Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/05/20 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY MAY 20, 2003 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher • CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman Cristine McPhail 8:20 p.m. (Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 81 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16312 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwestcornerof Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street -APN: 0227-161-44. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15974. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and this project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that EIR. 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 ihput. 7:00 p.m. (Donald) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-01029-YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, LP-A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 26 single-family lots on 6.85 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive -APN: 0225-161-76 and 77. Related files: SUBTT16306 and Variance DRC2002-00592. 7:20 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2002-00845 - H.P.A., INC. -The development of an industrial office park facility consisting of 16 buildings, with a central open space area, on 9.77 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Avenue -APN: 208-352-36-40 and 76. Reference File DR 86-23 DRC AGENDA May 20, 2003 • Page 2 7:40 p.m. (Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00241 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 42 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16314 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-41-47. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00242 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 38 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16369 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-171-26-28, 30-33, 35 and 37-39. 8:00 p.m. (Emily) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-OS - IFTIKHAR - A request to add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District -APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001-00088 and DRC2002- 00416. 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 r1 U CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 8:20 p.m. Doug Fenn May 20, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 81 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16312 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street - APN: 0227-161-44. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15974. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and this project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that EIR. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee recommended project to be forwarded to Planning Commission subject to minor changes to be addressed by staff. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Donald Granger May 20, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-01029 -YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, LP - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 26single-family lots on 6.85 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive - APN: 0225-161-76 and 77. Related files: SUBTT16306 and Variance DRC2002-00592. Background: The applicant is proposing to develop 26 single-family homes on Tract 16306. The Planning Commission approved tentative Tract 16306 on January 8, 2003. The homes have been designed with four architectural styles (Bungalow, Country, Ranch, and Santa Barbara), and will include a total of four floor plans. Three of the plans include front porches, and the remaining plan has an option for aside-on garage. The project will be constructed in two phases. The applicant is proposing the same house product that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2002 for Tracts 14493 and 14522 (Development Review DRC2002-00442). Tracts 14493 and 14522 are located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, on the north and south sides of Vintage Drive. The model homes for Tracts 14493 and 14522 will serve as the model homes for the proposed project Design Parameters: The site falls within the Rancho Etiwanda planned development, a 1,238 residential unit development approved bythe County in May 1991, and subsequently annexed in to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project site was rough graded when the Rancho • Etiwanda area was mass graded and infrastructure was installed. The site is bordered by vacant land to the west, and vacant land to the north that is planned fora 25-lot subdivision. To the east are two parcels of land, with asingle-family home on each parcel. To the south are the Route 210 Freeway and the westbound off-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard. 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: Vary front setback +/- 5 feet as required by Rancho Etiwanda Development Plan and City's Development Code for visual interest in the streetscape. Nearly all of the dwelling units are plotted at the same 20-foot front yard setback. Note: The Rancho Etiwanda Area allows side entry garages to be 10 feet from back of sidewalk. Most lots are deep enough to allow substantial variation in the front yard setback. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The decks should be a standard feature, not an option, for all lots that back onto Day Creek Boulevard. Day Creek Boulevard is a Special Boulevard and the rear elevations of houses that back onto Day Creek Boulevard should receive enhanced treatment. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion • 1. All interior private yard slopes are required to tie landscaped with ground cover, shrubs and one tree per 150 square feet of area. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-01029,- YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, LP • May 20, 2003 Page 2 2. River rock shall be real, or native fieldstone maybe used. Stone veneers are not permitted. 3. Provide decorative pavement on driveways. Decorative driveways shall have variation throughout the subdivisiori. 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: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Donald Granger The Committee discussed the front setback issue and concluded that articulation of the front the house within a lot did not satisfy the intent to provide setback variety. The Committee clarified that the front setback also applied to the covered porches. The Committee recommended approval, subject to the policy issues identified above, and the following conditions: 1. Front yard setbacks should vary +/- 5 feet. The Committee directed staff to verify that the houses are plotted with substantial variation when plans are submitted for plan check. • 2. The decks shall be a standard feature for all lots that back onto Day Creek Boulevard. 3. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a more durable material, such as wrought iron, or better. Wood gates shall not be used. The applicant agreed to these conditions. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Doug Fenn May 20, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00845 -H.P.A., INC. -The development of an industrial office park facility consisting of 16 buildings, with a central open space area, on 9.77 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Avenue - APN: 208-352-36-40 and 76. Reference File DR 86-23 Design Parameters: The site is vacant with no mature trees. The site is surrounded by vacant land and the Mercury Insurance and the Best Western Heritage Hotel are to the north and northwest, respectively. To the east, south, and west are vacant parcels and small sized industrial buildings. Further to the west is the recently re-opened Angel Hospital. The project consists of a master planned development of 12 small sized office buildings and 4 industrial buildings, which range in size from 2,596 square feet to 27,548 square feet. The buildings are rectangular and in a couple instances uniquely designed within the confines of the shape of the property. Access into the project site is from White Oak and Elm Avenues. In and around the center of the project is a shared "campus park" outdoor employee area. ~ Additionally, the applicant has provided a smaller outdoors employee's area for Buildings 1-4, which is more isolated from the main open space element. The buildings are designed with three different elevation design schemes that reflect the industrial look yet compliment the professional office buildings. The buildings have a 360-degree architectural theme that includes decorative details, recessed blue reflective glazing elements, and sandblasted concrete accents, cornices treatments to the professional office buildings. 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: Applicant has done a splendid job of addressing staffs earlier concerns. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Buildings 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 front on to White Oak Avenue, yet the main office entrance with the greater detailed elements of the buildings face the interior parking lot. These buildings, which front the street, should mimic the strong detail that is designed around the main entrance to those buildings. 2. A trellis should be provided for outdoor employees eating areas. 3. Provide a textured or textured colored pedestrian pathway system, particularly across drive aisles, from each building to the central open space element. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: • 1. Paint roll-up doors to match the building elevations. 2. Downspouts for the buildings shall be located in the rear of loading/unloading areas only unless internal to the walls. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00845 -H.P.A., INC. • May 20, 2003 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Applicant addressed outstanding issues and recommended to Planning Commission. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Doug Fenn May 20, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00241 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 42 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16314 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-41-47. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00242 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 38 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16369 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-171-26-28, 30-33, 35 and 37-39. Design Parameters: The site is subject to the regulations of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan which, requires the following three architectural styles to reflect a "wine country" theme: French influence, Italian influence, and English Cottage/Bungalow. The site has been graded and retaining walls constructed. The applicant is proposing a single phased development for both projects. The Joseph Filippi Winery and vacant land to the north and east and Church Street to the south border the site, and across Day Creek Boulevard, to the west is vacant land that has also been graded in preparation for single-family homes. The proposal includes 2 floor plans each with 3 elevation treatments. The square footage of the homes varies in size from 3,300 to 3,800 square feet. The 3 architectural styles proposed include French Country, Vineyard Estate, and Italian. The homes will also include porches, side on • garages, and additional standard architectural features on elevations tat back and side on to Day Creek Boulevard. 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 Country, Vineyard Estate, and Italian) 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 of the materials, elements, and details to reflect the character of the style." 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. 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 roof pitch typical of suburban housing tracts. For example: the proposed French Country roof pitches are not designed with a 7:1 roof pitch that is a typical of French style architecture. 3. Front Setbacks -Stagger front setbacks to give streetscape variety and interest. Forty out of eighty homes (50 percent) have been plotted with a 15-foot setback. There are forty-eight out of eighty (60 percent) with 15-17-foot front setback. The project should meet or exceed • the Citywide standard expressed in Development Code to vary front setback +/- 5 feet. The most extreme example is Royal Oak Drive where 9 lots in a row have 15-foot setback. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00241 & DRC2003-00242 -STANDARD PACIFIC May 20, 2003 age 2 4. Porches -Redesign Plan 1 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 1 features aside-entry garage at front of house; hence, porch is a minimum of 35 feet from public sidewalk. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 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 portion may be less than 6 feet in depth). 2. Most of the front ground level porches are not 8 feet deep as required by Victoria Arbors Master Plan. 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 due to 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 public. • 4. Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows as a standard feature include in sales price of home (not optional). 5. 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. 6. Chimneys should reflect stronger architectural, detail, including brick, stone, or siding as shown in the adopted architectural guidelines for Arbors. 7. Rear treatment of balconies, verandas and/or wrought iron balustrades needs to be used for all of the plans. 8. Provide decorative paving/treatment on driveways. To enhance streetscape, decorative paving/treatmentshnuld be varied throughout the tract. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides. 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. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00241 & DRC2003-00242-STANDARD PACIFIC May 20, 2003 age 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Committee advised applicant to address all major secondary issues after revisions have been made to bring back to Committee for review. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Emily Wimer May 20, 2003 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-OS - IFTIKHAR -A request to add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District - APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001- 00088 and DRC2002-00416. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner Emily Wimer The Committee approved the project subject to the revised plans shown at the Design Review Committee meeting. The Committee agreed to allow a file inset on the northwest elevation instead of a glass window for security purposes. • C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • MAY 20, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted Brad Buller Secretary • C 1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY MAY 20, 2003 7:00 P.M. REVISED AGENDA MAY 15, 2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA L Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman Cristine McPhail 8:20 p.m. (Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 81 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16312 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street-APN: 0227-161-44. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15974. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and this project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that EIR. 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. (Donald) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-01029-YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, LP-A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 26single-family lots on 6.85 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive -APN: 0225-161-76 and 77. Related files: SUBTT16306 and Variance DRC2002-00592. 7:20 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2002-00845 - H.P.A., INC. -The development of an industrial office park facility consisting of 16 buildings, with a central open space area, on 9.77 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Avenue -APN: 208-352-36-40 and 76. Reference File DR 86-23 u DRC AGENDA May 20, 2003 Page 2 7:40 p.m. (Doug) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00241 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 42 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16314 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-41-47. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00242 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 38 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16369 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-171-26-28, 30-33, 35 and 37-39. 8:00 p.m. (Emily) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR - A request to add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District -APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001-00088 and DRC2002- 00416. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the • Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 15, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic enter D 've, Rancho Cucamonga. u CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 8:20 p.m. Doug Fenn May 20, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 81 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16312 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street-APN: 0227-161-44. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15974. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and this project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that EIR. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Donald Granger May 20, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-01029 -YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, LP - A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 26single-family lots on 6.85 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive - APN: 0225-161-76 and 77. Related files: SUBTT16306 and Variance' DRC2002-00592. Background: The applicant is proposing to develop 26 single-family homes on Tract 16306. The Planning Commission approved tentative Tract 16306 on January 8, 2003. The homes have been designed with four architectural styles (Bungalow, Country, Ranch, and Santa Barbara), and will include a total of four floor plans. Three of the plans include front porches, and the remaining plan has an option for aside-on garage. The project will be constructed in two phases. The applicant is proposing the same house product that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2002 for Tracts 14493 and 14522 (Development Review DRC2002-00442). Tracts 14493 and 14522 are located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, on the north and south sides of Vintage Drive. The model homes for Tracts 14493 and 14522 will serve as the model homes for the proposed project Design Parameters: The site falls within the Rancho Etiwanda planned development; a 1,238 residential unit development approved by the County in May 1991, and subsequently annexed in to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project site was rough graded when the Rancho Etiwanda area was mass graded and infrastructure was installed. The site is bordered by vacant land to the west, and vacant land to the north that is planned fora 25-lot subdivision. To the east are two parcels of land, with asingle-family home on each parcel. To the south are the Route 210 Freeway and the westbound off-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard. 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: Vary front setback+/- 5 feet as required by Rancho Etiwanda Development Plan and City's Development Code for visual interest in the streetscape. Nearly all of the dwelling units are plotted at the same 20-foot front yard setback. Note: The Rancho Etiwanda Area allows side entry garages to be 10 feet from back of sidewalk. Most lots are deep enough to allow substantial variation in the front yard setback. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The decks should be a standard feature, not an option, for all lots that back onto Day Creek Boulevard. Day Creek Boulevard is a Special Boulevard and the rear elevations of houses that back onto Day Creek Boulevard should receive enhanced treatment. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion • 1. All interior private yard slopes are required to be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs and one tree per 150 square feet of area. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-01029 -YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, LP May 20, 2003 • Page 2 2. River rock shall be real, or native fieldstone maybe used. Stone veneers are not permitted. 3. Provide decorative pavement on driveways. Decorative driveways shall have variation throughout the subdivision. 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: Donald Granger • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Doug Fenn May 20, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00845 -H.P.A., INC. -The development of an industrial office park facility consisting of 16 buildings, with a central open space area, on 9.77 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located at the northeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Avenue - APN: 208-352-36-40 and 76. Reference File DR 86-23 Design Parameters: The site is vacant with no mature trees. The site is surrounded by vacant land and the Mercury Insurance and the Best Western Heritage Hotel are to the north and northwest, respectively. To the east, south, and west are vacant parcels and small sized industrial buildings. Further to the west is the recently re-opened Angel Hospital. The project consists of a master planned development of 12 small sized office buildings and 4 industrial buildings, which range in size from 2,596 square feet to 27,548 square feet. The buildings are rectangular and in a couple instances uniquely designed within the confines of the shape of the property. Access into the project site is from White Oak and Elm Avenues. In and around the center of the project is a shared "campus park" outdoor employee area. Additionally, the applicant has provided a smaller outdoors employee's area for Buildings 1-4, which is more isolated from the main open space element. The buildings are designed with three different elevation design schemes that reflect the industrial look yet compliment the professional office buildings. The buildings have a 360-degree architectural . theme that includes decorative details, recessed blue reflective glazing elements, and sandblasted concrete accents, cornices treatments to the professional office buildings. 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: Applicant has done a splendid job of addressing staffs earlier concerns. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Buildings 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 front on to White Oak Avenue, yet the main office entrance with the greater detailed elements of the buildings face the interior parking lot. These buildings, which front the street, should mimic the strong detail that is designed around the main entrance to those buildings. 2. A trellis should be provided for outdoor employees eating areas. 3. Provide a textured or textured colored pedestrian pathway system, particularly across drive aisles, from each building to the central open space element. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: • 1. Paint roll-up doors to match the building elevations. 2. Downspouts for the buildings shall be located in the rear of loading/unloading areas only unless internal to the walls. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00845 -H.P.A., INC. May 20, 2003 • Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn C1 ~J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Doug Fenn May 20, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00241 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 42 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16314 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-161-41-47. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00242 -STANDARD PACIFIC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 38 single-family tots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16369 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan located east of Day Creek Boulevard and north of Church Street -APN: 0227-171-26-28, 30-33, 35 and 37-39. Design Parameters: The site is subject to the regulations of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan which, requires the following three architectural styles to reflect a "wine country" theme: French influence, Italian influence, and English Cottage/Bungalow. The site has been graded and retaining walls constructed. The applicant is proposing a single phased development for both projects. The Joseph Filippi W finery and vacant land to the north and east and Church Street to the south border the site, and across Day Creek Boulevard, to the west is vacant land that has also been graded in preparation for single-family homes. The proposal includes 2 floor plans each with 3 elevation treatments. The square footage of the homes varies in size from 3,300 to 3,800 square feet. The 3 architectural styles proposed include French Country, Vineyard Estate, and Italian. The homes will also include porches, side on • garages, and additional standard architectural features on elevations tat back and side on to Day Creek Boulevard. 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 Country, Vineyard Estate, and Italian) 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 of the materials, elements, and details to reflect the character of the style." 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. 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 roof pitch typical of suburban housing tracts. For example: the proposed French Country roof pitches are not designed with a 7:1 roof pitch that is a typical of French style architecture. 3. Front Setbacks -Stagger front setbacks to give streetscape variety and interest. Forty out of eighty homes (50 percent) have been plotted with a 15-foot setback. There are forty-eight out of eighty (60 percent) with 15-17-foot front setback. The project should meet or exceed • the Citywide standard expressed in Development Code to vary front setback +/- 5 feet. The most extreme example is Royal Oak Drive where 9 lots in a row have 15-foot setback. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00241 & May 20, 2003 age 2 • DRC2003-00242 -STANDARD PACIFIC 4. Porches -Redesign Plan 1 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 1 features aside-entry garage at front of house; hence, porch is a minimum of 35 feet from public sidewalk. 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 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 portion maybe less than 6 feet in depth). 2. Most of the front ground level porches are not 8 feet deep as required by Victoria Arbors Master Plan. 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 due to 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 public. 4. Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows as a standard feature include in sales price of home (not optional). 5. 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. 6. Chimneys should reflect stronger architectural, detail, including brick, stone, or siding as shown in the adopted architectural guidelines for Arbors. 7. Rear treatment of balconies, verandas and/or wrought iron balustrades needs to be used for all of the plans. 8. Provide decorative paving/treatment on driveways. To enhance streetscape, decorative paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides 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. r 1 LJ DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00241 & DRC2003-00242 -STANDARD PACIFIC May 20, 2003 age 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn I~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Emily Wimer May 20, 2003 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-OS - IFTIKHAR -A requestto add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District - APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001- 00088 and DRC2002-00416. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner Emily Wimer • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Emily W imer May 6, 2003 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR - A requestto add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District - APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001- 00088 and DRC2002-00416. Background: the Planning Commission has previously reviewed the application several times. On August 21, 2001, the Conditional Use Permit was approved with additional parking to support the retail use, which began in June 1998 (see attached photos). Since then, the applicant has returned to the Planning Commission for review and possible revocation several times to explain why improvements to the property (the parking area and landscaping upgrades) have not been completed. The applicant was required to provide adequate parking for the retail use of 4,180 square feet and 24,244 square feet of warehouse use (42 spaces). Since June 1998, the applicant has failed to construct the 42 spaces required. The applicant has remodeled the original building without permits (see photos). The parking and new landscaping have not been completed since the original application. The applicant now has decided to expand on both sides of the original building by including two additional parcels. The goal is to provide adequate parking for the retail store (42 spaces) and new parking spaces for the proposed 2,200 square foot retail building (9 spaces). The northeast parcel • (abutting Amethyst Street) and the southwest parcel (which will provide additional parking) both abut the original land and building purchased by the applicant. Design Parameters: All three properties are non-conforming to varying degrees in terms of size, width or depth. The applicant is now proposing to develop all three parcels and complete a lot merger application to combine all three lots into one single lot. Staff would support a lot merger because it would provide a greater degree of conformance with City standards. To the north is the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail corridor. Development of the trail would provide potential opportunity for commercial uses serving trail users, such as bicycle store and restaurant. To the south of the proposed retail building is asingle-family residence. The application includes a new building of 2,200 square feet for office/retail use. According to the applicant this will be a separate phase of development once the parking is under construction. The buildings to the south are proposed to be demolished and additional parking will be provided for Baseline Bargain Center. The applicant will still be providing adequate parking of 42 spaces forthe original retail building. Additionally, 9 parking spaces will be constructed for the new office/retail building. The exterior of both buildings are proposed with stucco finish, and a bellyband accent. The original building has been modified with additional windows trimmed with metal gray aluminum and a new entrance. Since the recent Planning Commission hearing, the roof has been sealed to prevent leaking into the building, and a primary stucco coat has been completed. The applicant is proposing the new building to match the exterior of the existing Baseline Bargain Center. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. r~ LJ DRC COMMENTS • DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR May 6, 2003 Page 2 Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. There are several technical deficiencies in the proposed parking, staff will address through the Technical Review Committee that may affect the total parking count; hence, could affect the size of the proposed retail building. 2. Provide stronger entry statement focal point for new retail building, such as a tower. 3. Consider relocating new retail building's entry to the south elevation or southeast corner to be visible from the parking lot. 4. Provide additional design treatment to the west elevation to avoid 30-foot long blank expanse in the middle. 5. The pedestrian area at the front of the building, where the new main entry will be, should be a major focal point. Address the pedestrian area with additional landscaping, decorative pavement and extended concrete planters, with a minimum of 5 feet in depth. Additional shrubbery landscape, and irrigation shall be provided to maintain the pedestrian area. Because of the new orientation of the buildings, the existing exterior ramp and entry shall be removed from the south side of the building. • 6. Keystone elements and lentils shall be added on the top of all windows as an accent feature on both buildings. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide window surrounds on all windows. 2. Per the original conditions, wrought iron fencing and brick pilasters shall be provided on the west property line abutting the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail corridor. 3. A decorative block wall shall be constructed on the property line abutting the single-family residences as required in Resolution 01-16 No. 14. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Develop a Uniform Sign Program for both buildings to create a coordinated projecttheme of uniform design elements, such as, color, sign type, lettering style, and placement. 2. Trash enclosure shall include separate employee entrance and proper dimensions per City standards. 3. To screen parking areas, a combination of berming, low walls, and landscaping shall be provided. • 4. No can signs are allowed on either building. Sign approval forthe new building will require a Sign Program and include both buildings. DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR May 6, 2003 Page 3 5. Provide sidewalk connection from new retail building's entry to the public sidewalk on Amethyst Street. 6. Conserve water in the landscape by following City's Xeriscape Ordinance, such as replacing some of the turf with river rock cobble. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the above recommendations. Attachments iDesign Review Committee Action: Members Present: Christine McPhail, Rick Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: EmilyWimer The applicant agreed to all 6 major conditions and will revise the plans as requested. The applicant as asked to bring the revisions back to the May 20th Design Review Committee for approval. C~ LJ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY MAY 6, 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 SUBTT16432 - MANNING HOMES - A residential subdivision of 28single-family lots on 7.4 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street -APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related files: Design Review DRC2003- 00335, Variance DRC2003-00216, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:15 p.m. (Emily) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR - A request to add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District-APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001-00088 and DRC2002-00416. 7:35 p.m (Rick . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PARCEL MAP SUBTPM 16139 - A.J. PORTOLESI - A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 5.14 acre property into six parcels in Subarea 13 of the General Industrial District, located at the northwest corner of Charles Smith Avenue and 6th Street -APN: 0229-262-30,32. Related files: DRC2002-00697 and GPA 2002-00003. 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 May 6, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16432-MANNING HOMES - A residential subdivision of 28 single-family lots on 7.4 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street - APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related files: Design Review DRC2003-00335, 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 19~" Street, is the historic landmark Alta Loma School that is zoned 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. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve major issues. Policy 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. Lot 28 does not comply. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project as presented. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Christine McPhail, Rick Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: ~ Kirt Coury The Committee approved the project as presented. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Emily Wimer May 6, 2003 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR - A requestto add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District - APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001- 00088 and DRC2002-00416. Background: the Planning Commission has previously reviewed the application several times. On August 21, 2001, the Conditional Use Permit was approved with additional parking to support the retail use, which began in June 1998 (see attached photos). Since then, the applicant has returned to the Planning Commission for review and possible revocation several times to explain why improvements to the property (the parking area and landscaping upgrades) have not been completed. The applicant was required to provide adequate parking for the retail use of 4,180 square feet and 24,244 square feet of warehouse use (42 spaces). Since June 1998, the applicant has failed to construct the 42 spaces required. The applicant has remodeled the original building without permits (see photos). The parking and new landscaping have not been completed since the original application. The applicant now has decided to expand on both sides of the original building by including two additional parcels. The goal is to provide adequate parking for the retail store (42 spaces) and new parking spaces for the proposed 2,200 square foot retail building (9 spaces). The northeast parcel (abutting Amethyst Street) and the southwest parcel (which will provide additional parking) both abut • the original land and building purchased by the applicant. Design Parameters: All three properties are non-conforming to varying degrees in terms of size, width or depth. The applicant is now proposing to develop all three parcels and complete a lot merger application to combine all three lots into one single lot. Staff would support a lot merger because it would provide a greater degree of conformance with City standards. To the north is the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail corridor. Development of the trail would provide potential opportunity for commercial uses serving trail users, such as bicycle store and restaurant. To the south of the proposed retail building is asingle-family residence. The application includes a new building of 2,200 square feet for office/retail use. According to the applicant this will be a separate phase of development once the parking is under construction. The buildings to the south are proposed to be demolished and additional parking will be provided for Baseline Bargain Center. The applicant will still be providing adequate parking of 42 spaces forthe original retail building. Additionally, 9 parking spaces will be constructed for the new office/retail building. The exterior of both buildings are proposed with stucco finish, and a bellyband accent. The original building has been modified with additional windows trimmed with metal gray aluminum and a new entrance. Since the recent Planning Commission hearing, the roof has been sealed to prevent leaking into the building, and a primary stucco coat has been completed. The applicant is proposing the new building to match the exterior of the existing Baseline Bargain Center. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. n lJ DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR • May 6, 2003 Page 2 Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: There are several technical deficiencies in the proposed parking, staff will address through the Technical Review Committee that may affect the total parking count; hence, could affect the size of the proposed retail building. 2. Provide stronger entry statement focal point for new retail building, such as a tower. 3. Consider relocating new retail building's entry to the south elevation or southeast corner to be visible from the parking lot. 4. Provide additional design treatment to the west elevation to avoid 30-foot long blank expanse in the middle. 5. The pedestrian area at the front of the building, where the new main entry will be, should be a major focal point. Address the pedestrian area with additional landscaping, decorative pavement and extended concrete planters, with a minimum of 5 feet in depth. Additional shrubbery landscape, and irrigation shall be provided to maintain the pedestrian area. Because of the new orientation of the buildings, the existing exterior ramp and entry shall be removed from the south side of the building. • 6. Keystone elements and lentils shall be added on the top of all windows as an accent feature on both buildings. 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 window surrounds on all windows. 2. Per the original conditions, wrought iron fencing and brick pilasters shall be provided on the west property line abutting the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail corridor. 3. A decorative block wall shall be constructed on the property line abutting the single-family residences as required in Resolution 01-16 No. 14. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Develop a Uniform Sign Program for both buildings to create a coordinated projecttheme of uniform design elements, such as, color, sign type, lettering style, and placement. 2. Trash enclosure shall include separate employee entrance and proper dimensions per City standards. 3. To screen parking areas, a combination of berming, low walls, and landscaping shall be provided. • 4. No can signs are allowed on either building. Sign approval forthe new building will require a Sign Program and include both buildings. DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR May 6, 2003 • Page 3 5. Provide sidewalk connection from new retail building's entry to the public sidewalk on Amethyst Street. 6. Conserve water in the landscape by following City's Xeriscape Ordinance, such as replacing some of the turf with river rock cobble. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the above recommendations. Attachments iDesign Review Committee Action: Members Present: Christine McPhail, Rick Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The applicant agreed to all 6 major conditions and will revise the plans as requested. The applicant as asked to bring the revisions back to the May 20th Design Review Committee for approval. • C. J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • • 7:35 p.m. Rick Fisher May 6, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PARCEL MAP SUBTPM 16139 - A.J. PORTOLESI - A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 5.14 acre property into six parcels in Subarea 13 of the General Industrial District, located at the northwest corner of Charles Smith Avenue and 6th Street - APN: 0229-262-30,32. Related files: DRC2002-00697 and GPA 2002-00003. BACKGROUND: The Committee reviewed and approved Development Review DRC2002-00697 on February 18, 2003. The project consisted of six industrial buildings ranging in size from 8,270 square feet to 13,774 square feet. The applicant subsequently decided to subdivide the property into six parcels and sell each lot individually. The proposed parcels range in size from 24,399 square feet to 41,793 square feet. Each parcels meets the one-half acre minimum parcel size permitted in Subarea 13 of the General Industrial District. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approved the project as presented. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Chris McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rick Fisher The Committee approved the project as recommended. C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • MAY 6, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY MAY 6, 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 SUBTT16432 - MANNING HOMES - A residential subdivision of 28single-family lots on 7.4 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street -APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related files: Design Review DRC2003- 00335, Variance DRC2003-00216, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00965. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS • This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:15 p.m. (Emily) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR - A request to add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District -APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001-00088 and DRC2002-00416. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 1, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic enter Dr'v ,Rancho Cucamonga. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Kirt Coury May 6, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16432 -MANNING HOMES - A residential subdivision of 28 single-family lots on 7.4 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street- APN: 0202-061-15 and southerly portions of 0202-061-38 and 42. Related files: Design Review DRC2003-00335, 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 19`h Street, is the historic landmark Alta Loma School that is zoned 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. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve major issues. Policy 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. Lot 28 does not comply. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project as presented. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Kirt Coury • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Emily W imer May 6, 2003 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP98-08 - IFTIKHAR -A requestto add a 2,200 square foot retail building, and demolish an existing building to expand the parking lot for the existing Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street in the General Commercial District - APN: 0202-091-08, 09, and 15. Related Files: Minor Development Reviews DRC2001- 00088 and DRC2002-00416. Background: the Planning Commission has previously reviewed the application several times. On August 21, 2001, the Conditional Use Permit was approved with additional parking to support the retail use, which began in June 1998 (see attached photos). Since then, the applicant has returned to the Planning Commission for review and possible revocation several times to explain why improvements to the property (the parking area and landscaping upgrades) have not been completed. The applicant was required to provide adequate parking for the retail use of 4,180 square feet and 24,244 square feet of warehouse use (42 spaces). Since June 1998, the applicant has failed to construct the 42 spaces required. The applicant has remodeled the original building without permits (see photos). The parking and new landscaping have not been completed since the original application. The applicant now has decided to expand on both sides of the original building by including two additional parcels. The goal is to provide adequate parking for the retail store (42 spaces) and new parking spaces for the proposed 2,200 square foot retail building (9 spaces). The northeast parcel • (abutting Amethyst Street) and the southwest parcel (which will provide additional parking) both abut the original land and building purchased by the applicant. Design Parameters: All three properties are non-conforming to varying degrees in terms of size, width or depth. The applicant is now proposing to develop all three parcels and complete a lot merger application to combine all three lots into one single lot. Staff would support a lot merger because it would provide a greater degree of conformance with City standards. To the north is the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail corridor. Development of the trail would provide potential opportunity for commercial uses serving trail users, such as bicycle store and restaurant. To the south of the proposed retail building is asingle-family residence. The application includes a new building of 2,200 square feet for office/retail use. According to the applicant this will be a separate phase of development once the parking is under construction. The buildings to the south are proposed to be demolished and additional parking will be provided for Baseline Bargain Center. The applicant will still be providing adequate parking of 42 spaces forthe original retail building. Additionally, 9 parking spaces will be constructed for the new office/retail building. The exterior of both buildings are proposed with stucco finish, and a bellyband accent. The original building has been modified with additional windows trimmed with metal gray aluminum and a new entrance. Since the recent Planning Commission hearing, the roof has been sealed to prevent leaking into the building, and a primary stucco coat has been completed. The applicant is proposing the new building to match the exterior of the existing Baseline Bargain Center. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • DRC COMMENTS • DRCCUP98-08-IFTIKHAR May 6, 2003 Page 2 Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: There are several technical deficiencies in the proposed parking, staff will address through the Technical Review Committee that may affect the total parking count; hence, could affect the size of the proposed retail building. Provide stronger entry statement focal point for new retail building, such as a tower. 3. Consider relocating new retail building's entry to the south elevation or southeast corner to be visible from the parking lot. 4. Provide additional design treatment to the west elevation to avoid 30-foot long blank expanse in the middle. 5. The pedestrian area at the front of the building, where the new main entry will be, should be a major focal point. Address the pedestrian area with additional landscaping, decorative pavement and extended concrete planters, with a minimum of 5 feet in depth. Additional shrubbery landscape, and irrigation shall be provided to maintain the pedestrian area. Because of the new orientation of the buildings, the existing exterior ramp and entry shall be removed from the south side of the building. • 6. Keystone elements and lentils shall be added on the top of all windows as an accent feature on both buildings. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide window surrounds on all windows. Per the original conditions, wrought iron fencing and brick pilasters shall be provided on the west property line abutting the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail corridor. A decorative block wall shall be constructed on the property line abutting the single-family residences as required in Resolution 01-16 No. 14. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Develop a Uniform Sign Program for both buildings to create a coordinated project theme of uniform design elements, such as, color, sign type, lettering style, and placement. 2. Trash enclosure shall include separate employee entrance and proper dimensions per City standards. 3. To screen parking areas, a combination of berming, low walls, and landscaping shall be provided. • 4. No can signs are allowed on either building. Sign approval for the new building will require a Sign Program and include both buildings. DRC COMMENTS • DRCCUP98-08-IFTIKHAR May 6, 2003 Page 3 5. Provide sidewalk connection from new retail building's entry to the public sidewalk on Amethyst Street. 6. Conserve water in the landscape by following City's Xeriscape Ordinance, such as replacing some of the turf with river rock cobble. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the above recommendations. Attachments iDesign Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Emily Wimer • • • ~~ ~3 • ~^ s ~ -- • • CJ ~~ GO~r Ni I t ~1'1f ihA . • • • Stucco coat, new windows, entry door, and cornice are currently under construction and have not been approved. Use of existing parking spaces as illegal outdoor storage DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY MAY 6, 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 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. 7:00 p.m. (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00237 - ROBINSON'S MAY - A request to construct atwo-story, 180,080 square foot department store (Robinson's May) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway-APN: 0227-161-48 and 49; 0227-171- 36; 0227-201-35 and 45 thru 48; and 0227-211-30 and 39 thru 43. This action is within the scope of the project reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for Development Agreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716. Said EIR was certified by the City Council on February 20, 2002, and no additional environmental review for the discretionary actions mentioned in this notice is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:15 p.m. (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00309-MACY'S-Arequesttoconstructatwo story, 175,000 square foot department store (Macy's) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway, APN: 0227-262-35, 36, and 38; 0227-171-22 and 23; 0227-201- 30, 33, 35, and 36; 0227-211-24, 39, and 40 thru 43. 7:40 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSSMENTANDDESIGNREVIEWDRC2003-00124-U.S. HOME - A request for design review of detail site plan and house product elevations for 81 single-family lots (TR16312) of a previously approved Tentative Tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street -APN: 0227-161-44. • DRC AGENDA May 6, 2003 Page 2 • 8:00 p.m. (Alan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00839 - O & S HOLDINGS, LLC -The review of the site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed shopping center totaling 273,200 square feet, with 183,500 square feet of in-line retail stores, eleven individual retail pad buildings, three of which are restaurant sites and two with drive-thru lanes totaling 89,700 square feet, on 60 acres of land on the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. Related files: SUBTPM16033 and GPA2002-00002. 8:30 p.m. (Alan) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964-TOLLBROTHERS-Thedevelopment 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. 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 May 6, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00237 - ROBINSON'S MAY - A request to construct atwo- story, 180,080 square foot department store (Robinson's May) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway- APN: 0227-161-48 and 49; 0227-171-36; 0227-201-35 and 45 thru 48; and 0227-211-30 and 39 thru 43. This action is within the scope of the project reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for DevelopmentAgreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716. Said EIR was certified bythe City Council on February 20, 2002, and no additional environmental review for the discretionary actions mentioned in this notice is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The applicant presented the Committee with a revised plan showing a 10-foot wide driveway on the east side of the building as measured from the east wall of the equipment enclosure to the curb face. The Committee requested that landscaping be provided on the north and south ends of the enclosure to screen the enclosure. Ground cover, shrubs, and climbing vines were suggested within the landscaping. The applicant clarified that a planter existed on south side and agreed to duplicate on north side. The Committee recommended approval with this change. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. 'Brent Le Count May 6, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00309 - MACY'S - A request to construct a two story, 175,000 square foot department store (Macy's) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-i 5 Freeway, APN:022I-262-35, 36, and 38; 0227-171-22 and 23; 0227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; 027-211-24, 39, and 40 thru 43. Design Parameters: The building will be located on the eastern terminus of the future South Main Street within the center. Two shop buildings will flank the entrance on the west elevation similar to the design for Robinson's May. Of the four planned anchortenants within the Center, Macy's will be the closest (approximately 400 feet from the Caltrans right-of-way line); hence, most visually prominent from the I-15 Freeway. There are vast parking fields to the south and east and a smaller parking lot on the north side of the building, and on-street parallel parking along the west side of the building. All four sides of the building will have pedestrian entrances all of which utilize glass, colored stucco, decorative cornice work, and horizontal change of building plane to provide visual interest and a sense of arrival. Also, all of the entrances will have double door foyers. There is a truck loading dock proposed on the northeast corner of the building and a utility enclosure is proposed at the northeast corner of the loading dock well (surrounded by decorative walls). The dock area will be visible from the I-15 Freeway and the future Eden Avenue (one of the private streets within the Center). Roof-mounted equipment is proposed to be concealed behind raised decorative parapets and a sight line study shows that the equipment will be barely visible from the I-15 Freeway because the freeway is elevated in this area. Finally, the entire perimeter of the building is proposed to be at the same grade level so that customers do not have to go up or down • steps. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide minimum 12-15-foot wide sidewalk, including tree wells, around perimeter as required by Victoria Gardens Master Plan (see Chapter 4, Sections J and K). Although sufficient setback is available, the proposed 6-foot sidewalk width is too narrow to meet the design intent of having "large areas dedicated to pedestrians." Sidewalk to be natural concrete with a retardant finish or exposed aggregate finish, with saw-cut joints every 5 feet on center. Relocate the vehicle "drop-off/valet" parking bay at southeast corner of building to a more suitable location near the north or south entrances to Macy's. This street is not intended to have on-street parking per Victoria Gardens Master Plan. As proposed, does not meet required building setback and sidewalk width. Provide enhanced paving treatment in the driveway entrance to the loading dock area at the northeast corner of the building. The intent is to maintain a high level of visual interest relative to the pedestrian experience as customers walk by the dock area. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00309 - MACY'S May 6, 2003 • Page 2 Provide a beam or canopy (similar to entrance canopies) spanning from the northeast corner of the building to the eastern end of the loading dock screen wall/utility enclosure. The intent is to provide a visual break at the entrance to the loading dock to draw attention to the entrance rather than the dock area and to architecturally incorporate the dock/utility enclosure into the building. This may necessitate raising the height of the northern dock screen wall/utility enclosure wall for truck clearance and proportions relative to the building. Expand planter islands to the east and northeast of loading docks to maximize landscape screening from freeway. 6. Increase the amount of shrub planting on the north, south, and eastsides of the building and reduce the overall area of lawn. The intent is to provide a layering affect of various height shrubs to accent and compliment the building and enhance the pedestrian experience for passers by. 7. Coordinate with the mall developer to provide decorative enhanced paving leading from entry doors across the private streets to the parking lots. 8. Roof mounted equipment screens shall be treated with decorative materials to match the building walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the subject Development Review application subject to the above comments and any • other comments the Committee may have. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNeil, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommends approval of the project subject to staff comments as well as the following additional comments: Provide 10-foot wide (minimum) sidewalks around the building with tree wells at back of curb consistent with the adopted Victoria Gardens Master Plan. 2. The building wall reveals shall be of adequate dimension in order to cast substantial shadows to visually convey the sections or blocks of wall surface. Applicant is to submit dimensions to staff. 3. Provide a beam across the opening of the loading dock as presented to the Committee at the meeting. It would be appropriate to cover the beam as well as loading dock walls with actual stucco (texture to match building) instead of EIFS for durability. The Committee is not opposed to raising the beam height as necessary to accommodate the various trucks and equipment expected to operate in the loading dock. 4. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to work with Forest City to design adequate • truck turning radius at on-site intersections and enforce established truck routes for all delivery and trash pick up activity so as to avoid having trucks run over planters, curbs, into walls. etc. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00309 - MACY'S May 6, 2003 Page 3 5. Avoid the use of oleander shrubs as they are poisonous and have been attacked by scorch. Replace with another lush shrub type consistent with the landscape materials used elsewhere in the Regional Center. 6. Avoid the use of turf in the parking lot planter islands. Use trees and layered shrub planting to take full advantage of the planter width for screening. Increase the number of Palm trees planted around the building and provide Palms of substantial size and height when planted to convey a more mature appearance. It is recognized that Palm tree planting in the vicinity of wall signs is a concern of the applicant; however, along the east side of the building, Mexican Fan Palms are the approved tree per the Victoria Arbors Master Plan. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Doug Fenn May 6, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 81 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16312 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street. APN: 227-161-44. 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. Vacant land to the north and west and Church Street to the south border the site, and across Day Creek Boulevard to the east is vacant land that 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 3,056 to 3,842 square feet. The 5 architectural styles proposed include Cottage, Bungalow, English Cottage, French Country, and Country (not permitted). The homes will also include porches on corner lots, side-on garages, and additional enhanced architecture on elevations, which back and side on Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street. 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. "Country" is not one of the architectural styles required/allowed bythe Victoria Arbors Master Plan Chapter 7B. Character/Style, page 2 through 11. Residential design should reflect the following characters and style of "W ine country" such as French; Italian; English Cottage and Bungalow. 2. Provide two additional Floor Plans. The project should meet or exceed the citywide standard expressed in Development Code Section 17.08.090.C.16.a. that requires a minimum of 8 Floor Plans for a tract with 81-100 homes. The following may be counted as additional Floor Plans: reverse footprints, alternate orientation of 90 degrees or greater, an alternate garage orientation (i.e., side entry or detached). The developer is only proposing 6 Floor Plans: 3 basic Floor Plans plus reverse plotting of each. 3. Provide at least 4 elevation treatments for all Floor Plans. The project should meet or exceed the citywide standard expressed in Development Code Section 17.08.090.C.16.a that requires a minimum of 4 elevations per Floor Plan. Plan Two only has 3 elevation treatments. Also, as noted in No. 1, the "Country" treatment is not allowed. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows as a standard feature include in sales price of home (not optional). 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. • 3. The pilasters used for the Bungalow style architecture should widen at the bottom for a more rural and traditional look. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME May 6, 2003 • Page 2 4. Chimneys should 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. Porches should create pedestrian friendly streets by a setback within "a modest conversational distance from the sidewalk" according to the Arbors Victoria Master Plan. Plan 3 does not meet this intent because porch is setback approximately 21 feet behind the front of the house (side-in garage). 7. Plan 2 -Trellis over driveway should be substantially increased in depth (area covered). 8. Provide decorative paving/treatment on driveways. To enhance streetscape, decorative paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides. 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 The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff on one remaining secondary item and bring the project back as a Consent item. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Alan Warren May 6, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00839-0 & S HOLDINGS, LLC -The review of the site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed shopping center totaling 273,200 square feet, with 183,500 square feet of in-line retail stores, eleven individual retail pad buildings, three of which are restaurant sites and two with drive-thru lanes totaling 89,700 square feet, on 60 acres of land on the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. Related files: SUBTPM16033 and G PA2002-00002. Design Parameters: The site is in an area of significant planned activity being just south of the proposed mall and surrounding support developments. Along the south and west boundaries is the I-15 Freeway, and being below the roadway level, the site can easily be observed by motorists traveling south. This offers a significant opportunity for a development to present a positive picture of the community. The development's west side is bordered by a utility easement that is presently used for plant nursery storage. The Site Plan conforms to minimum City requirement and with the retail spaces 1-9 facing the freeway (loading areas facing west) the layout present the most favorable elevations toward the freeway view. Pads 1, 2, and 6, Restaurants 1 and 3 will continue the streetscape pattern presently exhibited along Foothill Boulevard east of Haven Avenue. An important feature of the Site Plan is the shared Foothill Boulevard driveway access and internal traffic circle with the property to the east. Because of an expanded on-ramp for the I-15 Freeway only one driveway is to be allowed on to • Foothill Boulevard between Day Creek Boulevard and the Freeway. The applicant has applied many of the City's commercial design guidelines in developing the center's design. The innovative walkway design along the fronts of Retail Spaces 4 through 8 is a unique feature (refer to Sheets A-2, A-3 and A-4) that, along with the interesting architecture, will significantly enhance the shopping experience. 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 front elevations of the retail spaces exhibit architectural features that are appropriate for use when attempting.to develop an historic "Route 66" theme. Staff believes, however, that the use of towers and vertical accents are a bit over done, which results in a somewhat discordant appearance. The continuous "up and down motion" of the vertical elements along the facade seems to have too much articulation. This can be remedied by providing some frontage, at select locations, without vertical elements., 2. The shared driveway circle midway was originally proposed by the property owner to the east. The Site Plan shown for the east property complies with a design previously reviewed by staff for a Conditional Use Permit application. Because of the recent Freeway access realignment the applicant has not proceeded beyond the incompleteness stage. Staff believes this shared traffic circle further provides a visual connection of the two retail • properties. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00839 - O & S HOLDINGS, LLC May 6, 2003 • Page 2 3. A "roundabout" is proposed between the two sides of the center divided by Day Creek Boulevard, just south of the Foothill Boulevard intersection. The Traffic Engineer has favored this feature over a signaled intersection because of the close proximity of the planned signal intersection on Foothill Boulevard. A General Plan Amendment will accompany this application to modify the classification of Day Creek Boulevard south of Foothill Boulevard from a "secondary arterial" to a "modified collector" classification. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The east and south elevations of Restaurant 2 exhibit some unadorned wall area. Staff recommends that planters with climbing vines be provided on vertical trellis structures against these walls. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Trash enclosures are provided throughout the site. The applicant should be advised that all the enclosures should be required to be constructed to City standards. 2. Create a strong entry statement with textured pavement at project entrances. Clearly delineate on-site pedestrian walkways with special pavement, landscaping, and lighting. • 3. Screen parking areas from public view with mounding, landscaping, low walls, grade differentials, and building orientation. 4. Screen trash enclosures, ground-mounted equipment, and utilities from public view. 5. Avoid expanses of blank wall, devoid of any articulation or embellishment. 6. Integrate screening for roof-mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) rather than have a "tacked-on" appearance. The application does have line-of-sight studies for the Freeway views of the buildings. 7. Screen drive-thru lanes from public view by orienting the building and a combination of landscaping, berming, and low screen walls. 8. Thirty percent of all trees are to be box size for the commercial project. Maintain landscaping for adequate sight lines for motorists at intersections and driveways. 9. Provide a Uniform Sign Program to create a coordinated project theme of uniform design elements, such as color, lettering style, and placement. Specify a consistent sign type and avoid mixing different sign types, such as canister signs with channelized letters. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the project, with the above listed Design Policies (1-9). The environmental review process is still being reviewed to determine the suitable CEQA course for the applications. The project will not be forwarded to the Commission until all appropriate environmental analysis has been completed. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00839 - O & S HOLDINGS, LLC May 6, 2003 • Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Shopping Center was approved, with the master plan concept with the property to the east, as submitted, with the above listed conditions, except as follows: The architecture as presented was accepted. No modifications to the vertical elements were required. 2. The materials and colors were approved subject to the addition of fieldstone accent veneers for the in-line buildings and other similarly design structures. 3. Any significant changes to the special styles of the pad and restaurant buildings must be processed through the standard design review to the Planning Commission. Use of the architectural theme of the in-line buildings for pad sites may be reviewed and approved at the Planning staff level. \_J L~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:30 p.m. Alan Warren May 6, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00964-TOLLBROTHERS-Thedevelopment 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. Desiqn 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 eightfloor 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. u 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 bythe applicantto 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. Perimetertract 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. 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 similarto 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. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 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 • similarto that exhibited on the other models. 3. Provide extra deep setbacks for two-story houses on corner lots. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS • May 6, 2003 Page 4 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 may be manufactured products. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends thatthe 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 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. • 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. f. Interior property line walls or fences. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • MAY 6, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad uller Secretary • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY MAY 6, 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 r~ L 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. 7:00 p.m. (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00237 - ROBINSON'S MAY - A request to construct atwo-story, 180,080 square foot department store (Robinson's May) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway -APN: 0227-161-48 and 49; 0227-171- 36; 0227-201-35 and 45 thru 48; and 0227-211-30 and 39 thru 43. This action is within the scope of the project reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028) prepared for Development Agreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716. Said EIR was certified by the City Council on February 20, 2002, and no additional environmental review forthe discretionary actions mentioned in this notice is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:15 p.m. (Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00309-MACY'S-Arequesttoconstructatwo story, 175,000 square foot department store (Macy's) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan located north of Foothill Boulevard, South of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway, APN: 0227-262-35, 36, and 38; 0227-171-22 and 23; 0227-201- 30, 33, 35, and 36; 0227-211-24, 39, and 40 thru 43. 7:40 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSSMENTANDDESIGNREVIEWDRC2003-00124-U.S. HOME - A request for design review of detail site plan and house product elevations for 81 single-family lots (TR16312) of a previously approved Tentative Tract 15974 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street -APN: 0227-161-44. • DRC AGENDA May 6, 2003 Page 2 • 8:00 p.m (Alan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00839 - O & S HOLDINGS, LLC -The review of the site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed shopping center totaling 273,200 square feet, with 183,500 square feet of in-line retail stores, eleven individual retail pad buildings, three of which are restaurant sites and two with drive-thru lanes totaling 89,700 square feet, on 60 acres of land on the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. Related files: SUBTPM16033 and GPA2002-00002. 8:30 p.m. (Alan) 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. 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 1, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic C ter Drive, ancho Cucamonga. • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count May 6, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00237 - ROBINSON'S MAY - A request to construct atwo- story, 180,080 square foot department store (Robinson's May) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-15 Freeway-APN: 0227-161-48 and 49; 0227-171-36; 0227-201-35 and 45 thru 48; and 0227-211-30 and 39 thru 43. This action is within the scope of the project reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 20010301028)prepgred for DevelopmentAgreement 01-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT15716. Said EIR was certified by the City Council on February 20, 2002, and no additional environmental review for the discretionary actions mentioned in this notice is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Brent Le Count May 6, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00309 - MACY'S - A request to construct a two story, 175,000 square foot department store (Macy's) within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan located north of Foothill Boulevard, South of Church Street, between Day Creek Boulevard and the I-15Freeway, APN:0227-262-35, 36, and 38; 0227-171-22 and 23; 0227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; 027-211-24, 39, and 40 thru 43. Design Parameters: The building will be located on the eastern terminus of the future South Main Street within the center. Two shop buildings will flank the entrance on the west elevation similar to the design for Robinson's May. Of the four planned anchor tenants within the Center, Macy's will be the closest (approximately 400 feet from the Caltrans right-of-way line); hence, most visually prominent from the I-15 Freeway. There are vast parking fields to the south and east and a smaller parking lot on the north side of the building, and on-street parallel parking along the west side of the building. All four sides of the building will have pedestrian entrances all of which utilize glass, colored stucco, decorative cornice work, and horizontal change of building plane to provide visual interest and a sense of arrival. Also, all of the entrances will have double door foyers. There is a truck loading dock proposed on the northeast corner of the building and a utility enclosure is proposed at the northeast corner of the loading dock well (surrounded by decorative walls). The dock area will be visible from the I-15 Freeway and the future Eden Avenue (one of the private streets within the Center). Roof-mounted equipment is proposed to be concealed behind raised decorative parapets and a sight line study shows that the equipment will be barely visible from the I-15 Freeway because the freeway is elevated in this area. Finally, the entire perimeter of the • building is proposed to be at the same grade level so that customers do not have to go up or down steps. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide minimum 12-15-foot wide sidewalk, including tree wells, around perimeter as required by Victoria Gardens Master Plan (see Chapter 4, Sections J and K). Although sufficient setback is available, the proposed 6-foot sidewalk width is too narrow to meet the design intent of having "large areas dedicated to pedestrians." Sidewalk to be natural concrete with a retardant finish or exposed aggregate finish, with saw-cut joints every 5 feet on center. 2. Relocate the vehicle "drop-off/valet" parking bay at southeast corner of building to a more suitable location near the north or south entrances to Macy's. This street is not intended to have on-street parking per Victoria Gardens Master Plan. As proposed, does not meet required building setback and sidewalk width. 3. Provide enhanced paving treatment in the driveway entrance to the loading dock area at the northeast corner of the building. The intent is to maintain a high level of visual interest relative to the pedestrian experience as customers walk by the dock area. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00309 - MACY'S May 6, 2003 • Page 2 4. Provide a beam or canopy (similar to entrance canopies) spanning from the northeast corner of the building to the eastern end of the loading dock screen wall/utility enclosure. The intent is to provide a visual break at the entrance to the loading dock to draw attention to the entrance rather than the dock area and to architecturally incorporate the dock/utility enclosure into the building. This may necessitate raising the height of the northern dock screen wall/utility enclosure wall fortruck clearance and proportions relative to the building. 5. Expand planter islands to the east and northeast of loading docks to maximize landscape screening from freeway. 6. Increase the amount of shrub planting on the north, south, and east sides of the building and reduce the overall area of lawn. The intent is to provide a layering affect of various height shrubs to accent and compliment the building and enhance the pedestrian experience for passers by. 7. Coordinate with the mall developer to provide decorative enhanced paving leading from entry doors across the private streets to the parking lots. 8. Roof mounted equipment screens shall be treated with decorative materials to match the building walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend • approval of the subject Development Review application subject to the above comments and any other comments the Committee may have. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Doug Fenn May 6, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 81 single-family lots of a previously approved Tentative Tract 16312 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street. APN:22I-161-44. 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. Vacant land to the north and west and Church Street to the south border the site, and across Day Creek Boulevard to the east is vacant land that 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 3,056 to 3,842 square feet. The 5 architectural styles proposed include Cottage, Bungalow, English Cottage, French Country, and Country (not permitted). The homes will also include porches on corner lots, side-on garages, and additional enhanced architecture on elevations, which back and side on Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street. 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. "Country" is not one of the architectural styles required/allowed by the Victoria Arbors Master Plan Chapter 7B. Character/Style, page 2 through 11. Residential design should reflect the following characters and style of "W ine country" such as French; Italian; English Cottage and Bungalow. 2. Provide two additional Floor Plans. The project should meet or exceed the citywide standard expressed in Development Code Section 17.08.090.C.16.a. that requires a minimum of 8 Floor Plans for a tract with 81-100 homes. The following may be counted as additional Floor Plans: reverse footprints, alternate orientation of 90 degrees or greater, an alternate garage orientation (i.e., side entry or detached). The developer is only proposing 6 Floor Plans: 3 basic Floor Plans plus reverse plotting of each. 3. Provide at least 4 elevation treatments for all Floor Plans. The project should meet or exceed the citywide standard expressed in Development Code Section 17.08.090.C.16.a that requires a minimum of 4 elevations per Floor Plan. Plan Two only has 3 elevation treatments. Also, as noted in No. 1, the "Country" treatment is not allowed. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows as a standard feature include in sales price of home (not optional). 2. 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. • 3. The pilasters used for the Bungalow style architecture should widen at the bottom for a more rural and traditional look. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00124 - U.S. HOME May 6, 2003 Page 2 4. Chimneys should 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. Porches should create pedestrian friendly streets by a setback within "a modest conversational distance from the sidewalk" according to the Arbors Victoria Master Plan. Plan 3 does not meet this intent because porch is setback approximately 21 feet behind the front of the house (side-in garage). 7. Plan 2 -Trellis over driveway should be substantially increased in depth (area covered). 8. Provide decorative paving/treatment on driveways. To enhance streetscape, decorative paving/treatment should be varied throughout the tract. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides. 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: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Alan Warren May 6, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00839 - O & S HOLDINGS, LLC-The review of the site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed shopping center totaling 273,200 square feet, with 183,500 square feet of in-line retail stores, eleven individual retail pad buildings, three of which are restaurant sites and two with drive-thru lanes totaling 89,700 square feet, on 60 acres of land on the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. Related files: SUBTPM16033 and G PA2002-00002. Design Parameters: The site is in an area of significant planned activity being just south of the proposed mall and surrounding support developments. Along the south and west boundaries is the I-15 Freeway, and being below the roadway level, the site can easily be observed by motorists traveling south. This offers a significant opportunity for a development to present a positive picture of the community. The development's west side is bordered by a utility easement that is presently used for plant nursery storage. The Site Plan conforms to minimum City requirement and with the retail spaces 1-9 facing the freeway (loading areas facing west) the layout present the most favorable elevations toward the freeway view. Pads 1, 2, and 6, Restaurants 1 and 3 will continue the streetscape pattern presently exhibited along Foothill Boulevard east of Haven Avenue. An important feature of the Site Plan is the shared Foothill Boulevard driveway access and internal traffic circle with the property to the east. Because of an expanded on-ramp for the I-15 Freeway only one driveway is to be allowed on to Foothill Boulevard between Day Creek Boulevard and the Freeway. The applicant has applied many of the City's commercial design guidelines in developing the center's design. The innovative walkway design along the fronts of Retail Spaces 4 through 8 is a unique feature (refer to Sheets A-2, A-3 and A-4) that, along with the interesting architecture, will significantly enhance the shopping experience. 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 front elevations of the retail spaces exhibit architectural features that are appropriate for use when attempting to develop an historic "Route 66"theme. Staff believes, however, that the use of towers and vertical accents are a bit over done, which results in a somewhat discordant appearance. The continuous "up and down motion" of the vertical elements along the facade seems to have too much articulation. This can be remedied by providing some frontage, at select locations, without vertical elements. 2. The shared driveway circle midway was originally proposed by the property owner to the east. The Site Plan shown for the east property complies with a design previously reviewed by staff for a Conditional Use Permit application. Because of the recent Freeway access realignment the applicant has not proceeded beyond the incompleteness stage. Staff believes this shared traffic circle further provides a visual connection of the two retail • properties DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00839 - O & S HOLDINGS, LLC May 6, 2003 • Page 2 3. A "roundabout" is proposed between the two sides of the center divided by Day Creek Boulevard, just south of the Foothill Boulevard intersection. The Traffic Engineer has favored this feature over a signaled intersection because of the close proximity of the planned signal intersection on Foothill Boulevard. A General Plan Amendment will accompany this application to modify the classification of Day Creek Boulevard south of Foothill Boulevard from a "secondary arterial" to a "modified collector" classification. 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 east and south elevations of Restaurant 2 exhibit some unadorned wall area. Staff recommends that planters with climbing vines be provided on vertical trellis structures against these walls. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Trash enclosures are provided throughout the site. The applicant should be advised that all the enclosures should be required to be constructed to City standards. 2. Create a strong entry statement with textured pavement at project entrances. Clearly delineate on-site pedestrian walkways with special pavement, landscaping, and lighting. • 3. Screen parking areas from public view with mounding, landscaping, low walls, grade differentials, and building orientation. 4. Screen trash enclosures, ground-mounted equipment, and utilities from public view. 5. Avoid expanses of blank wall, devoid of any articulation or embellishment. 6. Integrate screening for roof-mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) rather than have a "tacked-on" appearance. The application does have line-of-sight studies for the Freeway views of the buildings. 7. Screen drive-thru lanes from public view by orienting the building and a combination of landscaping, berming, and low screen walls. 8. Thirty percent of all trees are to be box size for the commercial project. Maintain landscaping for adequate sight lines for motorists at intersections and driveways. 9. Provide a Uniform Sign Program to create a coordinated project theme of uniform design elements, such as color, lettering style, and placement. Specify a consistent sign type and avoid mixing different sign types, such as canister signs with channelized letters. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the project, with the above listed Design Policies (1-9). The environmental review process is still being reviewed to determine the suitable CEQA course for the applications. The project will not be forwarded to the Commission until all appropriate environmental analysis has been completed. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00839 - O & S HOLDINGS, LLC May 6, 2003 • Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Alan Warren r 1 LJ 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, O6, 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. • 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. 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. 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. 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. Policy 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 policystates, "Design chimneystacks 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 for two-story houses on corner lots. DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00964 -TOLL BROTHERS May 6, 2003 • Page 4 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 may be manufactured products. 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 • •