No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/11/30 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 30. 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTION AGENDA • Committee Members: Alternates: CONSENT CALENDAR No items submitted. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel 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. (Vance/Shelley) USE PERMIT REVIEW DRC2004-00542 -CADENCE CAPITAL - A request for a 5,000 square foot Denny's restaurant and 6,200 square foot in-line retail on a .41-acre parcel (part of a 17.4-acre shopping center) in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 6321 Haven Avenue. APN: 0201-272-08. 7:20 p.m. (Brad/Joe) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00906-JOECONZONIRE-A request to construct a 2,260 square foot "The Hat" restaurant with drive-thru on .82-acre of land within the Route 66 Outparcels of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Monet Avenue, approximately 300 feet north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-35. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy November 30, 2004 USE PERMIT REVIEW DRC2004-00542 -CADENCE CAPITAL - A request fora 5,000 square foot Denny's restaurant and 6,200 square foot in-line retail on a .41-acre parcel (part of a 17.4-acre shopping center) in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 6321 Haven Avenue. APN: 0201-272-08. Design Parameters: This proposal is for the addition of an attached restaurant and shop building in the existing Haven Village Center on the east side of Haven Avenue north of the 210 Freeway. The proposed vacant .41-acre building pad close to the southeast corner of the 17.4-acre center was originally master planned for retail space. The center has two outstanding locations for expansion: a pad recently approved for a Del Taco drive-thru restaurant near the northwest of the center; and a wireless telecommunications facility in the parking lot for which planning entitlements have been issued but which has not been constructed. The shopping center was constructed prior to the effective date of the City parking ordinance and, therefore, has a lower 4/1,000 square foot parking requirement than the current standard of 5/1,000 square foot for shopping centers. The additional food service floor area, both the approved fast food restaurant and the subject proposal, bring the total parking requirement beyond the existing number of parking spaces. With the addition of parking spaces at the subject site, the subject proposal will • bring the total spaces provided two spaces beyond the required number. Architectural design is the critical focus of this project. The applicant has worked with staff to improve the site design and the architectural design and has made important improvements to the landscape design including trees along the southerly perimeter of the center. The Haven Village Center has a distinctive architectural theme with wood siding and river stone as the key materials. Hipped roof elements with covered and open beam sections and open rafter tails cover the walkways and other areas around the buildings. The proposed restauranUshop extension uses all the thematic features of the center by incorporating multiple wall planes in horizontal wood siding with corner blocking surmounting roof sections circling the perimeterof the building. The continuity with the existing architecture should be noted. The design provides well-defined sign areas on two elevations: south and west. The shopping center is subdivided with several parcels under different ownership. The parcel containing the building identified as "Miscellaneous Shops" abutting the subject site to the north is under different ownership and includes a portion of the existing dirt lot upon which the subject building is proposed. The portion of the subject building identified as "Shop 1," "Shop, 2"and "Shop 3"will abut this portion of the abutting parcel. The CC&R's for the center permit reciprocal ingress, egress, and parking, but also restrict the expansion of the "Miscellaneous Shops" building beyond the existing extent. The potential conflict between the two parcels is generally alleviated by the subject proposal. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion • regarding this project: There are no major issues. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00542 -CADENCE CAPITAL • November 30, 2004 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Circulation in and around the project site is critical. The utility of the parking spaces far from the site maybe best for employees only; therefore, employees should be encouraged to utilize those parking spaces at the rear of shopping center Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Service "man" doors should be painted to match the building. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the project and recommend approval to the City Planner with conditions. Attachments Desicln Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman • Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions and revisions: Provide a Landscape Plan prepared by a Landscape Architect. Improve the Landscape Plan by duplicating the "layering" proposed for the Del Taco restaurant. Replace the gazania , ground cover with a material that has a longer life. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Brad Buller November 30, 2004 CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00906 - JOE CONZONIRE - A request to construct a 2,260 square foot "The Hat" restaurant with drive-thru on .82-acre of land within the Route 66 Outparcels of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Monet Avenue, approximately 300 feet north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-35. Design Parameters: The project site is the third of 16 pad sites and is part of the Route 66 Center of the Victoria Gardens Mall. A Master Plan and a Design Handbook supplement were approved for this portion of the mall. "The Hat" restaurant is proposed on Pad #10 in the northwest quadrant of the Center. The architectural design theme for the Center is Route 66 architecture. The project pads that are submitted to the Design Review Committee (DRC) have been through a separate review process through Forest City, the master builder for the Center. Only those projects that have the approval of Forest City will be presented to the DRC for consideration. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: The Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: One of the major architectural features in the design criteria for the Route 66 Center is the use of eyebrows, and in the case of the "The Hat" restaurant, this is the proposed yellow awnings. The applicant has presented several options for this feature for the Committee's consideration. Staff requested that they consider a continuous awning around the entire building that is similar to the existing "The Hat" restaurants. Though they are willing to look at alternatives, they do not prefer this option because it conflicts with the architectural columns introduced to their building to better reflect old Route 66 architecture. The Committee should review and discuss the options presented. The choice of awning material and color was raised by staff. The high winds and architectural style of the building may call for a different awning/eyebrow treatment. On-site directional signs are currently not allowed for the separate pad users. Forest City is working to establish a separate program to address on-site directional signs for the entire Route 66 Center. 3. The menu board sign shall be kept to a height to be fully screened from Monet Avenue are the southerly drive isle. • Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00906 -JOE CONZONIRE • November 30, 2004 Page 2 There are no policy issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with direction on the signage. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner: Brad Buller The Committee recommended approval of Scheme 5 with both towers. The Committee encouraged the applicant to explore exterior lighting of the building. • r 1 U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS November 30, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ra Buller Secretary • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 30, 2004 7:00 P.M. • • mmittee Members Alternates: CONSENT CALENDAR No items submitted. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel 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. (Vance/Shelley) USE PERMIT REVIEW DRC2004-00542 -CADENCE CAPITAL - A request for a 5,000 square foot Denny's restaurant and 6,200 square foot in-line retail on a .41-acre parcel (part of a 17.4-acre shopping center) in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 6321 Haven Avenue. APN: 0201-272-08. 7:20 p.m. (Brad/Joe) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00906 -JOE CONZONIRE - A requestto construct a 2,260 square foot "The Hat" restaurant with drive-thru on .82-acre of land within the Route 66 Outparcels of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Monet Avenue, approximately 300 feet north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-35. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November24, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~Q sti~~~~dl~~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy November 30, 2004 USE PERMIT REVIEW DRC2004-00542 -CADENCE CAPITAL - A requestfora 5,000 square foot Denny's restaurant and 6,200 square foot in-line retail on a .41-acre parcel (part of a 17.4-acre shopping center) in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 6321 Haven Avenue. APN: 0201-272-08. Design Parameters: This proposal is for the addition of an attached restaurant and shop building in the existing Haven Village Center on the east side of Haven Avenue north of the 210 Freeway. The proposed vacant .41-acre building pad close to the southeast corner of the 17.4-acre center was originally master planned for retail space. The center has lwo outstanding locations for expansion: a pad recently approved for a Del Taco drive-thru restaurant near the northwest of the center; and a wireless telecommunications facility in the parking lot for which planning entitlements have been issued but which has not been constructed. The shopping center was constructed prior to the effective date of the City parking ordinance and, therefore, has a lower 4/1,000 square foot parking requirement than the current standard of 5/1,000 square foot for shopping centers. The additional food service floor area, both the approved fast food restaurant and the subject proposal, bring the total parking requirement beyond the existing number of parking spaces. With the addition of parking spaces at the subject site, the subject proposal will bring the total spaces provided two spaces beyond the required number. ~ • Architectural design is the critical focus of this project. The applicant has worked with staff to improve the site design and the architectural design and has made important improvements to the landscape design including trees along the southerly perimeter of the center. The Haven Village Center has a distinctive architectural theme with wood siding and river stone as the key materials. Hipped roof elements with covered and open beam sections and open rafter tails cover the walkways and other areas around the buildings. The proposed restauranUshop extension uses all the thematic features of the center by incorporating multiple wall planes in horizontal wood siding with corner blocking surmounting roof sections circling the perimeter of the building. The continuity with the existing architecture should be noted. The design provides well-defined sign areas on two elevations: south and west. The shopping center is subdivided with several parcels under different ownership. The parcel containing the building identified as "Miscellaneous Shops" abutting the subject site to the north is under different ownership and includes a portion of the existing dirt lot upon which the subject building is proposed. The portion of the subject building identified as "Shop 1," "Shop, 2" and "Shop 3" will abut this portion of the abutting parcel. The CC&R's for the center permit reciprocal ingress, egress, and parking, but also restrict the expansion of the "Miscellaneous Shops" building beyond the existing extent. The potential conflict between the two parcels is generally alleviated by the subject proposal. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion • regarding this project: There are no major issues. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00542 -CADENCE CAPITAL November 30, 2004 • Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Circulation in and around the project site is critical. The utility of the parking spaces far from the site maybe best for employees only; therefore, employees should be encouraged to utilize those parking spaces at the rear of shopping center Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Service "man" doors should be painted to match the building. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the project and recommend approval to the City Planner with conditions. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy • Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Brad Buller November 30, 2004 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00906 - JOE CONZONIRE - A request to construct a 2,260 square foot "The Hat" restaurant with drive-thru on .82-acre of land within the Route 66 Outparcels of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Monet Avenue, approximately 300 feet north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-35. Design Parameters: The project site is the third of 16 pad sites and is part of the Route 66 Center of the Victoria Gardens Mall. A Master Plan and a Design Handbook supplement were approved for this portion of the mall. "The Hat" restaurant is proposed on Pad #10 in the northwest quadrant of the Center. The architectural design theme for the Center is Route 66 architecture. The project pads that are submitted to the Design Review Committee (DRC) have been through a separate review process through Forest City, the master builder for the Center. Onlythose projects that have the approval of Forest City will be presented to the DRC for consideration. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: The Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: One of the major architectural features in the design criteria for the Route 66 Center is the use of eyebrows, and in the case of the "The Hat" restaurant, this is the proposed yellow awnings. The applicant has presented several options for this feature for the Committee's consideration. Staff requested that they consider a continuous awning around the entire building that is similar to the existing "The Hat" restaurants. Though they are willing to look at alternatives, they do not prefer this option because it conflicts with the architectural columns introduced to their building to better reflect old Route 66 architecture. The Committee should review and discuss the options presented. The choice of awning material and color was raised by staff. The high winds and architectural style of the building may call for a different awning/eyebrow treatment. 2. On-site directional signs are currently not allowed for the separate pad users. Forest City is working to establish a separate program to address on-site directional signs for the entire Route 66 Center. 3. The menu board sign shall be kept to a height to be fully screened from Monet Avenue are the southerly drive isle. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00906 -JOE CONZONIRE November 30, 2004 • Page 2 There are no policy issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with direction on the signage. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Brad Buller Members Present: • u • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA TUESDAY NOVEMBER 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA • • Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman Larry McNiel The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Dan/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to develop a public storage facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the manager's office and apartment, on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp -APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:10 p.m (Dan) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 157 - DRC2004-00734 - MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES -The review of a program for signs at the Winery Estate Marketplace, an approved shopping center anchored by Henry's Marketplace, to be located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road -APN: 0227-161-39. Related File: DRC2003-00504. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Dan Coleman November 16, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to develop a public storage facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the manager's office and apartment, on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp -APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved this project on April 28, 2004. During plan check, staff noted changes from the approved elevations for the Office Manager's portion of the project. The primary changes affect the the roof in terms of height. The proposed roof changes increase the overall massing of the building and provides a more visible, stronger roof element. Minor changes include additional windows on the west elevation, and shortening the height of a vertical window element on the tower. Colored plans will be available at the meeting for both the proposed and originally approved elevations. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • Issues: None -staff believes that the changes are consistent with the design theme of the project and maintain the architectural integrity of the structure. Further, the proposed changes improve upon the original design scheme. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee approved the project as presented. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Dan Coleman November 16, 2004 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 157 - DRC2004-00734 -MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES -The review of a program for signs at the Winery Estate Marketplace, an approved shopping center anchored by Henry's Marketplace, to be located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 0227-161-39. Related File: DRC2003-00504. Design Parameters: In Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-86, Planning Condition of Approval #10 required Design Review Committee (DRC) review because of the unique design character of center: "The Uniform Sign Program shall incorporate a historic nature in appearance subject to Design Review Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits." The shopping center has a strong architectural theme based upon winery estates. The Uniform Sign Program (USP) stresses the importance of designing signs that consider the specific architectural style of their building facade. The USP establishes a hierarchy of sign types depending upon the size of the tenant (see Summary • on Page 7). Page 8 illustrates the four types of sign styles that are proposed: two are backlit and two are illuminated by decorative gooseneck light fixtures. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Issues: Project Identification Monument Signs -Delete one of the two proposed Project ID signs on Base Line Road because the City's Sign Ordinance limits to one per street frontage. Delete two out of the four proposed Project ID signs because the City's Sign Ordinance limits to a maximum of two such signs per center. Staff recommends deleting Project ID #2 on Base Line Road and # 4 on Madrigal Street (see Page 14). Also, Page 15 should be revised to label all materials and dimension elevation (like page 13). 2. Monument Signs A & B -Four monument signs are proposed for tenant identification. Add street address as required by the City's Sign Ordinance. An alternative would be to include street address on the Project ID Monuments. 3. Anchor Tenant Wall Sign -The proposed sign type consists of internally illuminated channelized letters that are typical of most shopping centers (see page 9). Does the Committee feel that this type of sign reflects the unique architecture? Alternatives could be explored such as backlit letters or an externally illuminated sign. Lastly, delete "Farmers Market" and "Fresh Produce" from Henry's Marketplace building because the City's Sign Ordinance prohibits extraneous text and listing of products. The Ordinance limits sign copy to the business name, which staff believes is "Henry's Marketplace" (Exhibit "B"). • 4. Tenant Wall Signs -Reduce letter heights (see page 7) as follows: DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00734 -MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES • November 16, 2004 Page 2 Pro osed Staff Recommendation Tenant over 4'-0" maximum 2'-0" maximum 3,000 sq. ft. (legible up to 2,000 ft.)' (legible up to 1,000 ft.) Tenant under 2'-6" maximum 1'-6" maximum 2,999 sq. ft. (legible up to 1,250 ft.) (legible up to 750 ft.) Single User 3'-0" maximum 1'-6" maximum Pad Tenant (legible up to 1,500 ft.) (legible up to 750 ft.) 4-foot high letters are usually allowed only for major anchor stores, and 3-foot high letters allowed for sub-major anchors. Tenant wall sign letter heights throughout the City are usually 18 to 24 inches. Two Planning Commission design guidelines are relevant to this issue: Size of signs must be proportional to the scale of the building and the surface they are affixed to. For shopping centers, use an 18-inch maximum letterheight. Forbuildings plotted at the street setback line, use a 12-inch maximum letter height. (Commission believes that buildings plotted at street setback line do not need as large a sign for • readability]. 5. Blade Signs -The USP introduces this exciting new sign type that was not shown on elevations approved by the Planning Commission. All tenants will be required to have a hanging "blade sign" that projects out from storefront. The proposed location of these signs is between the arches at the same height as the wall signs. Unfortunately, the blade signs are not shown in any of the thumbnail renderings of various buildings. The one photographic example (page 10) from the City of Santa Barbara's State Street shows tenants that have no wall signs and rely exclusively upon blade signs. The applicant should provide the Committee with an enlarged perspective rendering showing the relationship of the blade signs to the wall signs. Likewise, USP should be revised to show blade signs on all elevation renderings. Although well-designed and appropriate for this center, staff is concerned that location of both sign types in close proximity will be too busy and may block views of wall signs; therefore, it is recommended that they be mounted lower on the columns between arches. Another concern is that blade signs may not be appropriate for certain buildings, such as Building "F." Due to their small size and orientation perpendicular to walls, blade signs are targeted at pedestrians walking along storefronts. Building "F" has a file roof colonnade; hence, all signs are located above the roof and would not be visible to pedestrians (Exhibit "C"). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee provide direction to the applicant to work with staff to revise the USP prior to City Planner approval. 1 These distances will vary approximately 10% with various color combinations. Maximum distance in color • would be RED or BLACK on WHITE background. Findings based on National Electrical Sign Association tests and substantiated by test compiled by California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00734 -MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES • November 16, 2004 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The applicant presented revisions that addressed all issues. The Committee approved the revised Uniform Sign Program including the option for Henry's Marketplace to use floodlit or backlit letter. • u DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • November 16, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Bra er Secretary • C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY NOVEMBER 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM ' 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Dan/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to develop a public storage facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the manager's office and apartment, on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp -APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050. • PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:10 p.m (Dan) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 157 - DRC2004-00734 - MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES -The review of a program for signs at the Winery Estate Marketplace, an approved shopping center anchored by Henry's Marketplace, to be located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road -APN: 0227-161-39. Related File: DRC2003-00504. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Oftrce Specialist 11 for the CityofRancho Cucamonga, hereby certify thata true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 10, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to • the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~7~~ ~~~~~. r~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Dan Coleman November 16, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to develop a public storage facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the manager's office and apartment, on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freewayon-ramp -APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved this project on April 28, 2004. During plan check, staff noted changes from the approved elevations for the Office Manager's portion of the project. The primary changes affect the the roof in terms of height. The proposed roof changes increase the overall massing of the building and provides a more visible, stronger roof element. Minor changes include additional windows on the west elevation, and shortening the height of a vertical window element on the tower. Colored plans will be available at the meeting for both the proposed and originally approved elevations. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • Issues: None -staff believes that the changes are consistent with the design theme of the project and maintain the architectural integrity ofthe structure. Further, the proposed changes improve upon the original design scheme. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Dan Coleman Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Dan Coleman November 16, 2004 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 157 - DRC2004-00734 -MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES -The , review of a program for signs at the Winery Estate Marketplace, an approved shopping center anchored by Henry's Marketplace, to be located at the southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 0227-161-39. Related File: DRC2003-00504. Design Parameters: In Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-86, Planning Condition of Approval #10 required Design Review Committee (DRC) review because of the unique design character of center: "The Uniform Sign Program shall incorporate a historic nature in appearance subject to Design Review Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. " The shopping center has a strong architectural theme based upon winery estates. The Uniform Sign Program (USP) stresses the importance of designing signs that consider the specific architectural style of their building facade. The USP establishes a hierarchy of sign types depending upon the size of the tenant (see Summary on Page 7). Page 8 illustrates the four types of sign styles that are proposed: two are backlit and two are illuminated by decorative gooseneck light fixtures. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Issues: Project Identification Monument Signs -Delete one of the two proposed Project ID signs on Base Line Road because the City's Sign Ordinance limits to one per street frontage. Delete two out of the four proposed Project ID signs because the City's Sign Ordinance limits to a maximum of two such signs per center. Staff recommends deleting Project ID #2 on Base Line Road and # 4 on Madrigal Street (see Page 14). Also, Page 15 should be revised to label all materials and dimension elevation (like page 13). 2. Monument Signs A & B -Four monument signs are proposed for tenant identification. Add street address as required by the City's Sign Ordinance. An alternative would be to include street address on the Project ID Monuments. 3. Anchor Tenant Wall Sign -The proposed sign type consists of internally illuminated channelized letters that are typical of most shopping centers (see page 9). Does the Committee feel that this type of sign reflects the unique architecture? Alternatives could be explored such as backlit letters or an externally illuminated sign. Lastly, delete "Farmers Market" and "Fresh Produce" from Henry's Marketplace building because the City's Sign Ordinance prohibits extraneous text and listing of products. The Ordinance limits sign copy to the business name, which staff believes is "Henry's Marketplace" (Exhibit "B"). • 4. Tenant Wall Signs -Reduce letter heights (see page 7) as follows: DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00734 -MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES November 16, 2004 • Page 2 Pro osed Staff Recommendation Tenant over 4'-0" maximum 2'-0" maximum 3,000 sq. ft. (legible up to 2,000 ft. )' (legible up to 1,000 ft.) Tenant under 2'-6" maximum 1'-6" maximum 2,999 sq. ft. (legible up to 1,250 ft.) (legible up to 750 ft.) Single User 3'-0" maximum 1'-6" maximum Pad Tenant (legible up to 1,500 ft.) (legible up to 750 ft.) 4-foot high letters are usually allowed only for major anchor stores, and 3-foot high letters allowed forsub-major anchors. Tenant wall sign letter heights throughout the City are usually 18 to 24 inches. Two Planning Commission design guidelines are relevant to this issue: Size of signs must be proportional to the scale of the building and the surface they are affixed to. For shopping centers, use an 18-inch maximum letterheight. Forbuildings plotted at the street setback line, use a 12-inch maximum letter height. (Commission believes that buildings plotted at street setback line do not need as large a sign for readability]. 5. Blade Signs -The USP introduces this exciting new sign type that was not shown on elevations approved by the Planning Commission. All tenants will be required to have a hanging "blade sign" that projects out from storefront. The proposed location of these signs is between the arches at the same height as the wall signs. Unfortunately, the blade signs are not shown in any of the thumbnail renderings of various buildings. The one photographic example (page 10) from the City of Santa Barbara's State Street shows tenants that have no wall signs and rely exclusively upon blade signs. The applicant should provide the Committee with an enlarged perspective rendering showing the relationship of the blade signs to the wall signs. Likewise, USP should be revised to show blade signs on all elevation renderings. Although well-designed and appropriate for this center, staff is concerned that location of both sign types in close proximity will be too busy and may block views of wall signs; therefore, it is recommended that they be mounted lower on the columns between arches. Another concern is that blade signs may not be appropriate for certain buildings, such as Building "F." Due to their small size and orientation perpendicular to walls, blade signs are targeted at pedestrians walking along storefronts. Building "F" has a the roof colonnade; hence, all signs are located above the roof and would not be visible to pedestrians (Exhibit "C"). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee provide direction to the applicant to work with staff to revise the USP prior to City Planner approval. 1 These distances will vary approximately 10% with various color combinations. Maximum distance in color would be RED or BLACK on WHITE background. Findings based on National Electrical Sign Association • tests and substantiated by test compiled by California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00734 -MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES November 16, 2004 • Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Dan Coleman Members Present: • ~J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-86 DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/MARKETPLACE PARTNERS • July 14, 2004 Page 3 4) All pertinent conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 15641 shall apply. 5) The design and improvements at the corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road shall comply with the Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation Corridor Master Plan. 6) The design and improvements along Day Creek Boulevard shall comply with the Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation Corridor Master Plan. 7) The uniform hardscape and pedestrian amenities shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. 8) Buildings G and H, and Buildings E and F shall have similar details, architectural elements, and roof material, subject to City Planner review and approval. 9) Separate Development Review application for City Plannerapproval is required for Building A, prior to plan check, because no elevations were included in this application. • 10) The Uniform Sign Program shall incorporate a historic nature in ~~~ ~~~ appearance subject to Design Review Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 11) Walls and fence along Base Line Road and east property boundary shall follow the design and material of the Filippi Winery, except that no chain link fencing is allowed. Detail plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval. 12) Provide bus shelter for Base Line Road outside public right-of-way. The location and design of bus shelter shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. 13) Provide pedestrian connection from public sidewalk off Building F to on-site subject to City Planner review and approval. 14) Provide pedestrian connection from driveway entry to Building G subject to City Planner review and approval. 15) The plaza design at the corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Madrigal Street shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. 16) The list of uses allowed and prohibited for the commercial center shall follow the list described in "Proposed Methods to Assure High • Standards of Operation and Quality Tenants" revised July 14, 2004, and attachments, which is attached as Exhibit "A." The City shall initiate an amendment to the Victoria Arbors Master Plan to confirm the ~X~//6/T ",~„ ~~ "^r. ;:A s:° •-. ~ ~~.a~ ~ ~~_ .._ k'A1 ~•r ~. r~ ~~ n --. ~ c0 ~ 'Q ~..i ~ k • `U ~ . w ~. F ~~ ~~~ g~~~~~~~~ ~ W {~ A.~ dir. q ~~ ~s _ W _ _ ~. m 4 s e! ~ :l w' _. .r'~ !I m~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,M~.~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ` `~ ~ ~: ~ t- '~'~~ _ _. k ~ R j ~: ~r ` ~ - ,~~ ; ` .~ alt i,_ _. _,. ExNI,~g/f 'C" DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2, 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTION AGENDA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Nancy Fong Larry McNiel The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS SUBMITTED ~~ 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. (Vance/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16776 - VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP.- A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 58 lots within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55-58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004-00052, Variance DRC2004-00052, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. 7:20 p.m. (Mike/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 12 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at ,9850 6th Street -APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: DRC2003-01185. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 -MARK CAPELLINO - A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street -APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. 7:40 p.m. (Emily/Shelley) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00636 -RANCHO MONTECITO L.L.C. -A review of site plans and elevations for 16single-family homes within the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644 in the Low-Medium Residential District - APN: 0202-741-64, 0202-751-36, and 0202-751-37. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644. DRC ACTION AGENDA November 2, 2004 Page 2 • 8:00 p.m. (Alan) SIGN PERMIT DRC2004-00962 -CONTRACTORS PERMIT SVCS. -Sign Permit application for an internally illuminated wall for Deardens, located at 9325 Santa Anita Avenue. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT • . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy November 2, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16776 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 58 lots within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units peracre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55-58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004-00052, Variance DRC2004-00052, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Background/Design Parameters: This project is the site of a plant nursery with a variety of trees and Eucalyptus windrows. The historic Brownless House will be demolished as part of the development. The site is bounded on the north by, and includes a connection to, the future Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. The applicant is proposing four house designs for the project designed to meet the requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan in which the site is located. Under the Etiwanda Specific Plan, this tract is developed under the Basic Development Standards and no specific architectural style is required; however, elements of the existing styles found in Etiwanda are required. The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 27, 2004, which was sparsely attended. • Generally, the audience was satisfied with the applicant's presentation and no new issues were raised. The applicant has been working attentively to resolve the issues that had been raised at the staff level, such as architecture, master planning, trail access, lot layout, etc. A major issue for this project through the staff review phase has been architectural design. The original submittal provided for poor definition between styles, minimal detailing, and a lack of 360-degree design sensibility. The revised architectural designs provided for the Development Review Committee (DRC) represent a substantial improvement. a. The four styles provided in compliance with the requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Farmhouse, California Bungalow, Spanish, and Early California are distinguished by not only applied features but also variation in materials, roof shape, roof pitch, eave treatment, certain massing differences, and fenestration. Differentiation between the Early California and the Spanish styles is made by deriving the primary elements of the historical Spanish Colonial Revival (arches, ironwork, etc.) from the 1920's into the Spanish style and using Mission and Monterey elements (balconies, wood details, open rafter tails, etc.) for the Early California style. b. Substantial detailing is evident on all four styles by the richer use of materials. The Farmhouse style, for example, now shows an extensive use of wood siding with some stone accents where stucco was the only material before. c. Appropriate treatment of all elevations with the features, massing and detailing for the four styles, is presented. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTT16776 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP. November 2, 2004 • Page 2 Based on the requirements of CEQA and Exhibit V-13 of the City's General Plan, a noise studywas conducted by an acoustical engineer to address the potential impact of the noise from the Interstate 15 Freeway and Base Line Road on the residential uses proposed in this project. The engineer found that the traffic-related noise from Base Line Road is a source of significant noise impacts unless a sound wall 8 feet high relative to the pad height is constructed between Base Line Road and the back yards of those lots along the street in addition to any sound-deadening modifications that can be made to the houses. A Variance is requested for the additional height to reduce the noise impacts to a level considered less-than-significant. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: A temporary detention basin is proposed on Lots 56-59 because major storm drain infrastructure does not exist in this area. These four lots,rear-onto Base Line Road; hence, are prominent. Planning Department's preference would be relocating basin to Lots 1-4. This would allow construction of homes on 6 out of 7 lots along Base Line Road creating a more finished-looking streetscene. Further, at such time as basin is removed and homes built, the construction of homes on Lots 1-4 would have less impact on surrounding neighborhood. 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 southeastern portion of the project site abuts the southbound Interstate 15 Freeway off-ramp for Base Line Road. Because the off-ramp is slated for re-configuration that will place it closer to the back yards of proposed Lots 48 through 54, a disclosure to the prospective buyers by the developer should be made that such a change is planned for the future. A detention basin, similar to the basin required and constructed for the adjacent tract to the east, is proposed to occupy proposed Lots 56 through 59. The noise attenuation wall proposed for the perimeter along Base Line Road should be constructed at the same time as for the other lots to provide a consistent streetscape design for Base Line Road. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: No outstanding policy issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the project and recommend approval to the Planning Commission with the above conditions. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Coleman, Fletcher, Stewart, Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTT16776 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP. November 2, 2004 • Page 3 The committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions and revisions: 1. The northerly perimeter of the temporary detention basin shall be improved in a manner similarly proposed for the front yards of the residences. The basin shall be also improved with a wrought iron fence and landscaping. 2. The sound wall shall be included in the improvement of the temporary detention basin lots. 3. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to investigate providing a trail access at the end of the most northeasterly cul-de-sac (now known as Street "C"). n U • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith November 2, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445 -MARK CAPELLINO - A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 12 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: DRC2003-01185. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 -MARK CAPELLINO -A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. Design Parameters: The irregularly shaped parcel resembles an upside-down "L." The site is undeveloped with limited vegetation. The property to the north is vacant; all other surrounding properties, including the "Not-A-Part" quadrant, are developed with industrial buildings. Parallel to the east property line is a rail line. Each building incorporates different design attributes that favor specific types of tenants. The design and layout of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are relatively small and, with the exception of roll-up doors, will most likely be occupied by office tenants. The other remaining buildings are larger and . have truck-loading docks incorporated into their design. Additionally, as required by Section 17.30 of the Development Code regarding rail service, because Buildings 1, 3, and 5 are situated along the existing rail line, their design incorporates knock-out' panels for potential future rail service, via a rail spur constructed by others. The site has two access points (one primary and one emergency) from 6th Street. Truck parking and loading areas are located out-of-view from the public right-of- way. These areas will be screened by walls and gates, or by the building themselves. Employee/visitor parking will be located throughout the site. The buildings are designed with two primary building materials/finishes. The construction each building will be comprised of concrete tilt-up panels. Each wall plane will have both painted and form-lined concrete texture bands. Horizontal and vertical articulation of the wall planes is limited to the office areas of each building; there is no articulation on any of the other wall planes. The lack of articulation is most apparent along the west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8; the north elevation of Building 10 and the south elevation of Building 11; the adjoining wall planes of Building 7 and 9; and the northeast corner of Building 1. The design of each building includes a mix of vision and spandrel glass at the office corners and along the wall planes adjoining the primary building (office) entrances. The otherwall planes along the west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8; the east elevations of Building 1, 3, 5, and 7; the north elevation of Building 10 and the south elevation of Building 11; and the adjoining wall planes of Building 7 and 9 are missing this commonly required architectural element. Note that this deficiency generally coincides with the missing articulation resulting in relatively bare wall planes. Landscape coverage as proposed by the applicant meets the minimum requirements of the Industrial Districts. However, in some areas, the depth of the planter areas provided is less than 5 feet (not including the 6-inch concrete curb). Along the west sides of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11; • along the north sides of Buildings 1 and 5; the south side of Building 3; and the east side of Building 11 the depth of the planter provided is 3 feet, including the 6-inch curb. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 -MARK CAPELLINO November 2, 2004 . Page 2 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. Provide additional horizontal and vertical articulation on the wall planes of each building as noted above. 2. Provide additional vision/spandrel glass on the elevations of each building as noted above. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Incorporate bermed landscaping along the 6th Street frontage within the landscape setback and landscape areas. 2. Incorporate ground cover and irrigation within the 25-foot wide by 615-foot long area dedicated for the future rail spur (constructed by others) at the east side of Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7. Outdoor storage or similar use is not permitted within this area. 3. Increase the depth of all landscape planters to 5 feet, not including the 6-inch curb. • Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. Decorative paving shall be provided at the primary vehicular access point on to the site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal with the above modifications prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Coleman, Fletcher, Stewart Staff Planner: Mike Smith The Design Review Committee reviewed the architectural plans forthe proposed industrial buildings and stated that the project requires revisions. The applicant was directed to incorporate their comments into the revision and resubmit the plans for Committee review. The application can then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review and action. Issue #1: Architecture -All building elevations, except those with a zero setback at the property lines, should have spandrel glass and physical articulation of the wall planes in order to achieve 360-degree architecture as noted below: . The southwest corner of Building #7 and southeast corner of Building #9 (adjoining wall planes at their south elevations) must incorporate horizontal and vertical articulation of the wall plane, raised cornices/parapets, and spandrel/vision glass. These parts of the building are at the end of the entry drive aisle and must provide a focal point. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 -MARK CAPELLINO November 2, 2004 • Page 3 The east elevations of Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7 must have spandrel glass panels. It is not necessary to articulate these elevations because of the practical limitations of the rail spur alignment on the east side of the project site. The west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9, the north elevation of Building 10, and the south elevation of Building 11 must have spandrel glass and physical articulation. The physical dimension of each panel must be proportional to the size of the wall panel to which it is applied (i.e. excessively small panels are not acceptable). Also, the quantity of glass panels should be proportional to the length of the wall plane. Physical articulation of the wall planes, where required, should include "pop-outs" of wall panels about 3 feet from the primary wall surface and raised parapets. As an alternative, the applicant can "inset" certain wall panels to achieve the desired depth. Issue #2: Landscaping -The Committee requested changes to the landscaping as noted below: • The area in the parking lot directly in front Buildings 7 and 9, at the end of the drive aisle, should incorporate a landscape island with an art piece. The Committee indicated that the applicant could forego some of the parking at this location and still fulfill the parking requirement for the overall site. The 3-foot wide (including 6-inch curb) landscaped area at the west sides of Buildings 2, 4, 6, • and 8 can be eliminated and, in exchange, the landscape area along the west property line can be widened to compensate. • The landscaping around each trash enclosure can be minimized to vine pockets only. • The rail spur easement along the east perimeter of the site shall incorporate landscaping throughout its entire length. Note that the minimum landscaping (7 percent) is still required. The landscaping incorporated into the rail easement area cannot be counted towards this minimum. Issue #3: Material/finish -Form-lined concrete as proposed by the applicant is an acceptable finish. Sandblasting will not be required. Secondary issues -The Committee expressed some concerns about the outdoor employee eating areas and access by all property owners/tenants on the site. The applicant indicated that reciprocal access would be provided. C~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Emily Wimer November 2, 2004 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00636 -RANCHO MONTECITO L.L.C. - A review of site plans and elevations for 16 single-family homes within the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644 in the Low-Medium Residential District - APN: 0202-741-64, 0202-751-36, and 0202-751-37. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644. Desion Parameters: The property is generally located south of 19th Street, just west of Beryl Street, and is surrounded bysingle-family homes to the north, south, and west, with Beryl Street to the east. All homes to the south and east are 1-story. The original tract map for the property was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2004, and included an Environmental Assessment and a Tree Removal Permit. The original Tree Removal Permit was approved with subdivision approval, and required the developer to replace 12 trees on-site. Since the Tract Map approval, the property has been sold to a new developer for construction of the homes. The applicant is proposing 16single-family homes consisting of a Spanish style of architecture and includes Spanish roof tile, arched windows and garage door entries, wrought iron window detail, window shutters, cornice trim detail, and Spanish style accent features. These features are consistently provided on all 16 lots. Per staffs direction, cone-story elevation was added on three of the 16 lots, placed on the corner lots (Lots 1 and 16), as well as Lot 5, which is angled toward the • proposed interior street, facing Beryl Street. The applicant has worked consistently with staff to revise the elevations and incorporate additional rock work, window trim, shutters, and wrought iron detail. Because of the smaller lot sizes, the developer has proposed decorative drives with stamped and colored concrete, and two front courtyard areas with a low wall on Lots 7 and 11. The developer is also proposing a perimeter wall with tan split-faced block and stacked stone pilasters (3 feet in width) with trim cap. 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: Staff recommends changing out Lot 13 to a single-story elevation, taking full advantage of the low profile elevation from Beryl Street, a public view. This will provide a minimum of a 20-foot rear yard area and a larger side yard area. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Additional courtyard areas should be added to all Plan 1 and Plan 2 to provide focus on the lower level of the two-story homes. Landscape plans should be revised to incorporate courtyards as prominent design feature. The courtyard may extend beyond front and sidewalk of house. . 2. The stamped concrete driveway treatment should be a style consistent with architecture. • • DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2004-00636 -RANCHO MONTECITO L.L.C. November 2, 2004 Page 2 3. Revise the Landscape Plan to incorporate the 12 replacementtrees into the final Landscaping Plan. 4. Side yard wrought iron material can only be used for access. All other side yard areas shall be constructed of tan split-faced block with trim cap. 5. Provide pop-out relief on the side elevations to lots which have asingle-story footprint. 6. Where a double wall condition exists and the existing wall is not decorative material, a stucco finish and trim cap shall be provided. 7. Ledge stone shall be provided on Lots 1 and 16 (corner lots), wrapping completely around the corner facing public view, and terminating at the fence line (approximately 30 feet). 8. Any chain link which abuts the project or is a shared "wall" shall be replace with wrought iron or split-faced block with trim cap. Chain link is prohibited in residential areas. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above changes being made prior to scheduling for the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Coleman, Fletcher, Stewart Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee recommended approval subject to the following revisions prior to Planning Commission hearing: 1. The applicant agreed to change out Lots 10 and 13 with aone-story footprint, taking full advantage of the low profile elevation. 2. The courtyard areas will be added to all of the homes, and with Committee approval, the applicant will delete the scored and textured driveways. 3. The Landscape Plan was revised at the meeting to incorporate 12 replacement trees into the final landscape palette. 4. The applicant will paint the existing tan block abutting the new homes to match the new (on-site) slumpstone walls with trim cap. 5. The decorative ledgestone will be wrapped to the fence line of the corner lots facing Beryl Street. 6. All chain link shall be replaced with wrought iron or split-face block with trim cap. C~ J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Alan Warren November 2, 2004 SIGN PERMIT DRC2004-00962 -CONTRACTORS PERMIT SVCS. -Sign Permit application foran internally illuminated wall for Deardens, located at 9325 Santa Anita Avenue. Associated Application -SIGN PERMIT DRC2004-01012 -INLAND SIGNS -Sign application fortwo internally illuminated monument sign for Deardens, located at 9325 Santa Anita Avenue. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission has an established policy regarding industrial signing (Commercial & Industrial Design Guidelines) as follows: "For industrial buildings, use anon-illuminated type of sign because they are typically not open at night, nor do they need to attract customers like a retailer." Deardens, an appliance and general merchandise warehouse, has requested one internally illuminated wall sign and two internally illuminated (one per street frontage) monument signs. The sign areas and locations conform to Sign Ordinance standards. Staff Comments: The only issues regarding these signs is their internal illumination which conflicts with the above listed policy and the potential to be seen from the I-15 Freeway.' Due to their small size, staff does • not believe the monument signs, at 24 square feet, will be readable form the freeway (approximately 2,300 feet to the west). Only the wall sign, near the top of the building may be readable from that distance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee revisit the sign illumination issue in the industrial area, as requested by the applicant, and provide direction to staff regarding future application of the policy. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Coleman, Fletcher, Stewart Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee reaffirmed the policy of not having illuminated signs in the industrial areas and denied the request for the subject internally lighted signs. C~ r • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS NOVEMBER 2, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B d uller Secretary n U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2, 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Nancy Fong Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine dnon-controversial. Typicallytheyare items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS SUBMITTED 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. (Vance/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16776 - VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP.- A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 58 lots within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55-58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004-00052, Variance DRC2004-00052, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. 7:20 p.m. (Mike/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 12 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street -APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: DRC2003-01185. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 -MARK CAPELLINO - A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street -APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. 7:40 p.m. (Emily/Shelley) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00636-RA'NCHOMONTECITO L.L.C.-A review of • site plans and elevations for 16single-family homes within the previouslyapproved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644 in the Low-Medium Residential District - APN: 0202-741-64, 0202-751-36, and 0202-751-37. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644. DRC AGENDA November 2, 2004 Page 2 • 8:00 p.m. (Alan) SIGN PERMIT DRC2004-00962 -CONTRACTORS PERMIT SVCS. -Sign Permit application for an internally illuminated wall for Deardens, located at 9325 Santa Anita Avenue. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 28, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. e p~ ~ rft~?1--rz~+~ • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy November 2, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16776 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 58 lots within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units peracre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55-58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004-00052, Variance DRC2004-00052, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Background/Design Parameters: This project Is the site of a plant nurserywith a variety of trees and Eucalyptus windrows. The historic Brownless House will be demolished as partof the development. The site is bounded on the north by, and includes a connection to, the future Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. The applicant is proposing four house designs for the project designed to meet the requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan in which the site is located. Under the Etiwanda Specific Plan, this tract is developed underthe Basic Development Standards and no specific architectural style is required; however, elements of the existing styles found in Etiwanda are required. The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 27, 2004, which was sparsely attended. • Generally, the audience was satisfied with the applicant's presentation and no new issues were raised. The applicant has been working attentively to resolve the issues that had been raised at the staff level, such as architecture, master planning, trail access, lot layout, etc. A major issue for this project through the staff review phase has been architectural design. The original submittal provided for poor definition between styles, minimal detailing and a lack of 360-degree design sensibility. The revised architectural designs provided for the Development Review Committee (DRC) represent a substantial improvement. The four styles provided in compliance with the requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Farmhouse, California Bungalow, Spanish, and Early California are distinguished by not only applied features but also variation in materials, roof shape, roof pitch, eave treatment, certain massing differences, and fenestration. Differentiation between the Early California and the Spanish styles is made by deriving the primary elements of the historical Spanish Colonial Revival (arches, ironwork, etc.) from the 1920's into the Spanish style and using Mission and Monterey elements (balconies, wood details, open rafter tails, etc.) for the Early California style. b. Substantial detailing is evident on all four styles by the richer use of materials. The Farmhouse style, for example, now shows an extensive use of wood siding with some stone accents where stucco was the only material before. c. Appropriate treatment of all elevations with the features, massing and detailing for the four styles, is presented. • DRCAGENDA SUBTT16776 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP. November 2, 2004 • Page 2 Based on the requirements of CEQA and Exhibit V-13 of the City's General Plan, a noise study was conducted by an acoustical engineer to address the potential impact of the noise from the Interstate 15 Freeway and Base Line Road on the residential uses proposed in this project. The engineer found that the traffic-related noise from Base Line Road is a source of significant noise impacts unless a sound wall 8 feet high relative to the pad height is constructed between Base Line Road and the back yards of those lots along the street in addition to any sound-deadening modifications that can be made to the houses. A Variance is requested for the additional height to reduce the noise impacts to a level considered less-than-significant. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: A temporary detention basin is proposed on Lots 56-59 because major storm drain infrastructure does not exist in this area. These four lots rear-onto Base Line Road; hence, are prominent. Planning Department's preference would be relocating basin to Lots 1-4. This would allow construction of homes on 6 out of 7 lots along Base Line Road creating a more finished-looking streetscene. Further, at such time as basin is removed and homes built, the construction of homes on Lots 1-4 would have less impact on surrounding neighborhood. 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 southeastern portion of the project site abuts the southbound Interstate 15 Freeway off-ramp for Base Line Road. Because the off-ramp is slated for re-configuration that will place it closer to the back yards of proposed Lots 48 through 54, a disclosure to the prospective buyers by the developer should be made that such a change is planned for the future. 2. A detention basin, similar to the basin required and constructed for the adjacent tract to the east, is proposed to occupy proposed Lots 56 through 59. The noise attenuation wall proposed for the perimeter along Base Line Road should be constructed at the same time as for the other lots to provide a consistent streetscape design for Base Line Road. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: No outstanding policy issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the project and recommend approval to the Planning Commission with the above conditions. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: • Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith November 2, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445 -MARK CAPELLINO - A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 12 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: DRC2003-01185. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 -MARK CAPELLINO -A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. Design Parameters: The irregularly shaped parcel resembles an upside-down "L." The site is undeveloped with limited vegetation. The property to the north is vacant; all other surrounding properties, including the "Not-A-Part" quadrant, are developed with industrial buildings. Parallel to the east property line is a rail line. Each building incorporates different design attributes that favor specifc types of tenants. The design and layout of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are relatively small and, with the exception of roll-up doors, will most likely be occupied by office tenants. The other remaining buildings are larger and • have truck-loading docks incorporated into theirdesign. Additionally, as required by Section 17.30 of the Development Code regarding rail service, because Buildings 1, 3, and 5 are situated along the existing rail line, their design incorporates'knock-out' panels for potential future rail service, via a rail spur constructed by others. The site has two access points (one primary and one emergency) from 6th Street. Truck parking and loading areas are located out-of-view from the public right-of-way. These areas will be screened by walls and gates, or by the building themselves. Employee/visitor parking will be located throughout the site. The buildings are designed with two primary building materials/finishes. The construction each building will be comprised of concrete tilt-up panels. Each wall plane will have both painted and form-lined concrete texture bands. Horizontal and vertical articulation of the wall planes is limited to the office areas of each building; there is no articulation on any of the otherwall planes. The lack of articulation is most apparent along the west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8; the north elevation of Building 10 and the south elevation of Building 11; the adjoining wall planes of Building 7 and 9; and the northeast corner of Building 1. The design of each building includes a mix of vision and spandrel glass at the office corners and along the wall planes adjoining the primary building (office) entrances. The otherwall planes along the west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8; the east elevations of Building 1, 3, 5, and 7; the north elevation of Building 10 and the south elevation of Building 11; and the adjoining wall planes of Building 7 and 9 are missing this commonly required architectural element. Note thatthis deficiency generally coincides with the missing articulation resulting in relatively bare wall planes. Landscape coverage as proposed by the applicant meets the minimum requirements of the Industrial Districts. However, in some areas, the depth of the planter areas provided is less than 5 . feet (not including the 6-inch concrete curb). Along the west sides of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11; along the north sides of Buildings 1 and 5; the south side of Building 3; and the east side of Building 11 the depth of the planter provided is 3 feet, including the 6-inch curb. DRCAGENDA SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 -MARK CAPELLINO November 2, 2004 • Page 2 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. Provide additional horizontal and vertical articulation on the wall planes of each building as noted above. 2. Provide additional vision/spandrel glass on the elevations of each building as noted above. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. 'Incorporate bermed landscaping along the 6th Street frontage within the landscape setback and landscape areas. 2. Incorporate ground cover and irrigation within the 25-foot wide by 615-foot long area dedicated for the future rail spur (constructed by others) at the east side of Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7. Outdoor storage or similar use is not permitted within this area. 3. Increase the depth of all landscape planters to 5 feet, not including the 6-inch curb. • Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Decorative paving shall be provided at the primary vehicular access point on to the site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal with the above modifications prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Mike Smith Members Present: • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Emily Wimer November 2, 2004 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00636 -RANCHO MONTECITO L.L.C. - A review of site plans and elevations for 16 single-family homes within the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644 in the Low-Medium Residential District - APN: 0202-741-64, 0202-751-36, and 0202-751-37. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16644. Design Parameters: The property is generally located south of 19th Street, just west of Beryl Street, and is surrounded bysingle-family homes to the north, south, and west, with Beryl Street to the east. All homes to the south and east are 1-story. The original tract map for the property was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2004, and included an Environmental Assessment and a Tree Removal Permit. The original Tree Removal Permit was approved with subdivision approval, and required the developer to replace 12 trees on-site. Since the Tract Map approval, the property has been sold to a new developer for construction of the homes. The applicant is proposing 16single-family homes consisting of a Spanish style of architecture and includes Spanish roof tile, arched windows and garage door entries, wrought iron window detail, window shutters, cornice trim detail, and Spanish style accent features. These features are consistently provided on all 16 lots. Per staffs direction, aone-story elevation was added on three of the 16 lots, placed on the corner lots (Lots 1 and 16), as well as Lot 5, which is angled toward the • proposed interior street, facing Beryl Street. The applicant has worked consistently with staff to revise the elevations and incorporate additional rock work, window trim, shutters, and wrought iron detail. Because of the smaller lot sizes, the developer has proposed decorative drives with stamped and colored concrete, and two front courtyard areas with a lowwall on Lots 7 and 11. The developer is also proposing a perimeterwall with tan split-faced block~and stacked stone pilasters (3 feet in width) with trim cap. 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: Staff recommends changing out Lot 13 to a single-story elevation, taking full advantage of the low profile elevation from Beryl Street, a public view. This will provide a minimum of a 20-foot rear yard area and a larger side yard area. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Additional courtyard areas should be added to all Plan 1 and Plan 2 to provide focus on the lower level of the two-story homes. Landscape plans should be revised to incorporate courtyards as prominent design feature. The courtyard may extend beyond front and side walls of house. . 2. The stamped concrete driveway treatment should be a style consistent with architecture. DRC AGENDA DRC2004-00636 -RANCHO MONTECITO L.L.C. November 2, 2004 . Page 2 Revise the Landscape Plan to incorporate the 12 replacement trees into the final Landscaping Plan. 4. Side yard wrought iron material can only be used for access. All other side yard areas shall be constructed of tan split-faced block with trim cap. 5. Provide pop-out relief on the side elevations to lots which have asingle-story footprint. 6. W here a double wall condition exists and the existing wall is not decorative material, a stucco finish and trim cap shall be provided. 7. Ledge stone shall be provided on Lots 1 and 16 (corner lots), wrapping completelyaroundthe corner facing public view, and terminating at the fence line (approximately 30 feet). 8. Any chain link which abuts the project or is a shared "wall" shall be replace with wrought iron or split-faced block with trim cap. Chain link is prohibited in residential areas. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above changes being made prior to scheduling for the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: • Staff Planner: Emily Wimer Members Present: r 1 U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Alan Warren November 2, 2004 SIGN PERMIT DRC2004-00962 -CONTRACTORS PERMIT SVCS. -Sign Permit application loran internally illuminated wall for Deardens, located at 9325 Santa Anita Avenue. Associated Application -SIGN PERMIT DRC2004-01012 -INLAND SIGNS -Sign application foriwo internally illuminated monument sign for Deardens, located at 9325 Santa Anita Avenue. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission has an established policy regarding industrial signing (Commercial & Industrial Design Guidelines) as follows: "For industrial buildings, use anon-illuminated type of sign because they are typically not open at night, nor do they need to attract customers like a retailer." Deardens, an appliance and general merchandise warehouse, has requested one internally illuminated wall sign and two internally illuminated (one per street frontage) monument signs. The sign areas and locations conform to Sign Ordinance standards. Staff Comments: The only issues regarding these signs is their internal illumination which conflicts with the above listed policy and the potential to be seen from the I-15 Freeway. Due to their small size, staff does • not believe the monument signs, at 24 square feet, will be readable form the freeway (approximately 2,300 feet to the west). Only the wall'sign, near the top of the building may be readable from that distance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee revisit the sign illumination issue in the industrial area, as requested by the applicant, and provide direction to staff regarding future application of the policy. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Alan Warren Members Present: • 10/21/2004 10:52 5629495707 LOREN ELECTRIC SIGi`i ?AGE 02 • ~/~p L#J1~~ k~eeefe 9gn eerp. October 2l, 20D4 City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 Dli00 cNlo center drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Re; Dearden's (sign permit DRC20o4-00962) Alan, i'ursuant to our oome!'sabon Loren Electric Sign Company would like i.o request that the design sutxnitted for a single lace intema)ly'slluriinated seH' contained channel letters °l7earden's°. 5agn permit number DR~C2004-OD962 be reviewed by the cities design review ~.urnrrEiY+as ;=tits ne~rt earliest available meeting in hopes of receinr+ng apprcaval fc r the ~>3n as :sutxnitted. Thank you for your help with this project, ff there are any ether cp x3t3ti~:~ns • or eoncems please do not hesitate to contact me. Siro~rely, / , Rictrard Johnson • 37.1 Van Norman Road Montebello, CA 90840 (562) 94G7545 Faz; E582) c,~c~.97p7 r~ U ~ .. ~~ „a -,~~ w a, ~~' -. ,~~~ - -J„ N ~M, 'A ~ m v/ f ~~ , q 1 ~ _ Q Santa Anita Ave. ~~~ -~ L N N C 1~ ~ ~~ L ~ N i Cr' O L t U d - ~ ~ i to ~ ~ o ~ ~ O ~ ° ~ - N t ~ ~ ~ o c: O ~ ~ ~ ~ c.; w ~ ~ W U cy ~ (n f!. ~ W ~ ~ O ~' © ~ C.. I_ U r c L ., • • • C V y Ce dl ~~ ~ d ~ °~ Y $ _ n J E m e m ~ y ~ m m ~.j r~i~ C ~ f m Q T1 cs}~ v N o~~% y ~ 3 N 0 O _ __ .....__._.,. C ~ ul p i ~ ~C U ~ ~ ~ S^ Z U U 'T` . ' II U L Q j Q In O ~ _ ~ d ~ ~ o ~~~ ~o~dE ~ S ~~ 8 ~! E ~ ~ KS ~ o 4 y ~OU LL ~ k ~..-~ s s ., j ., r O r u o_N ® uy£~ P ,? F u `° `° N ~ mm L %~m N ® 4 ~ y~ ~ t U ~w~ v c N c O = U ro .rsfx,:...,...3 ~ "•^~ Ln ~ .~ ~' ,., ~ ~ T N qn.. ~ n s ~ k~ m - ® ~ C ~ n o ~, ~ R L 6l O ~ P O 1L Q • 0 r,. ~- ~o ~~~ ~ N N 17 N ~ V ti O a i J C c m S U c 0 U N m T ~ m o L ~6 w U m 3 ~ ~ a' u In c ~ ~ oW o= b b ~ ~ f ~ ~ C \ ~ \ ~ \ C o W C C \ C p 4 ;\ 4 ,. .. • • • w ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~'s~~g~~3 a ~ s f W" 3 i w a a N F ~ o 3 } ;~ ~. ~ ~;_ y~,:. ~ ~ ~~ = U O ~~ v C/] ~I -- - -- - Q _ o - 51 m ~ _ - ~ ~o ~ o~ o ~ I _ :".~ ~ +9CAPE ~~ ~ N ~ ~ o~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~_ N ¢ ~_ W t3 ~ e n w '= g @ e@ok ~',r:,' ~ nmo 32 ~ f~ i~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 'Zi ~',p, ~ ~ ~m € ~ Y- Q O s ~ .>;' ~ n i } 7 u~i n r~ ?,YC W V ~ o ~ W O= pi O Z~ u ~ F ~ O K C „ i "' ro CO x ~ ~ 3 4 ! _ v ~~ / ~ y ys~ € ~ _ r _ ~ N / M~LPIINf ~~~~ ~ / ~~~~~ v o ~~ay~~ ~ 3 Q O t V p