~'~S S~:t ~ e6 ~•~ ~ e6 ~t
s sl,tli' ~.~il~ a e~~iE
i•1 F
~ .:
t~ 0
~~'i i i~~~~~@ I~~ !e
~p~~6 gil B{~§~~~ it a
~ i~~6~~~c~~i~~a@I~ ~E y
-~/~~rr~ ~~s
Z
F
r
W
N
O
Q
F-
S
C
:w
~~
! ~ I~~
6 ~:
F
O
K
W
W
SSaO
j
U
2
R~
52
G
~~
~~
O~
6
i
~
e ~i~6 . ~i~!
4
• ~€E~6 1
1~=
~~ ~ i~~~ €
i
$
6~
~ ~ ~i
i~e
~
B
3
~g~i~ ~ 3
p
1~~~ ? 3
3~~~
S• r• °oI
~ i
(6~i~~1i ~19
9 ~~ ~ ~~1~
!~~ 1
f~i~~l ~I
~¢~ ; ~~~p~gO~jE~ !1
~#~~a ~Eis~€~~~il ~I
~ii~~~~~~~~~~~~BE ~~
~f~~~~-
2
O
F
FW
2
O
W
Z
C
tip 5
i~~
II~~ I~di i
2$
S •
~ ~c
p2
F
aW
W
K
F
U
w 2
W 2
~ e
2'~^^C
vJ
~~ U
O ~6
U ~ ~;
~ W ~~t
hi
O ~ W,
•
~ r! er"• rr"
~tF~j i 1~~~ ~ E~~6~
~~6~1 ~ ~~~~ ~ ;~~f~
~ii~0 ~ @j~~ ~ ~1~19
~~~€ ~ _;~.. ~ E 9~ fi
E a~~~EE{ 6 i~~[fi ~ iii
SI
` Z
• ~~~€B ~l9tB~~s~3~ i~ ;~ s'V'
~ ir~t~~f~~~~~~~~e; ~E , ~ ~.
0
W
F
2
O
LL
2
>F
W
W
S
_~
C
_~.
0
W
C
K
O
G
W
W
W
s
2
O
L
U
O
U
U
i
C2
r^ C
V Q
~,
Q
~W
_~
L
•
@ ~fi E ~ 6 ~Ei
Ii~15 ~ fF`F 1 j~l
~;i~~ i
i-~E.
~~29 ~'€~
991~@~t . ~}F~ i F ~I~
~28 ?'~~26
Bl
EI~@~~
e a
a
@~~ ~
(~3~~ @!
~'' i~~~1~6 9~~ `I
~~8~@ ' @@@Et[rl~ fI
~ ~iif€~~~[~~~~~90, ~E
z
F
a
~'
2
rc
2
G
W
F-
~_
EC
0
W
o
G
~ 2
W Q
J
z m
O
F
r
W
W
J
E
E ~I,~
~:
2
K
O
C~¢
[7
O
U
2e
~,
~~
O~
e
4~Q6~ ~~i.
~
~is9~ ! ~ii~
~j~~~ ~ ~~~~I
s--E- I S :~E. E F
EIiE11~ ~ 6~IE~3 r i
,.
i!~ ~
l ; ~' ~~
i~,'e~9~~~ ~)
E , ;Ifeo ~ t1:
~!~€b ~196i~ii~i~ ~I
~ ~~~f~~~~~4~~~adag ~~
z
F
w
0
2
O
f-
w
x
'z
F
F
~Pi =y
u AEI! ~
~t!~I :
~ I~ ''~"
'ri_ .
~ ~'
c3~
d
Z
~~
O~
i~
j Set
• ~'°'~
-esl~
~~i~j
~!][.
t F ?~eSa,
9 fill(
•
6 ~~! , ! e
0 6~ ~ I ~~e
R! . 9;,~QI i;
i ~ t~t~~{~ ~ t~~~
:i!
6~Oj !~
~~10'~!~~( i'
~~! ' ~~~°°-~~1 B ~ E~
~!!~i ~~98Eiii:~~ i~
I ~ni~~~~~~~4@~~lg ~E
z
G
W
O
F
W
F-
f=9
C
!I ~•~ s
~~~.
! ~ ~I'~
2~
~3
ti
W~
2~ .
F
W
K
O
F
d
W
2¢
~~
OQ
gw
Oro
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
•
7:45 p.m. Emily W imer June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT 16421 - JONG - A
request to subdivide 2.8 acres into 8single-family lots in the Low Residential District located at
10213 and 10217 Wilson Avenue. APN: 0201-182-03 and 06.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING.
Background: The project was originally submitted on December 10, 2002, with a submittal to
subdivide the property. The applicant was informed that the General Plan land use was not
consistent and a General Plan Amendment was necessary. On February 6, 2003, the applicant
submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use to Low Residential.
The General Plan Amendment was approved on May 21, 2003. The applicant may now move
forward with the Tentative Tract Map.
Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing Ssingle-family lots, which well exceed the Low
Residential requirements. The average lot size proposed is 12,475 square feet, which is
4,475 square feet larger than required by the Development Code (8,000 minimum). The applicant is
proposing to subdivide only with no house product at this time. The applicant will submit the house
product at a later date.
Since the project's lots are less than 1/2 acre, horse keeping is prohibited; therefore, the proposed
equestrian easements should be eliminated from the map. Staff will address this issue at the
Technical Review and Grading Committees.
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 worked diligently with staff to resolve any major issues.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
•
DESIRN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:55 p.m. Debra Meier June 17, 2003
CONDITONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00097 -INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL COMPOSTING
AUTHORITY - A request for a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of establishing a regional
composting facility to process approximately 150,000 tons of biosolids per year within an existing
410,000 square foot building with 40,500 square feet of additional building space, located at 12645
6th Street, on 24.24 acres of land, in the Heavy Industrial District (Subareal5-APN: 0229-283-61.
Design Parameters: The Regional Compost Facility is proposed by the Inland Empire Regional
Compost Authority, which is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) between the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (IEUA) and Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). The JPA served as the lead
agency for CEQA compliance and has certified an Environmental Impact Report, which addressed
the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The City will rely on the documents certified by
the JPA for project review and evaluation.
The Regional Compost Facility is proposed within an existing warehouse located on the south side
of 6th Street, immediately west of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency Water Treatment Plan No. 4.
The West Valley Detention Center is located immediately to the south, and the Big Lots
warehouse/distribution center is located immediately to the west. Southern California Edison has
undeveloped land along the north side of 6th Street, which lies south of the Reliant Energy plant.
The existing structure was built in 1985 as a warehouse for IKEA; the site contains the existing
410,000 square foot structure and is largely paved as a result of the large degree of on-site truck
• maneuvering area. The landscaping on the site is concentrated at the north end, along 6th Street,
the driveway entries, and at the primary building entries. The interior of the site is screened along
the 6th Street frontage by a block wall and the driveway entries are gated, therefore views from off-
site are very limited.
The JPA proposes to modify the existing building in order to conduct all compost activities inside the
building. In addition to the existing 410,00 square feet, the applicant's propose to add
39,500 square feet to the existing structure, and develop a 1,000 square foot detached
administration building. The facility will also include a 3 acre area that is designed as a 'biofilter',
which will filter the air that is captured from inside the building and forced through a layer of wood
chip material for odor control.
The Regional Compost facility is designed to process 150,000 wet tons of biosolids that will be
received from both the IEUA and the LACSD. Biosolids is a term applied to the solid portion of
waste that remains after treated wastewater from domestic sources has been treated (also known
as sewage sludge). A portion of the compost is blended with other natural ingredients to make
compost products that are marketed to wholesalers for bulk horticulture. The technical design and
operation of the facility has been analyzed in a Design Report that has been reviewed in detail with
the Fire District and Building and Safety staff.
The project involves the use of the existing warehouse structure, with a 32,000 square foot addition
on the west elevation along with a 7,000 square foot maintenance shop that is covered by a
standing seam metal canopy; and a 7,500 square foot addition on the east elevation. The additions
will match the material and the construction elements of the existing structure, and the entire
building will be repainted. In addition, a detached 1,000 square foot administration building will be
constructed near the northwest corner of the site, in front of the truck scales. The administration
• building is astucco-surfaced structure with a standing seam metal roof
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00097 -INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL COMPOSTING AUTHORITY
June 17, 2003
• Page 2
Because of the heavy industrial zoning and nature of the operation, landscaping on the site will be
focused on the northern portion of the site, including the streetscape, around the employee parking
area, the administration building, and the employee break room. The existing trees along 6th Street
will be maintained, while the majority of on-site trees must be removed and/or replaced because of
necessary on-site construction. Along the 6th Street frontage, the applicant's have proposed to
retain the existing Alder trees, and incorporate a meandering sidewalk behind the trees through the
streetscape area. The designated street trees for 6th Street is Magnolia; therefore, the City Planner
has suggested that as a condition for allowing the Alders to remain, any future replacement that is
necessary would be with the approved street tree.
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 - Throughout the process the applicant's have responded to suggestions and
recommendations by staff to enhance the site planning, access and drainage issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
• 1. Provide a straight sidewalk along 6th Street. Meandering sidewalks are only used as a
community design element on "special boulevards" and 6th Street is not a "special
boulevard" east of the I-15 Freeway.
2. Add trees in landscape planters where landscaping should be supplemented in order to
enhance opportunities for shade around the northwest parking lot, around the operations
and control building/employee eating area, or where existing trees should be added or
replaced because of grading or construction impacts.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for approval.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members present:
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
n
U
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:20 p.m. Warren Morelion June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00212 -
GEORGE FASCHINGlTOM ENNIS-A requestto modifythe previous Los Osos Plaza Conditional
Use Permit Master Plan (DRC2002-00018) to include a 6,885 square foot full service car wash in
place of the approved 3,600 square foot retail space building with drive-thru capability on
approximately 1.08 acres of land at the west end of the site, located at 10432 Alta Loma Drive -
APN:0201-262-40 and 30. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2001-00236, Conditional Use
Permit DRC2002-00018, Variance DRC2002-00246, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024, and
Preliminary Review DRC2002-01034.
Background: The proposed project in located on a site that was previously approved under
Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018 for the development of a commercial center that included a
Jack in the Box restaurant, a 7-Eleven convenience store with gasoline dispensing; and a
3,600 square foot multi-tenant retail building with drive-thru capability. The applicant is requesting to
replace the multi-tenant retail building with a 6,885 full service carvvash.
Design Parameters: The project site is on the south side of Alta Loma Drive, east of Revere
Avenue. The site is vacant and slopes southerly at approximately 3 percent. The site is bordered to
the north by an approved Tutor Time day care facility, to the east by the balance of the Los Osos
Plaza, and to the west bysingle-family development. The southern boundary of the project site is
formed by the westbound on-ramp of the 210 Freeway. A retaining wall is proposed along the
• southern boundary varying in height from 1.5 feet to 12.5 feet in order to eliminate a grade changes.
The retaining wall will parallel a freeway sound wall along the west half of the site boundary.
The carwash facility is designed to match the approved architecture of the commercial center. The
buildings have tower elements and are made primarily of a stucco material, with a 6-inch by 6-inch
ceramic file wainscot treatment around the bases. A retaining wall is proposed along the north
boundary to allow for grade changes.
An acoustical report has been completed analyzing the noise impact associated with operation of
the car wash facility. The report concluded that the facility's operation would not adversely impact
the existing single-family development to the west, or the existing condominium complex and
approved Tutor Time daycare facility to the north.
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 worked diligently with staff to resolve all major design issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide a 6-inch by 6-inch ceramic file wainscot around the base of the entire car wash and
detail shop buildings.
• 2. Provide wall-mounted steel trellis frameworks and planters around the car wash and detail
shop where possible to allow for vine plantings. The trellises should match the approved
wall-mounted trellises on the other buildings in the center.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00212 - GEORGE FASCHING/TOMENNIS
June 17, 2003
• Page 2
3. Recess the upper parapet from the lower parapet on the car wash and detail shop a
minimum of 2 1/2 feet to match the other approved buildings in the center.
4. Plant a minimum of four 36-inch box trees to mitigate removal of existing trees on the
commercial site.
5. Add pilasters to the retaining wall that is proposed on the north and west side of the site.
The retaining wall should be designed to match the other retaining walls on-site.
6. Provide additional landscaping on the north side of the car wash building to make sure the
bypass lane is screened from Alta Loma Drive.
7. Provide pilasters at the ending points of the proposed wrought iron security fencing. Revise
the wrought iron fence to end at the handicap-parking stall.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All street furniture, trelliswork, and light fixture shall match those proposed and provided by
other buildings in the center.
2. Provide potted plants for additional shade and aesthetics in patio area.
• 3. All decorative paving shall match the paving proposed by the other buildings in the center.
4. Design all the landscape planters within drive aisles and parking areas with rounded
corners.
5. Provide a hammerhead at the west end of the west parking area for ingress and egress.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee forward the project to the Planning
Commission for approval subject to the above-mentioned comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Warren Morelion
•
. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY JUNE 17, 2003 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant
regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public
testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:00 p.m.
(Doug/Joe) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191-US HOME-Arequestfordesign
review of detail site plan and elevations for 38single-family lots (Tract 16370) of
a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master
Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Arbor Lane,
• north of Church Street-APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-00192 - US HOMES - A request for
design review of detail site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract
16371) of a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors
Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Victoria
Park Lane north of the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
7:30 p.m
(Rick/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-00101 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of
design elevations and site plan for 117 single-family homes on 37.82 acres of
land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units peracre), located
at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 1100-
011-01, 02, 03, 06 (a portion); 1100-021, 01, 03, 04; 1100-031-05; 1100-051-01
(a portion); 1100-061-01. Related Files: SUBTT16454, DRC2003-00478,
DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16454- KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES-A request to subdivide
a 37.82 acre property into 117 numbered lots and 1 lettered lotforthe purpose of
development 117 single-family homes in the Low Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road
and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 1100-011-01, 02, 03, 06 (a portion); 1100-021-01,
03, 04; 1100-031-05; 1100-051-01(a portion); 1100-061-01. Related Files:
DRC2003-00101, DRC2003-00478, DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and
DRC2003-00482.
• DRC AGENDA
June 17, 2003
Page 2
8:00 p.m.
(RicWRene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-00100 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of
design elevations and site plan for 156 multi-family dwelling units on 11.14 acres
of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located
at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound on-ramp of the
-15 Freeway -APN: 1100-011-04-05 (a portion of 06, 07); 1100-051-01 (a
portion) 02.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16455-KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES-A requestto subdivide
11.14 acres of property into 5 lettered lots and 1 numbered lot to develop
156 condominiums in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound
I-15 Freeway on-ramp -APN: 1100-011-04, 05 (a portion) 06, 07; 1100-051-01
(portion) 02.
8:30 p.m.
(Rick/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003 00015-CARNEY-A requestto develop foursingle-family homes on
• a .817 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre,
located on the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of Diamond Avenue -
APN: 1062-401-05. Related files: DRC2003-00016, DRC2003-00017, and
SUBTPM 16038.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTPM16038 -CARNEY - A request to subdivide a .817 acres of land into
4 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on
the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of diamond Avenue -APN: 1061-401-
05. Related files: DRC2003-00015, DRC2003-00016, and DRC2003-00017.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn June 17, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191 - US HOME -A request for design review of detail site
plan and elevations for 38 single-family lots (Tract 16370) of a previously approved tentative tract
15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west
side of Arbor Lane, north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-00192 - US HOME - A request for design review of detail
site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract 16371) of a previously approved tentative
tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the
west side of Victoria Park Lane north of the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING AS INSTRUCTED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE FROM JUNE 3, 2003 WITH RECONSTRUCTED CHANGES.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval. The Committee made
special note that the applicant had delivered a project of outstanding architecture that should bean
example to other developers.
n
U
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:30 p.m. Rick Fisher June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00101 -KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of design elevations and site plan for 117 single-family
homes on 37.82 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 1100-011-01, 02,
03, 06 (a portion); 1100-021, 01, 03, 04; 1100-031-05; 1 100-051-01 (a portion); 1100-061-01.
Related Files: SUBTT16454, DRC2003-00478, DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and
DRC2003-00482.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16454 - KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES - A request to subdivide a 37.82 acre property into 117 numbered lots
and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of development 117 single-family homes in the Low Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road
and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-011-01, 02, 03, 06 (a portion); 1100-021-01, 03, 04; 1100-031-
05; 1100-051-01(a portion); 1100-061-01. Related Files: DRC2003-00101, DRC2003-00478,
DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
Design Parameters: The density of the project will be 3.09 dwelling units per acre consistent with the
Basic Development Standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, in particular, the 10,000 square foot
minimum average lot area. The lot sizes will range in size from 7,431 square feet to 24,553 square
feet, with an average lot size of 10,074 square feet. Access to the site will be from Emmet W ay, a
• new street that will connect south of Base Line Road, and proposed "E" Street, which will connect
east off Etiwanda Avenue. The site is surrounded by proposed multi family homes and the
I-15 Freeway to the east, vacant land to the south, single-family homes to the west, and single-family
homes to the north across Base Line Road. The homes will be single andtwo-story and will range
in size from 2,297 square feet to 3,595 square feet. There will be 5 floor plans, plus variations, and
3 different elevations each. The developer is requesting permission to have flexibility in plotting
Floor Plans (the plotting criteria are listed on Detailed Site Plan Sheet D1). The homes on Lots 8, 9,
24, 25, 42, 43, and 62 will have their front entrances facing Etiwanda Avenue with access to the
properties from interior streets. The front yard setbacks for these homes will vary from 32 to 40 feet
from the curb face of Etiwanda Avenue. A 17-foot high sound attenuation wall will be constructed
along the east property line adjacent to I-15 Freeway and a 6-foot decorative block wall with
pilasters will be located on the north property line adjacent to Base Line Road.
The building elevations will be California Ranch, California Bungalow, and Santa Barbara. Each
style will contain three sub designs such as Bungalow, Cottage, and Ranch.
The Tentative Tract Map will create 117 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot. The lettered lot will be a
linear strip of landscaping located south of Base Line Road, north of Lots 1 through 8. All proposed
streets will be public streets improved to Local Street standards. A 6-foot wide pedestrian pathway
easement will connect the proposed tract to Etiwanda Avenue between Lots 8 and 9, 24 and 25,
and 42 and 43.
A Tree Removal Permit has been submitted to remove over 51 linear feet of Eucalyptus windrows
as well as ornamental trees and Palms. These trees will be replaced with the same species on a
1:1 basis.
•
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00101 AND DRCSUBTT16454 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES
June 17, 2003
. Page 2
There is an existing single-family home near the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda
Avenue that is on the City's Historic Preservation list. A Landmark Alteration Permit has been filed
to allow the relocation of this structure to proposed Lot 62. The house will be maintained in its
original state and upgraded with new paint and utilities. The remaining structures on-site will be
demolished.
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:
A minimum of 50 percent of the lots shall have garages that are detached, side-on, or set
behind front part of dwelling as required by Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.42.606. The
developer intends to provide roughly an equal percentage mix of the 5 Floor Plans.
Currently, only 29 lots contain side-on garages and 59 are required. Plan 3192 and
3050 are side entry garages. Plans 3595 and 3347 are front loaded garages. Staff does
believe that the Plan 2297, which features a front loaded garage 3 feet behind the rest of the
house, meets the intent to vary the street scene by minimizing the dominance of the garage
door. Therefore, only 40 percent has been provided.
2. At least 50 percent of homes shall not be plotted parallel to the street as required by
• Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.42.609. This can be accomplished by "skewing" the house
plot.
3. Provide greater front setback variation by staggering the setbacks at least 5 feet. Many of
the homes have been plotted at the 25-foot minimum setback. For example, along "G" Street
20 out of 30 homes are at 25 feet setback. The citywide standard used in the Development
Code is to vary setback 5 feet to get a noticeable difference in street scene.
Neigborhood Fencing -Provide solid block walls for permanence, durability and consistent
design, rather than wood fencing between lots. The community has seasonal high winds
that frequently damages wood fencing.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
More details used on Front Elevations should be carried around to Side and Rear Elevation.
Examples include:
a. Cottage Style -Shutters, gabled dormer, arches, keystone, and diamond-shaped
recesses.
b. Bungalow Style -Shutters
c. California Ranch Style -Shutters, window mullion pattern
2. Provide unique exterior lighting fixtures for each style.
• 3. Provide unique front door design for each style.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00101 AND DRCSUBTT16454 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES
June 17, 2003
• Page 3
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Eucalyptus windrow replacement is required by Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the applicant make the changes listed above and
resubmit revised plans for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to scheduling
for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
The Committee recommended approval subject to the applicant making the revisions listed below
prior to scheduling the project for Planning Commission:
A minimum of 50 percent of the lots shall have garages that are detached, side-on, or set
behind the front part of the dwelling as required by Etiwanda Specific Plan. Plan 2297 shall
not be counted toward meeting this requirement.
• 2. At least 50 percent of the homes shall not be plotted parallel to the street as required by
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
3. Provide greater front setback variation by staggering the setbacks at least 5 feet. Skewing
the homes will help meet the standard.
4. Neighborhood fencing. Provide solid block walls between the lots. Wood fencing is not
acceptable.
5. Building Elevations: Provide more detail to all building elevations. An example of enhanced
detailing is to use the Dutch Gable element on the side and rear of the house. The materials
used on the front elevations shall also be used on the sides and rear of the homes. Where
material wraps around the building, it shall terminate at a natural point rather than a
randomly determined area. See staff comments above for additional recommendations
endorsed by Committee.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:00 p.m. Rick Fisher June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00100 - KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of design elevations and site plan for 156 multi-family
dwelling units on 11.14 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound on-ramp of the
-15 Freeway -APN: 1100-011-04-OS (a portion of 06, 07); 1100-051-01 (a portion) 02. Related
Files: SUBTPM16455, DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16455 - KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES-A request to subdivide 11.14 acres of property into 5 lettered lots and
1 numbered lot to develop 156 condominiums in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units
per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound I-15 Freeway on-
ramp -APN: 1100-011-04, 05 (a portion) 06, 07; 1100-051-01 (portion) 02. Related Files:
DRC2003-00100, DRC2002-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
Design Parameters: The development will be constructed at 14 dwelling units per acre, which is the
maximum permitted in the Medium Residential zone. Access to the site will be from future "A" Street
and future "G" street. Future "A" street will extend south from Base Line Road. The site is
surrounded by the I-15 Freeway to the east, proposed single-family homes to the south, and existing
single-family homes to the west, and north across Base Line Road. There will be 6 units per
building and the units will range in size from 1,089 square feet to 1,964 square feet. There will be
78 two-bedroom units and 78three-bedroom units. Each unitwill contain a two-carattached garage
• with automatic garage door openers. The units will contain 300 square feet of private open space
for the ground floor and 100 square feet for the balconies. A total of 40 percent of open space is
required and 40 percent has been provided. On-site amenities will include a pool, spa, and
recreation area, a children's tot lot, and three picnic areas. There will be 62 visitor parking spaces
dispersed throughout the project area.
The building elevations will consist of California Bungalow and California Ranch style design, which
is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Bungalow design will contain exposed rafter tails,
brick veneer, wood corbels, prefab shutters, and concrete roof tiles. The Rarich design will contain
wood and stucco siding, wrought iron railings on the second floor balconies, wood corbels, prefab
shutters, and concrete tiles. The project will be buffered from sound from Base Line Road by a
sound wall that will vary in height from 6 to 17 feet. There will be a 17-foot sound wall on the east
property line adjacent to the I-15 Freeway.
The Tract will contain one numbered lot and five lettered lots. The lettered lots are common open
space areas that will be used for the pool and recreation area, tot lot, and picnic areas and
landscape areas. The numbered lot is for the remainder of the site. All interior streets will be
private.
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. Architecture - Provide a different architectural design for some buildings in terms of massing,
articulation, roof form, materials, etc. The project as proposed with 26 identical buildings
has excessive repetition. Color variation is not sufficient to provide desired variety and
interest.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00100 AND DRCSUBTT16455 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES
June 17, 2003
• Page 2
The 17-foot high sound attenuation wall along the northerly project boundary will be visually
prominent. Developer should pursue vacation of Base Line Road right-of-way, and
acquisition of the small triangular shaped parcel between the old and the new right-of-way, in
order to provide landscaping to soften wall.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
The building elevations should contain more detail to be consistent with the design
standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Specifically attention should focus on greater use
of siding, fieldstone walls and fountains, bay windows, large roof projections, verandas, and
round-headed windows.
Sound attenuation walls should match the design, materials, and color of those constructed
north of Base Line Road.
3. The existing Palm trees along Street "A" should be preserved by transplanting into the new
parkway on both sides of the street, subject to arborists' verification of trees health.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the applicant make the changes noted above and
resubmit the project for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to scheduling for
Planning Commission.
• Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
The Committee recommended approval subject to the applicant making the revisions listed
belowprior to scheduling the project for Planning Commission:
Building Elevations: Provide a different architectural design for some buildings in terms of
massing, articulation, roof form and materials. Focus attention on a greater use of siding,
fieldstone walls, bay windows, verandas, round headed windows, etc. Move some of the
existing elements to the sides and rear of the buildings. Change roof massing so that it does
not appear repetitive between buildings. Do not replicate materials on both buildings.
2. If the existing Palm trees along "A" Street are determined by arborist to be unhealthy or
otherwise unsuitable candidates for transplanting , do not attempt to transplant them.
Provide new mature replacement trees of the species in the landscape planter along the
freeway frontage rather than "A" Street. Tall, linear trees are out of scale with the proposed
development. Replacement street trees on "A" Street shall be a City approved street tree
that is more in scale with the proposed development.
3. Provide small windows in all garage doors to allow for HOA inspections.
• 4. A 3-foot setback is permitted from the edge of the private street to the garage door. The Site
Plan should be revised to provide less than 5 feet or greater than 18 feet to discourage
parking in front of garages and obstructing drive aisles.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:30 p.m. Rick Fisher June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003 0001 5- CARNEY-
A request to develop four single-family homes on a .817 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre, located on the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of Diamond Avenue
- APN: 1062-401-05. Related files: DRC2003-00016, DRC2003-00017, and SUBTPM 16038.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16038-CARNEY-
A request to subdivide a .817 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of diamond Avenue -
APN: 1061-401-05. Related files: DRC2003-00015, DRC2003-00016, and DRC2003-00017.
Design Parameters: The one-acre property is long and narrow and will be subdivided into four
parcels ranging in size from 7,246 square feet to 12,358 square feet. The site is surrounded on all
sides bysingle-family homes on an average lot size of 11,000 square feet. Each parcel will contain
a two-story single-family home with three-car garage that will front-on Klusman Avenue. There will
be two floor plans of 2,424 square feet and 2,855 square feet and each will contain a kitchen, living
room, dining room, family room, three bedrooms and three bathrooms. A 6-foot block wall exists
along the west property line and new 6-foot high block walls will be constructed between the homes
and along the street side yard of future Lot 1.
The narrow configuration of the lot has made development of this property difficult. The applicant
• has applied for a Variance to reduce the lot depth from 100 feet to 80 feet, and to allow an average
front yard setback distance of 35 feet instead of the required 37 feet, to accommodate the proposed
"wide-shallow" lot configuration. The small lot depth has also resulted in the need for a Minor
Exception to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet.
The exterior of the homes will be comprised of a brick veneer at the base of the buildings, stucco
and painted Masonite wood on the sides, wood shutters around specific windows, composite roof
tiles designed to simulate wood shake shingles, dual glazed windows, and painted wood railings
surrounding covered front porch areas. The three-car garages will contain roll up doors with
windows.
Klusman Avenue, north of Diamond Avenue is currently about half the width (40 feet) of a local
street and terminates at a 4-foot high block wall located near the mid-point of future Lot 3. A portion
of the street will be extended northward to allow access to future Lot 4. However, the applicant will
not complete the remainder ofthe cul-de-sac bulb because the property to the east is under different
ownership. The owner of this property will be responsible for completing the cul-de-sac bulb when
he develops his property. Access to future Lot 4 will be compromised by this situation as will turn
around ability of cars on Klusman Avenue. The applicant will dedicate 20 feet of his property in
order to make Klusman Avenue comply with the required width of a local street. Instead, a future
street will eventually connect with the terminus of Klusman Avenue and will be constructed by the
developer of the property east of this site.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
•
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00015 AND SUBTPM16038 - CARNEY
June 17, 2003
. Page 2
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. Variance: Applicant has filed a Variance to reduce the lot depth from 100 feet to 80 feet and
to allow an average 35-foot front yard setback rather than the required 37-foot average front
yard setback. Staff believes that the property's narrowness is a unique situation that
warrants consideration of variance.
2. Minor Exception: Applicant has filed a Minor Exception to reduce the rear yard setback from
20 feet to 18 feet. Again, because of the lack of sufficient depth of the existing property,
staff believes warrants consideration of flexibility from the Code standard.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide better 360-degree architecture by carrying more elements from front elevations to
the sides and rear. For example, window shutters, and accent siding.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend
approval, subject to working out the suggestions above with staff, prior to scheduling for the
Planning Commission.
• Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
The Committee recommended approval subject to revising the drawings as listed below prior to
scheduling the project for Planning Commission:
Plan 1: Break up the large living room roof mass on the front elevation with either two
dormers or one larger dormer. Increase the size of the support posts around the front porch
to give them a sturdier appearance. Building materials used on the front elevation should be
used on the sides and rear of the house. Provide more articulation to the building.
2. Plan 2: Enhance the front entrance and porch area so that it becomes the focal point of the
house. This can be achieved by increasing the size of the support columns, enhancing the
gable above the front door, and providing more detailing around the front door. Building
materials used on the front elevation should be used on the sides and rear of the house.
Additional articulation should be provided to the second floor rear elevation, such as a
pop-out.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
•
JUNE 17. 2003
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Respecttully submitted,
•
~// / ~~~
,/ Brad B Iler
Secretary
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY JUNE 17. 2003 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
Dan Coleman
This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant
regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public
testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:00 p.m.
(Doug/Joe) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191-US HOME-Arequestfor design
review of detail site plan and elevations for 38single-family lots (Tract 16370) of
a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master
Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Arbor Lane,
. north of Church Street-APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-0-0192 - US HOMES - A request for
design review of detail site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract
16371) of a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors
Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Victoria
Park Lane north of the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
7:30 p.m
(Rick/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-00101 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of
design elevations and site plan for 117 single-family homes on 37.82 acres of
land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units peracre), located
at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 1100-
011-01, 02, 03, 06 (a portion); 1 100-021, 01, 03, 04; 1100-031-05; 1100-051-01
(a portion); 1100-061-01. Related Files: SUBTT16454, DRC2003-00478,
DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16454-KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES-A requestto subdivide
a 37.82 acre property into 117 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of
development 117 single-family homes in the Low Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road
and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-011-01, 02, 03, 06 (a portion); t 100-021-01,
03, 04; 1100-031-05; 1100-051-01(a portion); 1100-061-01. Related Files:
DRC2003-00101, DRC2003-00478, DRC2003-00102,.DRC2003-00103, and
DRC2003-00482.
• DRC AGENDA
June 17, 2003
Page 2
8:00 p.m.
(Rick/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-00100 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of
design elevations and site plan for 156 multi-family dwelling units on 11.14 acres
of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located
at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound on-ramp of the
I-15 Freeway -APN: 1100-011-04-OS (a portion of O6, 07); 1100-051-01 (a
portion) 02.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16455 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES - A request to subdivide
11.14 acres of property into 5 lettered lots and 1 numbered lot to develop
156 condominiums in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound
I-15 Freeway on-ramp -APN: 1100-011-04, 05 (a portion) 06, 07; 1100-051-01
(portion) 02.
8:30 p.m.
(Rick/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003 00015- CARNEY-A request to develop four single-family homes on
a .817 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre,
located on the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of Diamond Avenue -
APN: 1062-401-05. Related files: DRC2003-00016, DRC2003-00017, and
SUBTPM 16038.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTPM16038 -CARNEY - A request to subdivide a .817 acres of land into
4 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on
the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of diamond Avenue -APN: 1061-401-
05. Related files: DRC2003-00015, DRC2003-00016, and DRC2003-00017.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 12, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Cen er Drive, ancho Cucamonga.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn June 17, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191 - US HOME-A requestfordesignreview ofdetail site
plan and elevations for 38 single-family lots (Tract 16370) of a previously approved tentative tract
15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west
side of Arbor Lane, north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-0-0192 - US HOME - A request for design review of detail
site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract 16371) of a previously approved tentative
tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the
west side of Victoria Park Lane north of the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING AS INSTRUCTED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE FROM JUNE 3, 2003 WITH RECONSTRUCTED CHANGES.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
•
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:30 p.m. Rick Fisher June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00101 -KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of design elevations and site plan for 117 single-family
homes on 37.82 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-011-01, 02,
03, 06 (a portion); 1100-021, 01, 03, 04; 1100-031-05; 1100-051-01 (a portion); 1100-061-01.
Related Files: SUBTT16454, DRC2003-00478, DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and
DRC2003-00482.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16454 - KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES - A request to subdivide a 37.82 acre property into 117 numbered lots
and 1 lettered lot for the purpose of development 117 single-family homes in the Low Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road
and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-011-01, 02, 03, 06 (a portion); 1100-021-01, 03, 04; 1100-031-
05; 1100-051-01(a portion); 1100-061-01. Related Files: DRC2003-00101, DRC2003-00478,
DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
Design Parameters: The density of the project will be 3.09 dwelling units per acre consistent with the
Basic Development Standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, in particular, the 10,000 square foot
minimum average lot area. The lot sizes will range in size from 7,431 square feet to 24,553 square
feet, with an average lot size of 10,074 square feet. Access to the site will be from Emmet W ay, a
new street that will connect south of Base Line Road, and proposed "E" Street, which will connect
• east off Etiwanda Avenue. The site is surrounded by proposed multi family homes and the
I-15 Freeway to the east, vacant land to the south, single-family homes to the west, and single-family
homes to the north across Base Line Road. The homes will be single and two-story and will range
in size from 2,297 square feet to 3,595 square feet. There will be 5 floor plans, plus variations, and
3 different elevations each. The developer is requesting permission to have flexibility in plotting
Floor Plans (the plotting criteria are listed on Detailed Site Plan Sheet D1). The homes on Lots 8, 9,
24, 25, 42, 43, and 62 will have their front entrances facing Etiwanda Avenue with access to the
properties from interior streets. The front yard setbacks for these homes will vary from 32 to 40 feet
from the curb face of Etiwanda Avenue. A 17-foot high sound attenuation wall will be constructed
along the east property line adjacent to I-15 Freeway and a 6-foot decorative block wall with
pilasters will be located on the north property line adjacent to Base Line Road.
The building elevations will be California Ranch, California Bungalow, and Santa Barbara. Each
style will contain three sub designs such as Bungalow, Cottage, and Ranch.
The Tentative Tract Map will create 117 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot. The lettered lot will be a
linear strip of landscaping located south of Base Line Road, north of Lots 1 through 8. All proposed
streets will be public streets improved to Local Street standards. A 6-foot wide pedestrian pathway
easement will connect the proposed tract to Etiwanda Avenue between Lots 8 and 9, 24 and 25,
and 42 and 43.
A Tree Removal Permit has been submitted to remove over 51 linear feet of Eucalyptus windrows
as well as ornamental trees and Palms. These trees will be replaced with the same species on a
1:1 basis.
•
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00101 AND DRCSUBTT16454 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES
June 17, 2003
• Page 2
There is an existing single-family home near the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda
Avenue that is on the City's Historic Preservation list. A Landmark Alteration Permit has been filed
to allow the relocation of this structure to proposed Lot 62. The house will be maintained in its
original state and upgraded with new paint and utilities. The remaining structures on-site will be
demolished.
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:
A minimum of 50 percent of the lots shall have garages that are detached, side-on, or set
behind front part of dwelling as required by Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.42.606. The
developer intends to provide roughly an equal percentage mix of the 5 Floor Plans.
Currently, only 29 lots contain side-on garages and 59 are required. Plan 3192 and
3050 are side entry garages. Plans 3595 and 3347 are front loaded garages. Staff does
believe that the Plan 2297, which features a front loaded garage 3 feet behind the rest of the
house, meets the intent to vary the street scene by minimizing the dominance of the garage
door. Therefore, only 40 percent has been provided.
2. At least 50 percent of homes shall not be plotted parallel to the street as required by
• Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.42.609. This can be accomplished by "skewing" the house
plot.
3. Provide greater front setback variation by staggering the setbacks at least 5 feet. Many of
the homes have been plotted at the 25-foot minimum setback. For example, along "G" Street
20 out of 30 homes are at 25 feet setback. The citywide standard used in the Development
Code is to vary setback 5 feet to get a noticeable difference in street scene.
4. Neigborhood Fencing -Provide solid block walls for permanence, durability and consistent
design, rather than wood fencing between lots. The community has seasonal high winds
that frequently damages wood fencing.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
More details used on Front Elevations should be carried around to Side and Rear Elevation.
Examples include:
a. Cottage Style -Shutters, gabled dormer, arches, keystone, and diamond-shaped
recesses.
b. Bungalow Style -Shutters
c. California Ranch Style -Shutters, window mullion pattern
2. Provide unique exterior lighting fixtures for each style.
• 3. Provide unique front door design for each style.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00101 AND DRCSUBTT16454 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES
June 17, 2003
• Page 3
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Eucalyptus windrow replacement is required by Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the applicant make the changes listed above and
resubmit revised plans for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to scheduling
for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
•
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:00 p.m. Rick Fisher June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00100 - KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES -The review of design elevations and site plan for 156 multi-family
dwelling units on 11.14 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound on-ramp of the
I-15 Freeway-APN: 1100-011-04-OS (a portion of 06, 07); 1100-051-01 (a portion) 02. Related
Files: SUBTPM16455, DRC2003-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16455 - KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES-A request to subdivide 11.14 acres of property into 5 lettered lots and
1 numbered lot to develop 156 condominiums in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units
per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and the southbound I-15 Freeway on-
ramp -APN: 1100-011-04, 05 (a portion) 06, 07; 1100-051-01 (portion) 02. Related Files:
DRC2003-00100, DRC2002-00102, DRC2003-00103, and DRC2003-00482.
Design Parameters: The development will be constructed at 14 dwelling units per acre, which is the
maximum permitted in the Medium Residential zone. Access to the site will be from future "A" Street
and future "G" street. Future "A" street will extend south from Base Line Road. The site is
surrounded by the I-15 Freeway to the east, proposed single-family homes to the south, and existing
single-family homes to the west, and north across Base Line Road. There will be 6 units per
building and the units will range in size from 1,089 square feet to 1,964 square feet. There will be
78 two-bedroom units and 78three-bedroom units. Each unit will contain atwo-car attached garage
• with automatic garage door openers. The units will contain 300 square feet of private open space
for the ground floor and 100 square feet for the balconies. A total of 40 percent of open space is
required and 40 percent has been provided. On-site amenities will include a pool, spa, and
recreation area, a children's tot lot, and three picnic areas. There will be 62 visitor parking spaces
dispersed throughout the project area.
The building elevations will consist of California Bungalow and California Ranch style design, which
is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Bungalow design will contain exposed rafter tails,
brick veneer, wood corbels, prefab shutters, and concrete roof tiles. The Ranch design will contain
wood and stucco siding; wrought iron railings on the second floor balconies, wood corbels, prefab
shutters, and concrete tiles. The project will be buffered from sound from Base Line Road by a
sound wall that will vary in height from 6 to 17 feet. There will be a 17-foot sound wall on the east
property line adjacent to the I-15 Freeway.
The Tract will contain one numbered lot and five lettered lots. The lettered lots are common open
space areas that will be used for the pool and recreation area, tot lot, and picnic areas and
landscape areas. The numbered lot is for the remainder of the site. All interior streets will be
private.
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. Architecture - Provide a different architectural design for some buildings in terms of massing,
articulation, roof form, materials, etc. The project as proposed with 26 identical buildings
has excessive repetition. Color variation is not sufficient to provide desired variety and
interest.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00100 AND DRCSUBTT16455 - KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES
June 17, 2003
• Page 2
2. The 17-foot high sound attenuation wall along the northerly project boundary will be visually
prominent. Developer should pursue vacation of Base Line Road right-of-way, and
acquisition of the small triangular shaped parcel between the old and the new right-of-way, in
order to provide landscaping to soften wall.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
The building elevations should contain more detail to be consistent with the design
standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Specifically attention should focus on greater use
of siding, fieldstone walls and fountains, bay windows, large roof projections, verandas, and
round-headed windows.
2. Sound attenuation walls should match the design, materials, and color of those constructed
north of Base Line Road.
3. The existing Palm trees along Street "A" should be preserved by transplanting into the new
parkway on both sides of the street, subject to arborists' verification of trees health.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the applicant make the changes noted above and
resubmit the project for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to scheduling for
Planning Commission.
• Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:30 p.m. Rick Fisher June 17, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003 0001 5- CARNEY-
A request to develop four single-family homes on a .817 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre, located on the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of Diamond Avenue
-APN: 1062-401-05. Related files: DRC2003-00016, DRC2003-00017, and SUBTPM 16038.
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTENTATIVE PARCELMAPSUBTPM16038-CARNEY-
A request to subdivide a .817 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of diamond Avenue -
APN: 1061-401-05. Related files: DRC2003-00015, DRC2003-00016, and DRC2003-00017.
Design Parameters: The one-acre property is long and narrow and will be subdivided into four
parcels ranging in size from 7,246 square feet to 12,358 square feet. The site is surrounded on all
sides bysingle-family homes on an average lot size of 11,000 square feet. Each parcel will contain
a two-story single-family home with three-car garage that will front-on Klusman Avenue. There will
be two floor plans of 2,424 square feet and 2,855 square feet and each will contain a kitchen, living
room, dining room, family room, three bedrooms and three bathrooms. A 6-foot block wall exists
along the west property line and new 6-foot high block walls will be constructed between the homes
and along the street side yard of future Lot 1.
The narrow configuration of the lot has made development of this property difficult. The applicant
has applied for a Variance to reduce the lot depth from 100 feet to 80 feet, and to allow an average
front yard setback distance of 35 feet instead of the required 37 feet, to accommodate the proposed
"wide-shallow" lot configuration. The small lot depth has also resulted in the need for a Minor
Exception to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet.
The exterior of the homes wilt be comprised of a brick veneer at the base of the buildings, stucco
and painted Masonite wood on the sides, wood shutters around specific windows, composite roof
tiles designed to simulate wood shake shingles, dual glazed windows, and painted wood railings
surrounding covered front porch areas. The three-car garages will contain roll up doors with
windows.
Klusman Avenue, north of Diamond Avenue is currently about half the width (40 feet) of a local
street and terminates at a 4-foot high block wall located near the mid-point of future Lot 3. A portion
of the street will be extended northward to allow access to future Lot 4. However, the applicant will
not complete the remainder ofthe cul-de-sac bulb because the property to the east is under different
ownership. The owner of this property will be responsible for completing the cul-de-sac bulb when
he develops his property. Access to future Lot 4 will be compromised by this situation as will turn
around ability of cars on Klusman Avenue. The applicant will dedicate 20 feet of his property in
order to make Klusman Avenue comply with the required width of a local street. Instead, a future
street will eventually connect with the terminus of Klusman Avenue and will be constructed by the
developer of the property east of this site.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
C~
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00015 AND SUBTPM16038 - CARNEY
June 17, 2003
• Page 2
Maor Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
Variance: Applicant has filed a Variance to reduce the lot depth from 100 feet to 80 feet and
to allow an average 35-foot front yard setback rather than the required 37-foot average front
yard setback. Staff believes that the property's narrowness is a unique situation that
warrants consideration of variance.
2. Minor Exception: Applicant has filed a Minor Exception to reduce the rearyard setback from
20 feet to 18 feet. Again, because of the lack of sufficient depth of the existing property,
staff believes warrants consideration of flexibility from the Code standard.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Provide better 360-degree architecture by carrying more elements from front elevations to
the sides and rear. For example, window shutters, and accent siding.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend
approval, subject to working out the suggestions above with staff, prior to scheduling for the
Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY JUNE 3, 2003 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart
Alternates:
CONSENT CALENDAR
NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
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.
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant
regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public
• testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:00 p.m.
(Debra)
DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00076 - FUSCOE ENGINEERING -
A proposed Wickes Furniture Store of 40,000 square feet on 4.87 acres of land in
the Industrial Park (Subarea 12) District located at the northeast corner of Fourth
Street and Buffalo Avenue. APN: 0229-263-78 and 79.
7:15 p.m.
(Alan)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00188 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for
design review of detail site plan and house product elevations for 48 single family
lots (TR16313) of a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria
Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located at the NEC of Day Creek
Boulevard and Church Street. APN: 227-161-45
(Alan) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00189-STANDARD PACIFIC-A request for
design review of detail site plan and house product elevations for 44 single family
lots (TR16370-1) of a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria
Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located at the NWC of Arbor
Lane and Church Street. APN: 0227-161=47
7:45 p.m.
(Alan) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964 - TOLL BROTHERS - The
• development/design of 79 single-family homes (for Tract 16279) on 57 acres in the
Very Low Residential District (upto2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan, located on the north and south side of realigned Highland Avenue, between
Etiwanda and East Avenues -APN: 0227-051-01, 04, 05, O6, 09, and 28; and
0227-061-05. Related files: SUBTT16279, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323.
• DRC AGENDA
June 3, 2003
Page 2
8:00 p.m
(Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-
00213 -STUDIO 3 ARCHITECTS - A request to develop a 25,000 square foot
Holiday Inn Express on 2.7 acres of land in the Industrial Park zone (Subarea 12)
located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between 4th and 5th Streets -APN:
0229-341-12.
8:20 p.m.
(Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191 - US HOME - A request for design
review of detail site plan and elevations for 38 single-family lots (Tract 16370) of a
previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in
the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Arbor Lane, north of
Church Street -APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-0-0192 - US HOMES -A request for design
review of detail site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract 16371) of a
previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in
the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Victoria Park Lane north of
the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
• PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
. 7:00 p.m. Debra Meier June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00076 - FUSCOE ENGINEERING - A proposed
Wickes Furniture Store of 40,000 square feet on 4.87 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea
12) District located at the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue. APN: 0229-263-78
and 79.
Background: The Committee reviewed this project on April 15, 2003, with recommendations that
modifications be made to address both staff comments and Committee concerns. A copy of the
Action Agenda from the April 15, 2003 Committee meeting is attached for you reference.
No plans have been routed at this time. The applicant will be making a presentation of any project
modifications at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review plans and project
modifications as presented at the meeting, and provided comment and direction as necessary.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
• Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The Committee recommended approval to the Planning Commission with the modified
aluminum-clad steel I-beam entry elements, and the modified color palette as presented by the
applicant. The Committee did recommend; however, that the steel frame arch feature on the north
elevation should be emboldened to better reflect the proportions of the entry features used on the
other elevations.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:15 p.m. Alan Warren June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00188- STANDARD PACIFIC-A requestfordesign review of
detail site pfah and house product elevations for 48 single-family lots (TR16313) of a previously
approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan
located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street -APN: 227-161-45
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00189 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for design review of
detail site plan and house product elevations for 44 single-family lots (TR16370-1) of a previously
approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan
located at the northwest corner of Arbor Lane and Church Street -APN: 0227-161-47.
Design Parameters: This section should be used to explain the site context and those major issues
or constraints; which affect the project's design.
The sites are subject to the regulations of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan (as amended). The site
has been rough graded and some retaining walls constructed as part of the area's master
subdivision approvals. The applicant is proposing two develop the two tracts with the same house
products. Vacant land is to the north and east of the tracts are planned for single-family
neighborhoods. The planned extensions of Church Street to the south and Day Creek Boulevardto
the west also border the site. A neighborhood trail system is planned between the site and the
planned residential developments to the north.
• The combined proposals for the two tracts include 3 floor plans each with 3 architectural variations
of the Bungalow, French, and Italian styles. The Floor Plans vary in size from 2,918, 3,206 and
3,341 square feet. The homes will also include porches (plus second-story porch-deck on Plan 3),
and side-on garages.
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 Victoria Arbors Master Plan encourages expansion of architectural features significantly
more than other previous City planning documents. In this regard, staff believes more of the
features presented on the front elevations need to be carried around to the sides and rear of
each floor plan and style. Examples include:
a. Decorative ironwork and pot shelves of the Italian style (front elevations) should be
included on the rear elevations of each Floor Plan. Additional features should be
provided on the following plans/elevations:
1. Plan 1 additional shutters on the right and rear elevations.
2. Plan 2 additional shutters on the right, left, and rear elevations.
3. Plan 3 additional shutters on the left elevation.
•
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00188 AND DRC2003-00189-STANDARD PACIFIC
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
Decorative pot shelves and multi-pane windows on the French style (front elevation)
should be included on the rear elevations of each Floor Plan. Additional feature
should be provided on the following plans/elevations:
1. Plan 1 additional shutters on the right and left elevations.
2. Plan 2 additional shutters on the right, left, and rear elevations, and brick
veneer along the full sidewal of each garage.
3. Plan 3 additional shutters on the left elevation.
c. The side elevations of the Bungalow style need enhancement. The stucco trim
provided on the bottom edge of Plan 3's second-story deck should be considered for
inclusion, in selective locations, on the sides and rear of all three plans.
d. On all three styles of Plan 2, to further define the patio areas, "bridging" architectural
features between the front rooflines of the two garages. Suggestions include the
following:
Italian -metal (same as metal accent) trellis.
French -wood accent post and beam (same on partial side courtyard).
Bungalow -wood trellis.
• 2. Lot Coverage -Some lots are essentially built to the minimum setbacks, leaving small rear
yard areas of 15 feet. Although a 15-toot setback is allowed, there are extreme examples
(i.e., Lots 10, 38, 46, 76, 79, and 82) that staff believe are overbuilding these small lots.
3. Roofing -Victoria Arbors Master Plan states, "steeper pitched roofs are encouraged
(depending on the chosen architectural style)". The homes all have a standard 4:12 or
5:12 roof pitch typical of suburban housing tracts. The proposed French Country's 5:12 roof
pitch, should be revised to a very steep 15:12 roof pitch that is typical of French style
architecture as pictured in Master Plan.
Front Setbacks -Stagger front setbacks to give streetscape variety and interest. Forty out
of ninety-two homes (43 percent) have been plotted with a 15-17-foot setback. The project
should meet or exceed the citywide standard expressed in the Development Code to vary
front setback +/- 5 feet. There are several locations where 4 or 5 homes in a row all have a
15-foot setback.
Porches -Redesign Plan 2 to locate at "front of house as close as practicable to the
sidewalk" as required by Victoria Arbors Master Plan to provide a "conversational distance"
to allow "persons to sit on their porch and interact and socialize with their neighbors." Plan 2
features aside-entry garage at front of house; hence, porch is tucked completely behind
garage. Although the Master Plan allows substituting a porch with "an outdoor courtyard or
patio with trellis or arbor that has the same relationship to streeUsidewalk as a porch" the
courtyard proposed on Plan 2 is also wedged between the two garages, has no trellis, and is
no closer than 25 feet to street. Another solution could be to introduce a second floor
balcony above one of the Plan 2 garages in close proximity to the streeUsidewalk as was
• previously approved for US Homes.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00188 AND DRC2003-00189 -STANDARD PACIFIC
June 3, 2003
• Page 3
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The Italian elevations (of each Floor Plan), while generally true to what one expects of that
style, exhibits the least color/shade differentiation due to lack of stone/brick veneer. Staff
suggests that having a subtle color/shade change at the wainscot can provide sufficient
change and interest.
2. Perimeter tract wall designs have been approved along Day Creek Boulevard, Church
Street, and Arbor Lane. All three display differing uses of material. Appropriate designs
should be provided where the differing style meet at the 45 degree corner intersections (Day
Creek Boulevard/Church Street and Church StreeUArbor Lane).
3. Wood Production Fencing -Some interior side/rear yard fencing should be changed to a
different material. Victoria Arbors Master Plan states: "wooden fences should be avoided
because of poor weathering qualities and susceptibility to strong winds, wood fences can
only be used between homes in conditions where they cannot be seen from any public
road." Where wood fencing is on slopes, or at top of slopes, it may be visible to the public.
4. W hen a retaining wall exists in the rear of the property to assist with the 15-foot useable
areas, steps should be provided to allow access to maintain the slope.
• Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Provide minimum 5-foot landscape planter between corner side yard wall/fence and
sidewalk. See Lot 39 on Conceptual Landscape Plan.
2. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
3. All cultured stone or similar like rock or stone should be a natural material (not
manufactured).
4. Provide architectural treatment to all elevations (i.e., 360 degree architecture).
5. Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots or across the street
from one another.
6. Use plants to define outdoor spaces such as street edge or movement paths between
parking and dwelling units.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further
consideration.
Design Review Committee Action:
• Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00188 AND DRC2003-00189 -STANDARD PACIFIC
June 3, 2003
• Page 4
The project was recommended for approval subject to all policy issues, Secondary Issues 1, 2, and
4, and the following:
1. The revised elevation treatments, as presented at the meeting, are acceptable with the
following amendments:
a. Stone veneers shall be included on all chimneys that side on to a street. This
stipulation applies to 14 lots in the two tracts.
b. Decorative iron treatment on the Italian schemes shall extend from the wall plain by
12-18 inches.
c. Decorative coach lights maybe relocated on the front elevations where they function
best to illuminate walkways, entries, etc.
2. Masonry walls (precision block with caps) shall be provided on all interior property lines.
Decorative block walls shall be provided on all perimeter tract, street side yard, and front
return walls.
3. The house plottings shall be adjusted to increase the amount of stagger of the front
setbacks as mentioned in Major Issue No. 3.
n
f`J
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:45 p.m. Alan Warren June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS -The developmenUdesign of
79 single-family homes (for Tract 16279) on 57 acres in the Very Low Residential District (up to
2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north and south side of
realigned Highland Avenue, between Etiwanda and East Avenues-APN: 0227-051-01, 04, 05, 06,
09, and 28; and 0227-061-05. Related files: SUBTT16279, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323.
This item was continued from the May 6, 2003 Design Review Committee meeting. Atthattime, the
Committee requested that the following items be brought back for its review:
Examples of "skewing" the Floor Plan footprints to satisfy the Etiwanda Specific Plan
requirements.
A W all and Fence Plan shall be submitted that incorporates varying levels of design to meet
different areas of significance.
3. Architectural treatment changes to the Catalina Plan.
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:
"Skewing" of Footprints -The Committee requested to see examples of how the houses
could be turned at an angle along street frontages to comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan
requirement of at least 50 percent of dwellings to not be plotted parallel with street. An
exhibit has been provided that shows an example for each model type along Norcia Drive.
From this example it appears that 50 percent skewing of the footprints throughout the tract is
possible and should be a requirement.
In order to provide greater flexibility in satisfying the requirement for skewing 50 percent of
the house plans, the applicant is requesting to replace the Silverado Plan from the previous
meeting with a narrower Carlsbad Floor Plan; however, a skewing example is not provided
based upon the Carlsbad Plan. This Plan will be provided in five of the six architectural
styles. Staff recommends the following amendments to the Carlsbad varieties:
a. Wrap the second story wood siding and 2X wood trim (#15 of sheet 9.11) of the
Craftsman front elevation around to and extension of the beginning of the gable of the
right side elevation.
b. Extend portions of the "2X trim with stucco over"(#5 of sheet 9.3) between the first and
second floor levels on the right and left elevations of the Mission style. Also, provide a
slightly darker color shade for the wainscot portion of the house walls.
c. Extend portions of the "precast concrete trim"(#26 of sheet 9.4) between the first and
second floor levels on the right and left elevations of the Manor style.
• d. Provide addition shutters to the right elevation of the Federal style.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2002-00964-TOLL BROTHERS
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
2. Wall and Fence Plan -The revised Plan calls for the following:
a. Major theme wall along Highland Avenue -The theme wall (B), 6 feet in height,
constructed primarily of gray slump stone with a tan slump stone accent line just below
the top course. Pilasters should be 16-inch block veneered with fieldstones expanding
the pilasters to 24-inch width. Both the pilasters and wall are topped with decorative
masonry caps. Staff believes this is an appropriate design for an enhanced entry
statement into the tract along Highland Avenue. The slump stonewalls along the
Victoria Highland Avenue frontage exhibit a white sack finish. The Committee may
wish to consider incorporating some of that finish (alternating sections of gray with
white sack finish) along the Highland Avenue walls. Also, Lots 15, 16, 23, 24, and 73
should have decorative 10-foot wide gates directly to the Highland Avenue community
trail.
b. Freeway sound wall -The Plan does not show the required sound wall along the north
tract boundary; however, the developer has agreed to match Caltrans sound walls.
c. Perimeter tract wrought iron fence along the south side of Carnesi Drive to avoid
conflicts with existing trees on church property -The Plan shows wrought iron fence
near tree trunks and block wall everywhere else.
d. Side streets and return walls -All other walls (A) are to be the same as (B) with the
• exception that the 16-inch pilasters will not be veneered with stone. The tan accent
line is continued through the pilaster. This wall is to be used along the tract perimeter,
side streets, and return walls. Staff recommends that the first pilaster off Etiwanda
Avenue for the Carnesi Drive wall have stone veneer to match those of wall B along
the west property line of Lot 1.
e. Interior tract perimeter walls - 6-foot block walls proposed.
f. Interior property line walls - A special detail has been included to shown how the
perimeter walls shall be modified to accommodate property line trees that are intended
to remain along the tract boundaries. At these situations, the block wall will stop at the
tree's drip lines and the gap will be bridged by the tubular steel fencing (C) used on the
private trail easement.
g. Trail Fencing -Tubular steel fencing with gray slump stone pilasters (C) proposed on
the private trail easements. A 10-foot gate should be provided to the rear of each lot
for corral access.
h. The Wall Plan identifies a 16-inch column cap atop the 24-inch stone veneer
column/pilaster. The column cap should be 24 inches square atop the 24-inch
column/pilaster.
3. Catalina plan -The revised front elevation treatments (wood siding and rock veneer) have
been wrapped around to the end of the right elevation as requested by the Committee.
•
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS _
June 3, 2003
Page 3
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the
recommendations contained in this and May 6, 2003 Design Review Committee comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
The project was recommended for approval subject to the revised plans presented at the meeting
and to the items listed in the Committee Action of May 6, 2003, the applicable staff comments of
June 2, 3003, and as follows:
The Wall Plan is approved as submitted. The tan course of slump block is not required on
the walls. All gray slump block is acceptable, with pilasters, as proposed.
2. Masonry walls shall be provided on all interior property lines as well as the perimeter and
side yard walls depicted on the Wall Plan.
3. The 50 percent of the houses with the entire tract shall be "skewed" in a manner depicted on
the house-plotting exhibit proposed by the applicant. The house plotting shall also exhibit a
staggered front setback of up to 10 feet along a majority of the street frontages.
• 4. The Carlsbad Floor Plan is approved as a replacement for the Silverado Floor Plan.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Doug Fenn June 3, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00213 -STUDIO 3
ARCHITECTS - A request to develop a 25,000 square foot Holiday Inn Express on 2.7 acres of land
in the Industrial Park zone (Subarea 12) located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between 4th
and 5th Streets - APN: 0229-341-12.
Design Parameters: The project is an infill project within the Bixby Business Park Master Plan. The
proposed project is a three-story 93 units guest room Holiday Inn Express hotel with a covered port-
cochere entry with 97 parking stalls. The building is richly designed with a colonial theme with
Flemish brick arches and soldier brick base on the brick veneer of the building. Green colored
mullions and decorative metal base are at the bottom of exterior windows. The proposed project
requires amending the existing Master Plan Design Guidelines of the Bixby Business Park to allow
this style of architecture. The Bixby Business Park was designed for industrial buildings and did not
anticipate hotel buildings.
The project will share access driveway to Milliken Avenue at both the north and south ends of the
property.
Staff Comments:
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
• 1. None -The applicant has diligently worked with staff and has addressed all of staff's primary
and secondary issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide decorative pavement within drive entry throats (outside public right-of-way).
2. Extend decorative scored concrete pavement from Porte-cochere across drive aisle to
connect with Milliken Avenue sidewalk.
3. Streetscape tree species should maintain consistency with Bixby Business Park.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project as proposed.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee approved the project as submitted.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:20 p.m. Doug Fenn June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191 - US HOME -A request for design review of detail site
plan and elevations for 38 single-family lots (Tract 16370) of a previously approved tentative tract
15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west
side of Arbor Lane, north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-0-0192 - US HOME - A request for design review of detail
site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract 16371) of a previously approved tentative
tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the
west side of Victoria Park Lane north of the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
Background: These are both part of the master Tentative Tract Map No. 15974 approved by the
Planning Commission for Victoria Arbors; however, DRC2003-00192 includes an acre parcel that
was not part of the original Tentative Tract (see Exhibit "A" attached). Staff encouraged the
developer to acquire this "not-a-part" parcel. The tract layout has been revised to incorporate this
parcel; therefore, a revised Tentative Tract Map must be approved by the Commission concurrent
with or prior to approval of DRC2003-000192.
Design Parameters: The site is subject to the regulations of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan (as
amended. The site has been graded and retaining walls constructed. The applicant is proposing a
single phased development. The site adjoins the Joseph Filippi W finery. The property has also been
graded in preparation for single-family homes.
• The will include 3 floor plans each with 3 or 4 elevation treatments. The square footage of the
homes varies in size from 3,700 to 4,109 square feet. The 4 architectural styles proposed include
,French, Italian Villa, Tuscan W fine Country, and Craftsman. The homes will also include porches on
corner lots, side-on garages, and additional enhanced architecture on elevations, which back and
side on Victoria Park Lane
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:
Architectural Detail -All of the proposed elevations (French, Italian Villa, Tuscan Wine
Country, Craftsman) for each plan are suitable for typical single-family development;
however, are not of the level of quality envisioned by the Victoria Arbors Master Plan. The
buildings do not "include enough materials, elements, and details to reflect the character of
the style," particularly on sides and rear. The level of detail is typical of other tracts in the City
and does not meet the intent of setting Victoria Arbors apart as "a very special place" in
Rancho Cucamonga. It is important that all parts of this village, including residential
neighborhoods, reflect an overall design theme and project the unique identity of Victoria
Arbors. Refer to Chapter 7, pages 2-5.
2. Porch/Balcony Location -Redesign Plan 2 to relocate at "front of house as close as
practicable to the sidewalk" as required by Victoria Arbors Master Plan to provide a
"conversational distance" to allow "persons to site on their porch and interact and socialize
• with their neighbors." Plan 2 features a side-entry garage at front of house; hence,
porch/balcony are typically 40 feet from public sidewalk.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00191 & DRC2003-00192 - US HOME
June 3, 2003
Page 2
3. Usable Rear Yard -Eighteen of the lots have 15-foot or less setback to the property line or
toe of slope. In the most extreme case, Tract 16371, Lot 52 has as little as 2 feet. The
Master Plan and Development Code both require a minimum 15-foot flat usable rear yard
area.
Tract Lots with 15 feet or less Lots with 10 feet or less
16371 25, 29, 51, 52, 54 52
16370 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 20, 21, 33, 34 1, 8, 21
4. Privacy -There are two areas within Tract 16371 (Lots 22-24, 29 and 47-50) where narrow
side yard abuts rear yard because of 2-story homes with 5-foot setback overlooking
backyard. Lots 47-50 should be revised back to their original layout (see attached Exhibit
"A"), or a PIan1 (1-story) plotted on Lot 47, to eliminate problem. Lots 22-24, 29 should
provide significant landscape buffer (i.e., dense evergreen trees) for privacy,
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Porches -Provide minimum depth of at least 8 feet as required by Master Plan. Plans 1
and3 do not comply. The width of porches on Plan 1 and 2 is typical of most tracts and
should be enlarged, possibly by wrapping around side of house (see #2 below).
• 2. Provide wrap-around porches, especially on corner lots. The Victoria Arbors Master Plan
states that when possible, the porch shall wrap around the side of the building (note: an
open porch may intrude into the larger side setback). The wrap around porch maybe less
than 6 feet in depth).
3. Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows as a standard
feature include in sales price of home (not optional).
4. When a retaining wall exists in the rear of the property to assist with the 15-foot useable
areas, steps should be provided to allow access to maintain the slope.
5. Chimneys should reflect stronger architectural, detail, including brick, stone, or siding as
shown in the adopted architectural guidelines for Arbors.
6. Rear treatment of balconies, verandas and/or wrought iron balustrades needs to be used for
all of the plans.
7. Plan 3 -Porte-Cochere over driveway should be increased in depth (area covered).
8. Provide decorative paving/treatment on driveways. To enhance streetscape, decorative
paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract.
9. Replace wood gates in side yard return fence with more durable material, such as decorative
metal.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
• incorporated into the project design without discussion:
All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00191 & DRC2003-00192 - US HOME
June 3, 2003
• Page 3
2. All cultured stone or similar like rock or stone should be a natural material (not
manufactured).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and return for additional
review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
Bring back with recommended changes from Design Review Committee.
•
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
•
•
JUNE 3, 2003
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ad Bulls
Secretary
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY JUNE 3, 2003 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart
Alternates:
CONSENT CALENDAR
NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
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.
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant
.regarding their developmen4 application. The following items do not legally require any public
• testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:00 p.m.
(Debra)
DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00076- FUSCOE ENGINEERING -
A proposed Wickes Furniture Store of 40,000 square feet on 4.87 acres of land in
the Industrial Park (Subarea 12) District located at the northeast corner of Fourth
Street and Buffalo Avenue. APN: 0229-263-78 and 79.
7:15 p.m.
(Alan)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00188 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for
design review of detail site plan and house product elevations for 48 single family
lots (TR16313) of a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria
Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located at the NEC of Day Creek
Boulevard and Church Street. APN: 227-161-45
(Alan) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00189-STANDARD PACIFIC-A request for
design review of detail site plan and house product elevations for 44 single family
lots (TR16370-1) of a previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria
Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located at the NWC of Arbor
Lane and Church Street. APN: 0227-161-47
7:45 p.m.
(Alan) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964 - TOLL BROTHERS - The
developmenUdesign of 79 single-family homes (for Tract 16279) on 57 acres in the
Very Low Residential District (upto2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan, located on the north and south side of realigned Highland Avenue, between
Etiwanda and East Avenues -APN: 0227-051-01, 04, 05, 06, 09, and 28; and
0227-061-05. Related files: SUBTT16279, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323.
• DRC AGENDA
June 3, 2003
Page 2
8:00 p.m
(Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-
00213 -STUDIO 3 ARCHITECTS - A request to develop a 25,000 square foot
Holiday Inn Express on 2.7 acres of land in the Industrial Park zone (Subarea 12)
located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between 4th and 5th Streets -APN:
0229-341-12.
8:20 p.m
(Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191 - US HOME - A request for design
review of detail site plan and elevations for 38 single-family lots (Tract 16370) of a
previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in
the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Arbor Lane, north of
Church Street -APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-0-0192 - US HOMES -A request for design
review of detail site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract 16371) of a
previously approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in
the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Victoria Park Lane north of
the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
• 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
I, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 29, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic enter ve, Rancho Cucamonga.
~-~ ,~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Debra Meier June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00076 - FUSCOE ENGINEERING - A proposed
Wickes Furniture Store of 40,000 square feet on 4.87 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea
12) District located at the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue. APN: 0229-263-78
and 79.
Background: The Committee reviewed this project on April 15, 2003, with recommendations that
modifications be made to address both staff comments and Committee concerns. A copy of the
Action Agenda from the April 15, 2003 Committee meeting is attached for you reference.
No plans have been routed at this time. The applicant will be making a presentation of any project
modifications at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review plans and project
modifications as presented at the meeting, and provided comment and direction as necessary.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
• Staff Planner: Debra Meier
C~
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS •
( 7:50 p.m. Debra Meier April 15, 2003
• DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00076 - FUSCOE ENGINEERING - A proposed
Wickes Fumiture Store of 40,000 square feet on 4.87 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea
12) District located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Buffalo Avenue. APN: 0229-263-78
and 79.
Design Parameters: The proposed Wickes Furniture store is proposed at the northeast corner of
4th Street and Buffalo Avenue, on the parcels that were remnants of the COSTCO development. All
of the perimeter landscaping and street improvements have previously been completed. The
applicant proposes a 40,000 square foot store and associated parking on two existing parcels of
land totaling 4.87 acres.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
1. Building Elevations:
a)' Rioht Side Elevation (north): Extend the storefront glass approximately 32 additional
feet toward the west. This will enhance the most visible portion of the elevation as
viewed from the driveway and north parking lot.
b) Right Side Elevation (north): Identify the 6-foot screen wall that is proposed along the
northern portion of the service and loading area.
. c) Rear Elevation (West): Extend the storefront glass on either side of the faux entry in a
similar floor-to-ceiling fashion as used on the other elevations.
2. Conceptual Landscape Plan:
a) Replace sidewalk along South Elevation with landscaping. There are no building
entrances on that elevation.
b) The "island° at the northeast corner of the building should be landscaped.
c) The handicapped parking area should be decorative hardscape as was used in front of
COSTCO; in addition, the walkway along the front of the building shall be decorative
hardscape to match that which was established by COSTCO.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee discuss and resolve the items
noted above with the applicant prior to being forvvarded for Planning Commission consideration.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNeil and Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The applicant concurred with the revisions as suggested by staff, with the exception of Item 1.a.
The suggestion to incorporate additional glass at the northeast building corner conflicted with the
• objectives of the interior design in that portion of the building; at this corner full height interior walls
are preferred. The Committee and the applicant discussed various alternatives that the applicant
might explore, such as using spandrel glass, or incorporating a mural on the exterior building wall.
The applicant was directed to work with staff in developing a solution.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00076 - i=USCOE ENGINEERING
• April 15, 2003
Page 2
Committee member McNeil also expressed his reservations pertaining to the main entrys welded
steel tube "space frame" construction technique as proposed at the store entry. The applicant
indicated this store corporate design is based on their Rooms To Go furniture stores in the eastern
and southern United States. Some alternatives were discussed, included incorporating awood-
beam design (similar to the Cinema in Terra Vista Town Center). The applicant was given the
option to provide photographs of the existing structures, which feature this design, to illustrate the
technique to the Committee, prior to recommending any modifications.
The final design shall be reviewed by the Committee as a consent calendar item; this could be
accomplished on May 6, 2003 if the applicant can respond in that time frame.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:15 p.m. Alan Warren June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00188 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for design review of
detail site plan and house product elevations for 48 single-family lots (TR16313) of a previously
approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan
located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street -APN: 227-161-45
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00189 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A requestfor design review of
detail site plan and house product elevations for 44 single-family lots (TR16370-1) of a previously
approved tentative tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan
located at the northwest corner of Arbor Lane and Church Street -APN: 0227-161-47.
Design Parameters: This section should be used to explain the site context and those major issues
or constraints, which affect the project's design.
The sites are subject to the regulations of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan (as amended). The site
has been rough graded and some retaining walls constructed as part of the area's master
subdivision approvals. The applicant is proposing two develop the two tracts with the same house
products. Vacant land is to the north and east of the tracts are planned for single-family
neighborhoods. The planned extensions of Church Street to the south and Day Creek Boulevardto
the west also border the site. A neighborhood trail system is planned between the site and the
planned residential developments to the north.
• The combined proposals for the two tracts include 3 floor plans each with 3 architectural variations
of the Bungalow, French, and Italian styles. The Floor Plans vary in size from 2,918, 3,206 and
3,341 square feet. The homes will also include porches (plus second-story porch-deck on Plan 3),
and side-on garages.
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 Victoria Arbors Master Plan encourages expansion of architectural features significantly
more than other previous City planning documents. In this regard, staff believes more of the
features presented on the front elevations need to be carried around to the sides and rear of
each floor plan and style. Examples include:
a. Decorative ironwork and pot shelves of the Italian style (front elevations) should be
included on the rear elevations of each Floor Plan. Additional features should be
provided on the following plans/elevations:
1. Plan 1 additional shutters on the right and rear elevations.
2. Plan 2 additional shutters on the right, left, and rear elevations.
3. Plan 3 additional shutters on the left elevation.
U
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00188 AND DRC2003-00189 -STANDARD PACIFIC
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
b. Decorative pot shelves and multi-pane windows on the French style (front elevation)
should be included on the rear elevations of each Floor Plan. Additional feature
should be provided on the following plans/elevations:
1. Plan 1 additional shutters on the right and left elevations.
2. Plan 2 additional shutters on the right, left, and rear elevations, and brick
veneer along the full sidewall of each garage.
3. Plan 3 additional shutters on the left elevation.
c. The side elevations of the Bungalow style need enhancement. The stucco trim
provided on the bottom edge of Plan 3's second-story deck should be considered for
inclusion, in selective locations, on the sides and rear of all three plans.
d. On all three styles of Plan 2, to further define the patio areas, "bridging" architectural
features between the front rooflines of the two garages. Suggestions include the
following:
Italian -metal (same as metal accent) trellis.
French -wood accent post and beam (same on partial side courtyard).
Bungalow-wood trellis.
• 2. Lot Coverage -Some lots are essentially built to the minimum setbacks, leaving small rear
yard areas of 15 feet. Although a 15-foot setback is allowed, there are extreme examples
(i.e., Lots 10, 38, 46, 76, 79, and 82) that staff believe are overbuilding these small lots.
3. Roofing -Victoria Arbors Master Plan states, "steeper pitched roofs are encouraged
(depending on the chosen architectural style)". The homes all have a standard 4:12 or
5:12 roof pitch typical of suburban housing tracts. The proposed French Country's 5:12 roof
pitch should be revised to a very steep 15:12 roof pitch that is typical of French style
architecture as pictured in Master Plan.
Front Setbacks -Stagger front setbacks to give streetscape variety and interest. Forty out
of ninety-two homes (43 percent) have been plotted with a 15-17-foot setback. The project
should meet or exceed the citywide standard expressed in the Development Code to vary
front setback +/- 5 feet. There are several locations where 4 or 5 homes in a row all have a
15-foot setback.
Porches -Redesign Plan 2 to locate at "front of house as close as practicable to the
sidewalk" as required by Victoria Arbors Master Plan to provide a "conversational distance"
to allow "persons to sit on their porch and interact and socialize with their neighbors." Plan 2
features aside-entry garage at front of house; hence, porch is tucked completely behind
garage. Although the Master Plan allows substituting a porch with "an outdoor courtyard or
patio with trellis or arbor that has the same relationship to streeUsidewalk as a porch" the
courtyard proposed on Plan 2 is also wedged between the two garages, has no trellis, and is
no closer than 25 feet to street. Another solution could be to introduce a second floor
balcony above one of the Plan 2 garages in close proximity to the streeUsidewalk as was
• previously approved for US Homes
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00188 AND DRC2003-00189 -STANDARD PACIFIC
June 3, 2003
• Page 3
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
The Italian elevations (of each Floor Plan), while generally true to what one expects of that
style, exhibits the least color/shade differentiation due to lack of stone/brick veneer. Staff
suggests that having a subtle color/shade change at the wainscot can provide sufficient
change and interest.
2. Perimeter tract wall designs have been approved along Day Creek Boulevard, Church
Street, and Arbor Lane. All three display differing uses of material. Appropriate designs
should be provided where the differing style meet at the 45 degree corner intersections (Day
Creek Boulevard/Church Street and Church StreeUArbor Lane).
3. Wood Production Fencing -Some interior side/rear yard fencing should be changed to a
different material. Victoria Arbors Master Plan states: "wooden fences should be avoided
because of poor weathering qualities and susceptibility to strong winds, wood fences can
only be used between homes in conditions where they cannot be seen from any public
road." Where wood fencing is on slopes, or at top of slopes, it may be visible to the public.
4. W hen a retaining wall exists in the rear of the property to assist with the 15-foot useable
areas, steps should be provided to allow access to maintain the slope.
• Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Provide minimum 5-foot landscape planter between corner side yard wall/fence and
sidewalk. See Lot 39 on Conceptual Landscape Plan.
2. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
3. All cultured stone or similar like rock or stone should be a natural material (not
manufactured).
4. Provide architectural treatment to all elevations (i.e., 360 degree architecture).
5. Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots or across the street
from one another.
6. Use plants to define outdoor spaces such as street edge or movement paths between
parking and dwelling units.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further
consideration.
Design Review Committee Action:
• Members Present:
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:45 p.m. Alan Warren June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS -The developmenUdesign of
79 single-family homes (for Tract 16279) on 57 acres in the Very Low Residential District (up to
2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north and south side of
realigned Highland Avenue, between Etiwanda and East Avenues-APN: 0227-051-01, 04, 05, 06,
09, and 28; and 0227-061-05. Related files: SUBTT16279, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323.
This item was continued from the May 6, 2003 Design Review Committee meeting. At that time, the
Committee requested that the following items be brought back for its review:
Examples of "skewing" the Floor Plan footprints to satisfy the Etiwanda Specific Plan
requirements.
A W all and Fence Plan shall be submitted that incorporates varying levels of design to meet
different areas of significance.
3. Architectural treatment changes to the Catalina Plan.
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:
"Skewing" of Footprints -The Committee requested to see examples of how the houses
could be turned at an angle along street frontages to comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan
requirement of at least 50 percent of dwellings to not be plotted parallel with street. An
exhibit has been provided that shows an example for each model type along Norcia Drive.
From this example it appears that 50 percent skewing of the footprints throughout the tract is
possible and should be a requirement.
In order to provide greater flexibility in satisfying the requirement for skewing 50 percent of
the house plans, the applicant is requesting to replace the Silverado Plan from the previous
meeting with a narrower Carlsbad Floor Plan; however, a skewing example is not provided
based upon the Carlsbad Plan. This Plan will be provided in five of the six architectural
styles. Staff recommends the following amendments to the Carlsbad varieties:
a. Wrap the second story wood siding and 2X wood trim (#15 of sheet 9.11) of the
Craftsman front elevation around to and extension of the beginning of the gable of the
right side elevation.
b. Extend portions of the "2X trim with stucco over"(#5 of sheet 9.3) between the first and
second floor levels on the right and left elevations of the Mission style. Also, provide a
slightly darker color shade for the wainscot portion of the house walls.
c. Extend portions of the "precast concrete trim"(#26 of sheet 9.4) between the first and
• second floor levels on the right and left elevations of the Manor style.
d. Provide addition shutters to the right elevation of the Federal style.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS
June 3, 2003
Page 2
2. Wall and Fence Plan -The revised Plan calls for the following:
a. Major theme wall along Highland Avenue -The theme wall (B), 6 feet in height,
constructed primarily of gray slump stone with a tan slump stone accent line just below
the top course. Pilasters should be 16-inch block veneered with fieldstones expanding
the pilasters to 24-inch width. Both the pilasters and wall are topped with decorative
masonry caps. Staff believes this is an appropriate design for an enhanced entry
statement into the tract along Highland Avenue. The slump stonewalls along the
Victoria Highland Avenue frontage exhibit a white sack finish. The Committee may
wish to consider incorporating some of that finish (alternating sections of gray with
white sack finish) along the Highland Avenue walls. Also, Lots 15, 16, 23, 24, and 73
should have decorative 10-foot wide gates directly to the Highland Avenue community
trail.
b. Freeway sound wall -The Plan does not show the required sound wall along the north
tract boundary; however, the developer has agreed to match Caltrans sound walls.
c. Perimeter tract wrought iron fence along the south side of Carnesi Drive to avoid
conflicts with existing trees on church property -The Plan shows wrought iron fence
near tree trunks and block wall everywhere else.
d. Side streets and return walls -All other walls (A) are to be the same as (B) with the
• exception that the 16-inch pilasters will not be veneered with stone. The tan accent
line is continued through the pilaster. This wall is to be used along the tract perimeter,
side streets, and return walls. Staff recommends that the first pilaster off Etiwanda
Avenue for the Carnesi Drive wall have stone veneer to match those of wall B along
the west property line of Lot 1.
e. Interior tract perimeter walls - 6-foot block walls proposed.
Interior property line walls - A special detail has been included to shown how the
perimeter walls shall be modified to accommodate property line trees that are intended
to remain along the tract boundaries. At these situations, the block wall will stop at the
tree's drip lines and the gap will be bridged by the tubular steel fencing (C) used on the
private trail easement.
Trail Fencing -Tubular steel fencing with gray slump stone pilasters (C) proposed on
the private trail easements. A 10-foot gate should be provided to the rear of each lot
for corral access.
The Wall Plan identifies a 16-inch column cap atop the 24-inch stone veneer
column/pilaster. The column cap should be 24 inches square atop the 24-inch
column/pilaster.
3. Catalina plan -The revised front elevation treatments (wood siding and rock veneer) have
been wrapped around to the end of the right elevation as requested by the Committee.
•
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS
June 3, 2003
• Page 3
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the
recommendations contained in this and May 6, 2003 Design Review Committee comments.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
•
L~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:30 p.m. Alan Warren May 6, 2003
•~
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964-TOLL BROTHERS -The development design review
of 79 single-family homes (Tract 16279) on 57 acres in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2
dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north and south side of
realigned Highland Avenue, between Etiwanda and East Avenues-APN: 0227-051-01, 04, 05, 06,
09, and 28; and APN: - 0227-061-05. Related files: SUBTT16279, Tree Removal Permit
DRC2001-00323.
Design Parameters: The site is located in Etiwanda just south of the 210 Freeway and is bisected
by Highland Avenue, as it turns southerly just east of Etiwanda Avenue. In June of last year
Tentative Tract 16279 was approved to subdivide the site into 79 single-family lots. Anew
developer, Toll Brothers, has acquired the subdivision and has submitted eight floor plans, each with
five different architectural styles, for consideration by the City. Conceptual Grading Plans and a
Tree Removal Permit were approved with the Tentative Tract. Staff's review has applied Etiwanda
Specific Plan policies.
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. Architectural Style: The Etiwanda Specific Plan, Basic Development Standards, does not
• ;; establish any specific architectural style; however, encourages elements of traditional styles
found in Etiwanda, such as the following:
- Traditional materials
- Building masses broken into smaller components
- Verandas/porches
- Dormers/cupolas
- Variety in rooflines; large roof projections
- Garages de-emphasized (side-on, detached)
- Bay windows
- Field stone foundations or veneers
- Prominent chimneys.
Of the five styles proposed for this project the Craftsman and New England styles exhibit
elements appropriate with the character promoted in the Specific Plan. The Mission style,
while not necessarily be in keeping with the character of historic Etiwanda, is one that can be
considered part of the early Southern California landscape. The characteristics of the
Federal and Manor styles are more reminisce of east coast period architecture.
Staff feels that the mix of style is appropriate to provide the neighborhood a varied character.
That being said, it is recommended that the Craftsman and New England styles should be
provided in sufficient numbers to establish a noticeable "Etiwanda quality" for the
neighborhood. Staff therefore recommends that at least 50 percent of houses along any
street be of the Craftsman and New England style.
• i.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS
May 6, 2003
Page 2
• `
2. Product Mix: The applicant's marketing strategy is to develop the project similar to a custom
lot tract. The decision of Floor Plan and style is on each lot is to be determined with the
customer. Therefore, the squares shown on each lot can represent any number of the Floor
Plans than will fit within the square. A note concerning the limiting of house plan repetition is
on the Conceptual Grading Plan. The style-limiting factor in No. 1 above should also be a
condition of the house style mix.
3. Front Setbacks: In the Very Low Residential zone, the Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that
"front yard setbacks along public streets shall be staggered up to 10 feet" (ESP 5.42.605).
As evidenced by the homes along Di Carlo Lane and Carnesi Drive, the project does not
comply with this standard.
4. House Plotting: The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that "at least 50 percent of dwellings
shall not be plotted parallel to the street frontage" (ESP 5.42.609). As evidenced by the
homes along Di Carlo Lane and Carnesi Drive, the project does not comply with this
standard.
5. Walls and Fences: Because of a desire by the applicant to begin grading and constructing
some of the tract's perimeter walls, staff has been working continuously to develop a
wall/,fence plan that addresses many issues. Staff believes the following issues should be a
part of plan:
a. The plan as presented provides a detail of masonry wall combined with wrought iron
•) for those areas where tree trunks and roots may inhibit the ability to trench and lay
wall foundations.
b. The sound wall along the 210 Freeway should match the materials, design and color
(a dark tan) of the Caltrans installed walls.
c. The rear and side property line walls along each side of Highland Avenue should be
the most prominent with natural fieldstone pilasters (24-inch base) with cap and
split-face walls with two color pattern. The applicant is proposing gray as the major
color. With the freeway wall being a dark tan, staff feels that gray with tan accents
would provide an attractive combination. The developer is proposing to use
precision block as minor accent,patterns within the wall.
d. Secondary walls along the south side of Carnesi Drive similar to the major entry
walls with split face alternate color pilasters of at least 16-inch base. The pilasters
should be provided at the beginning and end of each run of wall (between sections
of wrought iron for trees as shown on Sheet 1/3). Other wise, pilaster spacing
should be no greater than 1/100 foot. All side street walls should be the same
design and setback from sidewalks by at least 5 feet. The first pilaster on the
Etiwanda Avenue frontage and the pilaster at the end (Lot 28) should have a
fieldstone veneer like those on Highland Avenue. All side street walls should be the
same design and setback from sidewalks by at least 5 feet.
e. Perimeter tract walls (between tract and surrounding properties) of 16-inch split-face
pilasters and split-face wall of single color. Interior rear property line walls may be of
• the same design.
f
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS
May 6, 2003
Page 3
f. Return walls should be required at the end of any interior property line walls or
fences and should be similar to other perimeter wall designs, but may vary in design
to coordinate the materials with the house style.
6. Color: The applicant has provided 6 color/material schemes for each style. The individual
schemes appear appropriate with the following exceptions:
a. New England scheme No. 10, with the exception of the front door (red), shutters
(black), and wrought iron (black), is finished all white. W hile this combination maybe
faithful to a style of New England homes, the lack of significant shade differences
may not "fit in" with the other color combinations offered for the track. The
Committee may wish to comment regarding the scheme's appropriateness with the
other schemes.
b. Some of the colored elevation examples of the Federal style exhibit light-gray stucco
with rich beige color for the siding. None of the Federal schemes exhibit this level of
shade differentiation. The applicant should be requested to clarify the color
elevations with the schemes.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Lot 1 street side property line is along Etiwanda Avenue. In keeping with the historic
~'~ Etiwanda theme, staff recommends that the house on Lot 1 be of the Craftsman style. Also,
the Floor Plan should be one that will allow for pedestrian entrance to the house from the
Etiwanda Avenue frontage and that a condition of approval be that the developer shall
provide a decorative walkway that accomplishes this feature. Presently, asingle-story
Catalina Floor Plan is being proposed on this Lot. Alternatively, staff suggests that a
Craftsman Arrowhead plan, with single-story elements on the front and street side and
articulated west elevation, on Lot 1 should provide an acceptable option for a Etiwanda
Avenue entrance walk with the house facing Carnesi Drive. The Committee should advise
the applicant and staff regarding special treatment for Lot 1.
2. Street side yard landscaping is required per Etiwanda Specific Plan Figure 5-2. The
applicant should provide typical planting and irrigation plans for each lot that has a street
side yard.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. The Planning Commission has established a policy that provides that if wood siding is the
sole exterior covering used on the front elevation, then the remaining elevations must be
completely wrapped in wood siding. The Craftsman version of the Catalina model is in this
situation. The other Craftsman models have some stucco on the front elevations.
2. A Planning Commission policy states, "Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on
house, such as brick or stone, except interior chimneys." The Manor version of the Catalina
model does not have stack material accents. Stone veneer should be provided in a manner
similar to that exhibited on the other models.
~~
3. Provide extra deep setbacks fortwo-story houses on corner lots.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS
May 6, 2003
Page 4 r
4. Provide driveways with maximum slope of 15 percent. Provide 18-foot area in front of
garage that does not exceed 5 percent.
5. Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots or across the street
from one another. Avoid identical color schemes plotted on adjacent lots.\
6. Use native rock for fieldstone. Other forms of stone maybe manufactured products.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back forfurther
consideration.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
The architecture was accepted, as submitted, with the above listed conditions, except as follows:
1. The mix of styles will have no predetermined percentage. It is expected that the mix five
styles will roughly be equal, but not necessarily required to be so.
2. The New England color scheme No. 10 is acceptable and the color discrepancies of the
Federal colors can be resolved at staff level.
• i 4. The wood siding on the Craftsman Catalina model shall extend to the end of the garage
eave on the right side elevation. The stone veneer shall extend to the side yard return wall
on the right elevation.
4. The house on Lot 1 shall be a Craftsman style and its main entry shall be oriented towards
the Etiwanda Avenue frontage.
The project shall return to the Design Review Committee as a consent item, with the following
issues being addressed on the resubmittal:
1. A tract Site Plan shall be provided showing the footprint plots with 50 percent of the houses
"skewed" in relation to the front property line as provided in Etiwanda Specific Plan
Section 5.42.609.
2. A Wall and Fence Plan shall be submitted that incorporates varying levels of design to meet
different areas of significance as follows:
a. Major Theme wall along both sides of Highland Avenue
b. Freeway sound wall that conforms with specifications of the Tract mitigation measures
and with existing freeway sound walls (Caltrans).
c. Perimeter Tract wall/fence along the south side of Carnesi Drive to include wrought
iron fence portions to avoid foundation conflicts with existing trees.
~~ d. Side street walls and return walls.
e. Interior tract perimeter walls.
Interior property line walls or fences.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:00 p.m. Doug Fenn June 3, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00213 -STUDIO 3
ARCHITECTS - A request to develop a 25,000 square foot Holiday Inn Express on 2.7 acres of land
in the Industrial Park zone (Subarea 12) located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between 4th
and 5th Streets - APN: 0229-341-12.
Design Parameters: The project is an infill project within the Bixby Business Park Master Plan. The
proposed project is athree-story 93 units guest room Holiday Inn Express hotel with a covered port-
cochere entry with 97 parking stalls. The building is richly designed with a colonial theme with
Flemish brick arches and soldier brick base on the brick veneer of the building. Green colored
mullions and decorative metal base are at the bottom of exterior windows. The proposed project
requires amending the existing Master Plan Design Guidelines of the Bixby Business Park to allow
this style of architecture. The Bixby Business Park was designed for industrial buildings and did not
anticipate hotel buildings.
The project will share access driveway to Milliken Avenue at both the north and south ends of the
property.
Staff Comments:
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
• 1. None -The applicant has diligently worked with staff and has addressed all of staff's primary
and secondary issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide decorative pavement within drive entry throats (outside public right-of-way).
2. Extend decorative scored concrete pavement from pone-cochere across drive aisle to
connect with Milliken Avenue sidewalk.
3. Streetscape tree species should maintain consistency with Bixby Business Park.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project as proposed.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:20 p.m. Doug Fenn June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00191 - US HOME-A requestfordesignreview of detail site
plan and elevations for 38 single-family lots (Tract 16370) of a previously approved tentative tract
15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west
side of Arbor Lane, north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-46.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC 2003-0-0192 - US HOME - A request for design review of detail
site plan and elevations for 53 single-family lots (Tract 16371) of a previously approved tentative
tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located on the
west side of Victoria Park Lane north of the Arbor Lane terminus -APN: 0227-171-26.
Background: These are both part of the master Tentative Tract Map No. 15974 approved by the
Planning Commission for Victoria Arbors; however, DRC2003-00192 includes an acre parcel that
was not part of the original Tentative Tract (see Exhibit "A" attached). Staff encouraged the
developer to acquire this "not-a-part" parcel. The tract layout has been revised to incorporate this
parcel; therefore, a revised Tentative Tract Map must be approved by the Commission concurrent
with or prior to approval of DRC2003-000192.
Design Parameters: The site is subject to the regulations of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan (as
amended. The site has been graded and retaining walls constructed. The applicant is proposing a
single phased development. The site adjoins the Joseph Filippi W finery. The property has also been
graded in preparation for single-family homes.
• The will include 3 floor plans each with 3 or 4 elevation treatments. The square footage of the
homes varies in size from 3,700 to 4,109 square feet. The 4 architectural styles proposed include
French, Italian Villa, Tuscan W fine Country, and Craftsman. The homes will also include porches on
corner lots, side-on garages, and additional enhanced architecture on elevations, which back and
side on Victoria Park Lane
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:
Architectural Detail -All of the proposed elevations (French, Italian Villa, Tuscan Wine
Country, Craftsman) for each plan are suitable for typical single-family development;
however, are not of the level of quality envisioned by the Victoria Arbors Master Plan. The
buildings do not "include enough materials, elements, and details to reflect the character of
the style," particularly on sides and rear. The level of detail is typical of other tracts in the Ciiy
and does not meet the intent of setting Victoria Arbors apart as "a very special place" in
Rancho Cucamonga. It is important that all parts of this village, including residential
neighborhoods, reflect an overall design theme and project the unique identity of Victoria
Arbors. Refer to Chapter 7, pages 2-5.
2. Porch/Balcony Location -Redesign Plan 2 to relocate at "front of house as close as
practicable to the sidewalk" as required by Victoria Arbors Master Plan to provide a
• "conversational distance" to allow "persons to site on their porch and interact and socialize
with their neighbors." Plan 2 features a side-entry garage at front of house; hence,
porch/balcony are typically 40 feet from public sidewalk.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00191 & DRC2003-00192 - US HOME
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
3. Usable Rear Yard -Eighteen of the lots have 15-foot or less setback to the property line or
toe of slope. In the most extreme case, Tract 16371, Lot 52 has as little as 2 feet. The
Master Plan and Development Code both require a minimum 15-foot flat usable rear yard
area.
Tract Lots with 15 feet or less Lots with 10 feet or less
16371 25, 29, 51, 52, 54 52
16370 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 20, 21, 33, 34 1, 8, 21
4. Privacy-There are two areas within Tract 16371 (Lots 22-24, 29 and 47-50) where narrow
side yard abuts rear yard because of 2-story homes with 5-foot setback overlooking
backyard. Lots 47-50 should be revised back to their original layout (see attached Exhibit
"A"), or a PIan1 (1-story) plotted on Lot 47, to eliminate problem. Lots 22-24, 29 should
provide significant landscape buffer (i.e., dense evergreen trees) for privacy,
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Porches -Provide minimum depth of at least 8 feet as required by Master Plan. Plans 1
and3 do not comply. The width of porches on Plan 1 and 2 is typical of most tracts and
should be enlarged, possibly by wrapping around side of house (see #2 below).
• 2. Provide wrap-around porches, especially on corner lots. The Victoria Arbors Master Plan
states that when possible, the porch shall wrap around the side of the building (note: an
open porch may intrude into the larger side setback). The wrap around porch may be less
than 6 feet in depth).
3. Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows as a standard
feature include in sales price of home (not optional).
4. When a retaining wall exists in the rear of the property to assist with the 15-foot useable
areas, steps should be provided to allow access to maintain the slope.
4. Chimneys should reflect stronger architectural, detail, including brick, stone, or siding as
shown in the adopted architectural guidelines for Arbors.
5. Rear treatment of balconies, verandas and/or wrought iron balustrades needs to be used for
all of the plans.
6. Plan 3 -Porte-Cochere over driveway should be increased in depth (area covered).
7. Provide decorative paving/treatment on driveways. To enhance streetscape, decorative
paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract.
8. Replace wood gates in side yard return fence with more durable material, such as decorative
metal.
• Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00191 & DRC2003-00192 - US HOME
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
3. Usable Rear Yard -Eighteen of the lots have 15-foot or less setback to the property line or
toe of slope. In the most extreme case, Tract 16371, Lot 52 has as little as 2 feet. The
Master Plan and Development Code both require a minimum 15-foot flat usable rear yard
area.
Tract Lots with 15 feet or less Lots with 10 feet or less
16371 25, 29, 51, 52, 54 52
16370 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 20, 21, 33, 34 1, 8, 21
4. Privacy -There are two areas within Tract 16371 (Lots 22-24, 29 and 47-50) where narrow
side yard abuts rear yard because of 2-story homes with 5-foot setback overlooking
backyard. Lots 47-50 should be revised back to their original layout (see attached Exhibit
"A"), or a PIan1 (1-story) plotted on Lot 47, to eliminate problem. Lots 22-24, 29 should
provide significant landscape buffer (i.e., dense evergreen trees) for privacy,
Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Porches -Provide minimum depth of at least 8 feet as required by Master Plan. Plans 1
and3 do not comply. The width of porches on Plan 1 and 2 is typical of most tracts and
should be enlarged, possibly by wrapping around side of house (see #2 below).
• 2. Provide wrap-around porches, especially on corner lots. The Victoria Arbors Master Plan
states that when possible, the porch shall wrap around the side of the building (note: an
open porch may intrude into the larger side setback). The wrap around porch maybe less
than 6 feet in depth).
3. Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows as a standard
feature include in sales price of home (not optional).
4. W hen a retaining wall exists in the rear of the property to assist with the 15-foot useable
areas, steps should be provided to allow access to maintain the slope.
5. Chimneys should reflect stronger architectural, detail, including brick, stone, or siding as
shown in the adopted architectural guidelines for Arbors.
6. Rear treatment of balconies, verandas and/or wrought iron balustrades needs to be used for
all of the plans.
7. Plan 3 -Porte-Cochere over driveway should be increased in depth (area covered).
8. Provide decorative paving/treatment on driveways. To enhance streetscape, decorative
paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract.
9. Replace wood gates in side yard return fence with more durable material, such as decorative
metal.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
• incorporated into the project design without discussion:
All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00191 & DRC2003-00192 - US HOME
June 3, 2003
• Page 3
2. All cultured stone or similar like rock or stone should be a natural material (not
manufactured).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and return for additional
review.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
•
U
_ __.
:..: ~ , ;
_ ~~ ~ -. ~.
r
r °. -
;, o ~ ~
~ i- :' : spy." s~ .-.
~9. n 5 .obi ~ ^~ t ~ nom pMj a0 ONi °~° °I ~ r
~~ ~' ~,NA ~~ ~AOUi -OD'OY m'OY ~'u 9y. ~ .
,, ~ .~
- ~~ i.
_, n
:., - - ~. ,_ - main
-,~ ~ ~ ma ~.~~.. ~ .,,
a ~. ~" (~ °1 ~ u~ gg ~ ~$ ~n
/// x
? O~ n O'mrn ~ _ ,^ dN t
~ k ~ 1' ~ N ^-~ - ~ AG'OB{ 1
~ ~ '~ ,C _ ~ ~~ l 8 ~ Q . 1~
1C 9- h , ~ cW,.~w S
r~ - @ ~ - c .OP7Y .j16W .00L~ _ ~. '. ~~'N
,j ~ 1
s ~. ~ ~ e _:~ ~. g
E 3 ., r aiy. (~ ~ '~
T _ ~. ~
W\~ ~
~' 3 ~ ~ ~ ..' ~ , ~°` ~~ ~ °^~ '.' `~ f ~
.-.
r ,.
. ~~ ~ ~ ~_, ~p,~
1 1 !J My ~ ~ 'p 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'j _`
I ~ /.II ry o ~ ... ~'v
'~ ' Ohs ~ ~ g~~ . __
~ _ 4' .
. _ ~.
.. ~ ~ E', I~ ~ ~'~~ .~ ~.~ ,.~
_ „.,,
:. -__ it-=-,,- _ l ~~-. ~ ~ ~~~ ' ~ < F. ~~' -~ ~.
~ ~~ ~~} t, ' -- a
~ ~ \ _ ~c f~{ ' ~
tea. ~~ ~ a . ~~ R
' ~, n,. ~ `
-:. ~ _ ~ fix? ~ Pl` t' r.c ._
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
n
L_J
TUESDAY JUNE 3,2003 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
•
Committee Members: Nancy Fong
Alternates: Rich Macias Cristine McPhail
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
(Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16466 -CARRIAGE
ESTATES III - A residential subdivision of 33single-family lots on 28.7 acres of land in
the Very Low Residential and Estate Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
located north of Banyan Street between Etiwanda and Bluegrass Avenues -Related
Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00. APN: 0225-111-18, 20, 24, 25, and 27.
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
(Alan) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00184 - CALIFORNIA COVE
COMMUNITIES, INC. - A request to construct asingle-family residence within the
Very-Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) and part of the Hillside
Overlay District on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1691, located at 9370 Valley View Street.
APN: 1061-391-39.
7:20 p.m
(Rick) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00523 - NABIH - A design review for a
proposed 3,276 square foot single-family residence on .28 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Predera Court (Lot 28,
Tract 10035) -APN: 0207-631-18.
7:30 p.m
(Kirt) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00335-MANNING HOMES-Adesignreview of
building elevations and site plan for 28single-family homes on 7.4 acres located in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at the southwest corner of
19th Street and Amethyst Street -APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-
061-38 and 42. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16432, Variance
DRC2003-00216, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965.
L_J
DRC AGENDA
June 3, 2003
Page 2
7:50 p.m.
(Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2003-00334
-MANNING HOMES -A request for 15single-family homes located on the south side
of Lemon Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0201-252-34.
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. Kirt Coury June 3, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16466 -CARRIAGE ESTATES III - A
residential subdivision of 33single-family lots on 28.7 acres of land in the Very Low Residential and
Estate Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located north of Banyan Street between
Etiwanda and Bluegrass Avenues -Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00. APN: 0225-
111-18, 20, 24, 25, and 27.
Site Characteristics: The subject property is located approximately 600 feet north of Banyan Street.
The site is bounded by Bluegrass Avenue to the west, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, and existing
single-family residential homes to the north and south. The site slopes from north to southeast.
Design Parameters: The project is located within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay; hence, is required
to provide Local Feeder Trails (private equestrian easements), which provide access to the rear of
each lot. In addition, a Class I Bike Path is required along Etiwanda Avenue. The project is located
in the Very Low and Estate Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed
average lot size in the Very Low Residential District is 27,557 square feet (25,000 required), and the
average lot size in the Estate Residential district is 41,063 square feet (40,000 required). Both
districts and average lot sizes are large enough for horse keeping. Although no homes are
proposed at this time, Lot 1 should be designed for the home to face Etiwanda Avenue consistent
with the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District.
The site contains several remnant Eucalyptus windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires
windrows along Etiwanda Avenue to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to
replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that many of the trees on-site are not worthy
of preservation, and that many of the existing windrow trees along the north property line are in poor
or marginal conditidn. The project proposes to remove many of the trees and replace with new
windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. The developer has
committed to preserving as much of the existing windrow along the north property line.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
None -The applicant has worked diligently to resolve major design issues presented by
staff.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
All walls and fences shall be of decorative material.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwanda Avenue shall be preserved or replaced per
Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual diseased or
damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minimum spotted Gum
Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with
5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with
Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
SUBTT16466 -MANNING HOMES
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend
approval of the project subject to the above comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Cristine Mc Phail, Rich Fletcher, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Kirt Coury
The Committee approved the project as presented.
•
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:10 p.m. Alan Warren June 3, 2003
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00184 -CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES, INC.
- A request to construct asingle-family residence within the Very-Low Residential District
(1-2 dwelling units per acre) and part of the Hillside Overlay District on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1691,
located at 9370 Valley View Street. APN: 1061-391-39.
Design Parameters: The subject application is a hillside design review that generally would be
reviewed and acted on by Planning staff and the City Planner. A streetscape design issue,
regarding thetwo-story aspect of the house, was raised by staff in keeping with Development Code
Section 17.08.0506.1 (Absolute Policies-Neighborhood Compatibility), which requires the following
to be used in evaluation of a residential project:
"The Project is compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and
neighborhood relative to architectural design; scale, bulk, density and unit size; identity and
neighborhood character; building orientation and setback; grading; and visual integrity."
(Staff emphasis)
Prior to continuing the process through to City Planner action, the applicant requested (at staff's
suggestion) an opportunity to have an interpretation of the issue by the Design Review Committee.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
• Maior Issue: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
The proposed house for a lot on Valley View Street is of a type approved for Tract 16026 (Amethyst
Estates) that borders the site along its northern lot line. Tract 16026 has a mixture of one and
two-story homes with the majority beingtwo-story. Valley View Street on the other hand is primarily
developed with single story ortwo-story with significant one-story portions along the street frontage.
The majorityof the homes appearto be of the 60-70s era ranch style architecture. One house, on a
parcel that borders the lot's west property line, is a later constructed two-story house of a similar
style to the one being requested with this application. Also note that the lots along this street were
subdivided previous to the recent Development Code amendment that set the minimum lot depth of
200 feet in the Very Low District.
Even though the house, as proposed, was designed to satisfy the intent of the Hillside Development
standards, staff suggests that the house should exhibit strong single-story character in order to
enhance the neighborhood streetscape. Staff is requesting Committee input as to the compatibility
of the proposed two-story house in the context of the existing streetscape. The Committee may
wish to consider and advise any of the following:
1. That to satisfy the neighborhood compatibility policy the house should be primarily single
story in height along the front elevation (this decision would necessitate completely new
design), or
2. Simply add single-story enhancements, such as extending the front porch feature to an
8-foot depth and wrapping (across the front entry) around to the right elevation, or
• 3. The two-story house, as proposed, with its extensive front setback will not significantly
compromise the area's existing streetscape character and should therefore be favorably
considered for approval subject to any other appropriate design considerations
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00184 -CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES, INC.
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
Note: Because the rear setback at 30 feet just satisfies the previous Very Low setback standard
(for lots of 150 feet depth), moving the footprint further back is not possible without a
Variance request and approval.
Secondary Issues: If the Design Review Committee recommends favorably for thetwo-story house,
the following items are staff recommendations for enhancement of the house design.
1. Additional shutters should be provided on the rear elevation.
The majority of the shutters on the side and rear elevation appear too small and out of
portion to the windows. These shutters should be made larger to "fit" appropriately to the
side o f the adjacent windows.
Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee provide guidance as to
the application of Development Code Section 17.08.0506.1 as it pertains to the two-story house
issue on Valley View Street and that further application of standards and requirements (grading,
landscaping, etc.) be addressed during the City Planner's review process.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Christine McPhail, Nancy Fong
. Staff Planner: Alan Warren
At the meeting, the applicant showed the Committee revised elevations that added a front porch as
a single-story element. The Committee stated that they would be in support of maintaining the
character of one-story houses in the neighborhood. In this case because there is already a
two-story house adjacent to the project site, the Committee believed a precedent has been set. The
Committee agreed that adding a front porch would enhance the neighborhood streetscape and
recommended approval of the projec5.
C~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:20 p.m. Rick Fisher June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00523 - NABIH - A design review for a proposed
3,276 square foot single-family residence on .28 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Predera Court (Lot 28, Tract 10035)-APN: 0207-631-18.
Design Parameters: The proposed single-family home will be located on .28 acres of steeply
sloping land on Predera Court. The lot slopes from west to east at approximately 22 percent;
therefore, is considered hillside. The steepest portion of the slope is adjacent to Predera Court.
The steepness of the slope makes development of this property quite difficult. Every attempt has
been made to limit the amount of grading. Nevertheless, a significant amount of grading is required
(1,708 cubic yards of cuU1,408 cubic yards of export). Variable height retaining walls will be
constructed along the north property line and also in the rear yard and southern side yard areas to
help contain the manufactured 2:1 slopes. The two retaining walls in the rear yard will be terraced
and separated by 3 to 5 feet of landscaping in order to reduce the overall height of the walls.
The proposed two-story house will contain 3,276 square feet of floor area and has been designed to
step in to the steeply sloping hillside. The finished floor elevation of the garage is 1,310.5 feet and
the finished floor elevation of the first floor is 1,322.7 feet. Access to the first floor from the 3-car
garage will be provided by an interior stairway. The first floor will contain two bedrooms, a family
room, living room, dining room, a kitchen, two bathrooms and an office. The second floor will
contain a Master bedroom and bath, two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a laundry room. The house
• complies with the 30-foot building envelope requirement for an uphill lot.
The exterior of the house will be covered with stucco on all sides with wood trim around all doors
and windows. A 3-foot high stone veneer is proposed adjacent to the garage doors which fronton
Predera Court. A balcony will be provided on the first and second floors and will overlook the front
yard area.
Note: The compass directions of the elevations are mislabeled. North and south are actually west
and east, respectively. West and east are actually south and north, respectively.
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:
Architectural Style: Pick a style and design within that theme. The design is generic and
suffers from a lack of architectural style. The Development Code requires that "a
recognizable design theme shall be established, which is compatible with surrounding
planned or existing developments." There are a variety of styles in the neighborhood.
2. Architectural Details: The details should reflect whatever architectural style is selected.
Provide 360-degree architectural treatment. Architectural elements used on the front
elevations should be repeated on the side and rear elevations. Extend stone veneer to full
height of garage and wrap around both sides. Consider adding shutters, eyebrows, or
planter boxes around the windows, a second building material around the front and side
. elevations, attic vents, and more detail around the column bases.
3. Roof: Change roof pitch over 1st Floor balcony above garage from 10:12 to 5:12 to match
main roof. Break up the large, single-plane roof mass on the west and east elevations.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2001-00523 - NABIH
June 3, 2003
. Page 2
4. Massing: Avoid large expanses of blank walls, such as both sides of garage. Break up
mass by varying building materials and placement of doors and windows.
5. Floor Plan: Switching the garage offset from the single car side to the double car side
because there is not sufficient driveway depth for a vehicle to maneuver in/out of the
single-car garage. The 12 feet proposed is less than the length of a car.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Decorative 5.5 - 6-foot block walls, in addition to retaining walls, should be constructed
along side and rear lot lines.
2. All proposed retaining walls in the front yard setback area shall not exceed 3 feet in height.
3. All proposed retaining walls (excluding those in the front yard setback area) shall not exceed
4 feet in height.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All proposed walls should be decorative with cap and stucco to match house.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return for review by the
Design Review Committee.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Cristine Mc Phail, Rich Fletcher, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
The Committee reviewed the project and did not approve it. At the meeting, the applicant stated
that he believed he had met the City's design standards and asked for clarification as to what the
Committee was looking for from this project. The Committee recommended the applicant make
the revisions listed below and return the item for their review:
The Committee told the applicant that the proposed single-family home does not meet
the City's development standards for asingle-family hillside home. A design style or
theme must be established.
2. The Committee told the applicant to hire a licensed architect to prepare a Conceptual
Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Building Elevations.
3. The Committee suggested the applicant to hire a licensed landscape architect to prepare
a Conceptual Landscape Plan.
• 4. The proposed above ground concrete drainage Swale on the south property line should
be changed to a grass Swale or an underground pipe.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2001-00523 - NABIH
June 3, 2003
• Page 3
The Committee stated that the building elevations are lacking in detail and advised the
applicant to read the Design Review comments. The applicant should give these
comments to a licensed architect who could prepare plans that meet the City's design
standards. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff and the City Planner
if he still was not clear on the design issues.
•
C~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:30 p.m. Kirt Coury June 3, 2003
:~
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00335 -MANNING HOMES - A design review of building
elevations and site plan for 28 single-family homes on 7.4 acres located in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at the southwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street -
APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related Files: Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16432, Variance DRC2003-00216, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965.
Design Parameters: The site is located at the southwest corner of 19th and Amethyst Streets. The
property to the south, east, and west are all zoned Low Residential, and to the north across
19th Street, is Medium Residential. The property is currently vacant with the exception of an
abandoned single-family residence at the northeast corner of the property. The site slopes at
approximately 3.5 percent with no significant drainage courses, roads ortopographical features. A
Variance is required for wall heights exceeding 8 feet.
Three Floor Plans are proposed, each with 3 elevation treatments. The Floor Plans range from
3,922 to 4,471 square feet. No specific architectural styles are identified or required; however, the
proposed designs do include elements consistent with Craftsman, Bungalow, and Spanish styles.
The designs will include porches and side on garages. The project will be built in one or two
phases. All of the Floor Plans are two-story structures. Plan 1 provides a three-car (tandem)
garage, and Plans 2 and 3 identify a four-car (tandem) garage. Square footage ranges from
3,297 square feet to 3,686 square feet.
• 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 worked diligently with staff to address 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:
Plan 1 B: Incorporate river rock or stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the
front elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align
with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Plan 1 C: Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
2. Plan 2 A: Incorporate shutters on the right elevation. Plan 2 B: Proposed siding on the left
and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
Incorporate wood pot-shelves with out looker braces to left, right, and rear elevations.
Plan 2 C: Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with
the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Add shutters to the upper windows of the left and
right elevations.
3, Plan 3 A: Add a window to the top left portion of the left elevation in the master bath area to
• Plans 3 A, B, and C. Add shutters to the right elevation. Plan 3 B: Incorporate river rock or
stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the front elevation. Proposed siding on
the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or
fascia. Plan 3 C: Add shutters to the right elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00335 -MANNING HOMES
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
4. Pilasters should be located on the outside corners of the Amethyst theme wall (closer to
Amethyst Street). Include pilasters on lot 28 along Amethyst Street and at the most
northwest project boundary along 19th Street. Pilasters should be a minimum 30-inch by
30-inch. Staff would encourage river rock or stack stone pilasters with a decorative cap.
5. The chimney features facing the street side on all corner lots should incorporate architectural
elements of the individual homes.
6. Wrap porch elements around side of house on all corner lots.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. A minimum 5-foot planter should be provided between sidewalk and corner side yard walls.
2. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
3. Provide decorative and paving/treatments on driveways (i.e. scoring). To enhance
streetscape, decorative paving/treatmentshnuld be varied throughout the tract.
4. All river rock should be authentic and not veneer.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the developer
addressing all design issues with staff, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Cristine Mc Phail, Rich Fletcher, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Kirt Coury
The Committee approved the project as presented.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:50 p.m. Emily W imer June 3, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00334- MANNING
HOMES -A request for 15single-family homes. located on the south side of Lemon Avenue, east of
Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0201-252-34.
Design Parameters: The site is located on the south side of Lemon Avenue and will create
Berkshire abutting the east side of the Alta Loma Channel. The property to the north, east, and
south are all zoned Low Residential, to the west across the Channel is Medium Residential. The
property is currently vacant and slopes at approximately 2-4 percent with no significant drainage
courses, roads, or topographical features.
Three Floor Plans are proposed, each with 3 elevation treatments. The Floor Plans range from
3,922 to 4,471 square feet. No specific architectural styles are identified or required; however, the
proposed designs do include elements consistent with Craftsman, Bungalow, and Spanish styles.
The designs will include porches and side on garages. The project will be built in one or two
phases. All of the Floor Plans are two-story structures. Plan 1 provides a three-car (tandem)
garage, and Plans 2 and 3 identify a four-car (tandem) garage.
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. None -The applicant has worked diligently with staff to address major issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Plan 1 B: Incorporate river rock or stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the
front elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align
with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Plan 1 C: Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
2. Plan 2 A: Incorporate shutters on the right elevation. Plan 2 B: Proposed siding on the left
and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
Incorporate wood pot-shelves with out looker braces to left, right, and rear elevations.
Plan 2 C: Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with
the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Add shutters to the upper windows of the left and
right elevations.
3, Plan 3 A: Add a window to the top left portion of the left elevation in the master bath area to
Plans 3 A, B, and C. Add shutters to the right elevation. Plan 3 B: Incorporate river rock or
stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the front elevation. Proposed siding on
the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or
fascia. Plan 3 C: Add shutters to the right elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
• 4. Pilasters should be located on the outside corners of the Lemon Avenue. Include pilasters
on Lemon and at the project boundary. Pilasters should be a minimum 30-inch by 30-inch.
5. The chimney features facing the street side on all corner lots should incorporate architectural
elements of the individual homes.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00334-MANNING HOMES
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
6. Wrap porch elements around side of house on all corner lots.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
On corner side yard areas, a 5-foot minimum landscape area is required between the wall
and sidewalk. Provide irrigation and landscaping in this area.
2. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
3. Provide decorative and paviny/treatments on driveways (i.e. scoring). To enhance
streetscape, decorative paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract.
4. All river rock should be authentic and not veneer.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the developer
addressing all design issues with staff, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Cristine McPhail, Dan Coleman
• Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
The Committee approved the project subject to the revisions listed above. The applicant will provide
wrapped architectural features on corner side lots to accommodate the Committees' concerns.
C~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
u
JUNE 3, 2003
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad uller
Secretary
•
C~
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY JUNE 3, 2003 ~ 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
-..J
Committee Members: Nancy Fong
Alternates: Rich Macias Cristine McPhail
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
(Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16466 -CARRIAGE
ESTATES III - A residential subdivision of 33single-family lots on 28.7 acres of land in
the Very Low Residential and Estate Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
located north of Banyan Street between Etiwanda and Bluegrass Avenues -Related
Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00. APN: 0225-111-18, 20, 24, 25, and 27.
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
(Alan) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00184 - CALIFORNIA COVE
COMMUNITIES, INC. - A request to construct asingle-family residence within the
Very-Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) and part of the Hillside
Overlay District on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1691, located at 9370 Valley View Street.
APN: 1061-391-39.
7:20 p.m
(Rick) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00523 - NABIH - A design review for a
proposed 3,276 square foot single-family residence on .28 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Predera Court (Lot 28,
Tract 10035) -APN: 0207-631-18.
7:30 p.m
(Kirt) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00335-MANNING HOMES-Adesignreview of
building elevations and site plan for 28single-family homes on 7.4 acres located in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at the southwest corner of
19th Street and Amethyst Street -APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-
061-38 and 42. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16432, Variance
DRC2003-00216, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965.
• DRC AGENDA
June 3, 2003
Page 2
7:50 p.m.
(Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2003-00334
-MANNING HOMES - A request for 15single-family homes located on the south side
of Lemon Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0201-252-34.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 29, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic C ter Dri ,Rancho Cucamonga.
L
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Kirt Coury June 3, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16466 -CARRIAGE ESTATES III - A
residential subdivision of 33single-family lots on 28.7 acres of land in the Very Low Residential and
Estate Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located north of Banyan Street between
Etiwanda and Bluegrass Avenues -Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00. APN: 0225-
111-18, 20, 24, 25, and 27.
Site Characteristics: The subject property is located approximately 600 feet north of Banyan Street.
The site is bounded by Bluegrass Avenue to the west, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, and existing
single-family residential homes to the north and south. The site slopes from north to southeast.
Design Parameters: The project is located within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay; hence, is required
to provide Local Feeder Trails (private equestrian easements), which provide access to the rear of
each lot. In addition, a Class I Bike Path is required along Etiwanda Avenue. The project is located
in the Very Low and Estate Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed
average lot size in the Very Low Residential District is 27,557 square feet (25,000 required), and the
average lot size in the Estate Residential district is 41,063 square feet (40,000 required). Both
districts and average lot sizes are large enough for horse keeping. Although no homes are
proposed at this time, Lot 1 should be designed for the home to face Etiwanda Avenue consistent
with the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District.
The site contains several remnant Eucalyptus windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires
• windrows along Etiwanda Avenue to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to
replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that many of the trees on-site are not worthy
of preservation, and that many of the existing windrow trees along the north property line are in poor
or marginal condition. The project proposes to remove many of the trees and replace with new
windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. The developer has
committed to preserving as much of the existing windrow along the north property line.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
None -The applicant has worked diligently to resolve major design issues presented by
staff.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
All walls and fences shall be of decorative material.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwanda Avenue shall be preserved or replaced per
• Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual diseased or
damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minimum spotted Gum
Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with
5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with
Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
SUBTT16466-MANNING HOMES
June 3, 2003
. Page 2
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend
approval of the project subject to the above comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Kirt Coury
•
•
7:10 p.m. Alan Warren June 3, 2003
• HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00184-CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES, INC.
- A request to construct asingle-family residence within the Very-Low Residential District
(1-2 dwelling units per acre) and part of the Hillside Overlay District on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1691,
located at 9370 Valley View Street. APN: 1061-391-39.
Design Parameters: The subject application is a hillside design review that generally would be
reviewed and acted on by Planning staff and the City Planner. A streetscape design issue,
regarding thetwo-story aspect of the house, was raised by staff in keeping with Development Code
Section 17.08.0506.1 (Absolute Policies-Neighborhood Compatibility), which requires the following
to be used in evaluation of a residential project:
"The Project is compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and
neighborhood relative to architectural design; scale, bulk, density and unit size; identity and
neighborhood character; building orientation and setback; grading; and visual integrity."
(Staff emphasis)
Prior to continuing the process through to City Planner action, the applicant requested (at staff's
suggestion) an opportunity to have an interpretation of the issue by the Design Review Committee.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issue: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
• this project:
The proposed house for a lot on Valley View Street is of a type approved for Tract 16026 (Amethyst
Estates) that borders the site along its northern lot line. Tract 16026 has a mixture of one and
two-story homes with the majority beingtwo-story. Valley View Street on the other hand is primarily
developed with single story ortwo-story with significant one-story portions along the street frontage.
The majority of the homes appear to be of the 60-70s era ranch style architecture. One house, on a
parcel that borders the lot's west property line, is a later constructed two-story house of a similar
style to the one being requested with this application. Also note that the lots along this street were
subdivided previous to the recent Development Code amendment that set the minimum lot depth of
200 feet in the Very Low District.
Even though the house, as proposed, was designed to satisfy the intent of the Hillside Development
standards, staff suggests that the house should exhibit strong single-story character in order to
enhance the neighborhood streetscape. Staff is requesting Committee input as to the compatibility
of the proposed two-story house in the context of the existing streetscape. The Committee may
wish to consider and advise any of the following:
That to satisfy the neighborhood compatibility policy the house should be primarily single
story in height along the front elevation (this decision would necessitate completely new
design), or
2. Simply add single-story enhancements, such as extending the front porch feature to an
8-foot depth and wrapping (across the front entry) around to the right elevation, or
3. The two-story house, as proposed, with its extensive front setback will not significantly
• compromise the area's existing streetscape character and should therefore be favorably
considered for approval subject to any other appropriate design considerations
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00184-CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES, INC.
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
Note: Because the rear setback at 30 feet just satisfies the previous Very Low setback standard
(for lots of 150 feet depth), moving the footprint further back is not possible without a
Variance request and approval.
Secondary Issues: If the Design Review Committee recommends favorably for thetwo-story house,
the following items are staff recommendations for enhancement of the house design.
1. Additional shutters should be provided on the rear elevation.
2. The majority of the shutters on the side and rear elevation appear too small and out of
portion to the windows. These shutters should be made larger to "fit" appropriately to the
side o f the adjacent windows.
Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee provide guidance as to
the application of Development Code Section 17.08.0506.1 as it pertains to the two-story house
issue on Valley View Street and that further application of standards and requirements (grading,
landscaping, etc.) be addressed during the City Planner's review process.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
• Members Present:
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
•
r
•
f1 ,1
u
•
•
•
~~: ~,~~.
•
•
•
• •
•
r1
L J
•
•
n
U
•
450.04.01 Amethyst 1~es 5-5-03
450.04.01 Amethyst Fr~ates 5-5-03
•
C7
•
•
•
n
U
450.04.01 Amethyst ~tes 5-5-03
•
•
•
450.04.01 Amethyst ~tes 5-5-03
•
•
•
450.04.01 Amethyst ~tes 5-5-03
450.04.01 Amethyst ~tes 5-5-03
•
C7
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:20 p.m. Rick Fisher June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00523 - NABIH - A design review for a proposed
3,276 square foot single-family residence on .28 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Predera Court (Lot 28, Tract 10035) -APN: 0207-631-18.
Design Parameters: The proposed single-family home will be located on .28 acres of steeply
sloping land on Predera Court. The lot slopes from west to east at approximately 22 percent;
therefore, is considered hillside. The steepest portion of the slope is adjacent to Predera Court.
The steepness of the slope makes development of this property quite difficult. Every attempt has
been made to limit the amount of grading. Nevertheless, a significant amount of grading is required
(1,708 cubic yards of cuU1,408 cubic yards of export). Variable height retaining walls will be
constructed along the north property line and also in the rear yard and southern side yard areas to
help contain the manufactured 2:1 slopes. The two retaining walls in the rear yard will be terraced
and separated by 3 to 5 feet of landscaping in order to reduce the overall height of the walls.
The proposedtwo-story house will contain 3,276 square feet of floor area and has been designed to
step into the steeply sloping hillside. The finished floor elevation of the garage is 1,310.5 feet and
the finished floor elevation of the first floor is 1,322:7 feet. Access to the first floor from the 3-car
garage will be provided by an interior stairway. The first floor will contain two bedrooms, a family
room, living room, dining room, a kitchen, two bathrooms and an office. The second floor will
contain a Master bedroom and bath, two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a laundry room. The house
• complies with the 30-foot building envelope requirement for an uphill lot.
The exterior of the house will be covered with stucco on all sides with wood trim around all doors
and windows. A 3-foot high stone veneer is proposed adjacent to the garage doors which fronton
Predera Court. A balcony will be provided on the first and second floors and will overlook the front
yard area.
Note: The compass directions of the elevations are mislabeled. North and south are actually west
and east, respectively. West and east are actually south and north, respectively.
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:
Architectural Style: Pick a style and design within that theme. The design is generic and
suffers from a lack of architectural style. The Development Code requires that "a
recognizable design theme shall be established, which is compatible with surrounding
planned or existing developments." There are a variety of styles in the neighborhood.
2. Architectural Details: The details should reflect whatever architectural style is selected.
Provide 360-degree architectural treatment. Architectural elements used on the front
elevations should be repeated on the side and rear elevations. Extend stone veneer to full
height of garage and wrap around both sides. Consider adding shutters, eyebrows, or
planter boxes around the windows, a second building material around the front and side
• elevations, attic vents, and more detail around the column bases.
3. Roof: Change roof pitch over 1st Floor balcony above garage from 10:12 to 5:12 to match
main roof. Break up the large, single-plane roof mass on the west and east elevations.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2001-00523 - NABIH
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
4. Massing: Avoid large expanses of blank walls, such as both sides of garage. Break up
mass by varying building materials and placement of doors and windows.
5. Floor Plan: Switching the garage offset from the single car side to the double car side
because there is not sufficient driveway depth for a vehicle to maneuver in/out of the
single-car garage. The 12 feet proposed is less than the length of a car.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Decorative 5.5 - 6-foot block walls, in addition to retaining walls, should be constructed
along side and rear lot lines.
All proposed retaining walls in the front yard setback area shall not exceed 3 feet in height.
All proposed retaining walls (excluding those in the front yard setback area) shall not exceed
4 feet in height.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
All proposed walls should be decorative with cap and stucco to match house.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return for review by the
Design Review Committee.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Rick Fisher
C~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:30 p.m. Kirt Coury June 3, 2003
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00335 -MANNING HOMES - A design review of building
elevations and site plan for 28 single-family homes on 7.4 acres located in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at the southwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street -
APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related Files: Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16432, Variance DRC2003-00216, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965.
Desion Parameters: The site is located at the southwest corner of 19th and Amethyst Streets. The
property to the south, east, and west are all zoned Low Residential, and to the north across
19th Street, is Medium Residential. The property is currently vacant with the exception of an
abandoned single-family residence at the northeast corner of the property. The site slopes at
approximately 3.5 percent with no significant drainage courses, roads or topographical features. A
Variance is required for wall heights exceeding 8 feet.
Three Floor Plans are proposed, each with 3 elevation treatments. The Floor Plans range from
3,922 to 4,471 square feet. No specific architectural styles are identified or required; however, the
proposed designs do include elements consistent with Craftsman, Bungalow, and Spanish styles.
The designs will include porches and side on garages. The project will be built in one or two
phases. All of the Floor Plans are two-story structures. Plan 1 provides a three-car (tandem)
garage, and Plans 2 and 3 identify a four-car (tandem) garage. Square footage ranges from
3,297 square feet to 3,686 square feet.
• 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 worked diligently with staff to address 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:
Plan 1 B: Incorporate river rock or stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the
front elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align
with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Plan 1 C: Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
2. Plan 2 A: Incorporate shutters on the right elevation. Plan 2 B: Proposed siding on the left
and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
Incorporate wood pot-shelves with out looker braces to left, right, and rear elevations.
Plan 2 C: Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with
the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Add shutters to the upper windows of the left and
right elevations.
3, Plan 3 A: Add a window to the top left portion of the left elevation in the master bath area to
• Plans 3 A, B, and C. Add shutters to the right elevation. Plan 3 B: Incorporate river rock or
stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the front elevation. Proposed siding on
the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or
fascia. Plan 3 C: Add shutters to the right elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00335 -MANNING HOMES
June 3, 2003
• Page 2
Pilasters should be located on the outside corners of the Amethyst theme wall (closer to
Amethyst Street). Include pilasters on lot 28 along Amethyst Street and at the most
northwest project boundary along 19th Street. Pilasters should be a minimum 30-inch by
30-inch. Staff would encourage river rock or stack stone pilasters with a decorative cap.
The chimney features facing the street side on all corner lots should incorporate architectural
elements of the individual homes.
Wrap porch elements around side of house on all corner lots.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
A minimum 5-foot planter should be provided between sidewalk and corner side yard walls.
All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
Provide decorative and paving/treatments on driveways (i.e. scoring). To enhance
streetscape, decorative paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract. .
All river rock should be authentic and not veneer.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the developer
addressing all design issues with staff, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Kirt Coury
L~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:50 p.m. Emily W imer June 3, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00334- MANNING
HOMES -A request for 15single-family homes. located on the south side of Lemon Avenue, east of
Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0201-252-34.
Design Parameters: The site is located on the south side of Lemon Avenue and will create
Berkshire abutting the east side of the Alta Loma Channel. The property to the north, east, and
south are all zoned Low Residential, to the west across the Channel is Medium Residential. The
property is currently vacant and slopes at approximately 2-4 percent with no significant drainage
courses, roads, or topographical features.
Three Floor Plans are proposed, each with 3 elevation treatments. The Floor Plans range from
3,922 to 4,471 square feet. No specific architectural styles are identified or required; however, the
proposed designs do include elements consistent with Craftsman, Bungalow, and Spanish styles.
The designs will include porches and side on garages. The project will be built in one or two
phases. All of the Floor Plans are two-story structures. Plan 1 provides a three-car (tandem)
garage, and Plans 2 and 3 identify a four-car (tandem) garage.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
• regarding this project.
1. None -The applicant has worked diligently with staff to address major issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Plan 1 B: Incorporate river rock or stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the
front elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align
with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Plan 1 C: Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
2. Plan 2 A: Incorporate shutters on the right elevation. Plan 2 B: Proposed siding on the left
and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
Incorporate wood pot-shelves with out looker braces to left, right, and rear elevations.
Plan 2 C: Proposed siding on the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with
the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia. Add shutters to the upper windows of the left and
right elevations.
3, Plan 3 A: Add a window to the top left portion of the left elevation in the master bath area to
Plans 3 A, B, and C. Add shutters to the right elevation. Plan 3 B: Incorporate river rock or
stack stone treatment at the base of all columns on the front elevation. Proposed siding on
the left and right elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or
fascia. Plan 3 C: Add shutters to the right elevation. Proposed siding on the left and right
elevations should be lowered to align with the same roof-pitch overhang or fascia.
. 4. Pilasters should be located on the outside corners of the Lemon Avenue. Include pilasters
on Lemon and at the project boundary. Pilasters should be a minimum 30-inch by 30-inch.
5. The chimney features facing the street side on all corner lots should incorporate architectural
elements of the individual homes.
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2003-00334-MANNING HOMES
June 3, 2003
. Page 2
6. Wrap porch elements around side of house on all corner lots.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
On corner side yard areas, a 5-foot minimum landscape area is required between the wall
and sidewalk. Provide irrigation and landscaping in this area.
2. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides.
3. Provide decorative and paving/treatments on driveways (i.e. scoring). To enhance
streetscape, decorative paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract.
4. All river rock should be authentic and not veneer.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the developer
addressing all design issues with staff, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
• Members Present:
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
•