Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/08/31 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY AUGUST 31, 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 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. (Doug/Rene) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330-GRANITE HOMES-A review of site plan and elevations for 29 single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of Wilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-1. This • project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. 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. 7:20 p.m. (Donald/Mark) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00199 - MCA ARCHITECTS - The development of a 6,048 square foot office building and a 10,184 square foot retail building on 1.51 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Sebestian Way - APN: 0229-011-51 and 52. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1992. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declaration. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP91-24 and Parcel Map 13845. 7:40 p.m. (Mike/Cam) HILLSIDE REVIEW DRC2003-00303-STEVENPATTON-A request to construct asingle-family residence of 5,600 square feet (including garages, patios, porches) on a 21,800 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5032 Laredo Place -APN: 1061-801-09. DRC REVISED AGENDA August 31, 2004 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT L J • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn August 31, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330 -GRANITE HOMES - A review of site plan and elevations for 29single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of W ilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-1. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified bythe County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. ORAL REPORT AND PLANS W ILL BE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Coleman, McPhail, Stewart • Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The applicant presented revised elevations and floor plans. The Committee recommended approval as revised. l J • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Donald Granger August 31, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00199 -MCA ARCHITECTS -The development of a 6,048 square foot office building and a 10,184 square foot retail building on 1.51 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Sebestian W ay - APN: 0229-011-51 and 52. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1992. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declaration. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP91-24 and Parcel Map 13845. Background: The proposed project is part of Masi Plaza, a 27-acre commercial and industrial use master-planned planned complex located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Design Parameters: The project site is located on the south side of Sebastian Way, on two parcels of land. The applicant is proposing two buildings, Buildings 19A and 19B. Building 19A is planned for office use, and Building 196 is planned for retail use. Building 19A was formerly approved as Building 17 (Development Review DR00-36) and has an approved entitlement for an 11,500 square foot daycare facility (Conditional Use Permit CUP00-19). Even with the proposed changes of use and revised building locations, the proposed two-building project is in substantial compliance with • the approved master plan with regard to site planning, building size, and orientation. The architectural style, fenestration and accent elements on both buildings will match the buildings in Masi Plaza. 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. Site Plan should be adjusted to provide space for trees along the west elevation of Building 196. No trees are shown on the Landscape Plan. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. There are minor technical issues affecting the Site Plan that staff will address through the Technical Review Committee. These include parking stall length less than 17-foot (after 1-foot overhang allowance) and planter islands less than 6 feet. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All trash enclosures shall match the existing trash enclosure design found in Masi Plaza. • 2. All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened by the parapet. 3. All colors, materials, and textures shall match the established architectural theme of Masi Plaza. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00199 -MCA ARCHITECTS August 31, 2004 • Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval to the Planning Commission subject to the above recommendations as conditions of approval and compliance with all City and Fire District standards. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Coleman, McPhail, Stewart Staff Planner: Donald Granger Staff presented revised plans that addressed all technical issues. The Committee recommended approval as presented. • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Mike Smith August 31, 2004 HILLSIDE REVIEW DRC2003-00303 -STEVEN PATTON - A request to construct asingle-family residence of 5,600 square feet (including garages, patios, porches) on a 21,800 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5032 Laredo Place - APN: 1061-801-09. Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Very Low Residential District and is included in the Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Districts. The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lots size and configuration. Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner. However, because of the unique design proposed, the project has been forvvarded to the Design Review Committee for discussion. Design Parameters: The project site is located on the west side of Laredo Place on a parcel of about 22,000 square feet. The existing topography slopes from about 2,223 feet on the north side to about 2,207 feet on the south side. The applicant is proposing to construct asingle-story residence with an attached two-car garage and a detached multi-vehicle garage at the rear of the property. The detached garage and most of the house will be constructed on a finished pad of • 2,216 feet. The attached garage will have a finished pad of 2,218 feet. The south side of the house (about Y< of the floor area of the house) will be over a raised floor 5 feet above the existing grade. This results in increased height and the overall visual bulk of the house as seen from the east, west, and (most significantly) south. At no point on the lot is excavation or fill exceeding 5 feet. The detached garage, with an area of about 1,400 square feet, is located at the west side of the property and is situated partially within the required 30-foot rear yard area. The overall height of this garage will be about 22 feet; 20 feet at the rear yard setback line (see attached). The maximum height in this rear yard area is 16 feet. This lot is within the Equestrian Overlay Area and has an existing 20-foot wide Local Feeder Trail Easement across the rear. The proposed detached garage is immediately adjacent to the trail. The trail surface and trail fencing are in need of replacement. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The applicant's proposal will not have "steps" in the floor. Houses within the Hillside Overlay are generally required to have several "steps" in the finished floor and finished pad. A stepped floor will allow the house to follow the existing topography, reduce the visual bulk of the house, and minimize excavation/fill. This solution is preferable and, with very few exceptions, is typical of other homes that have been approved in the past throughout the Hillside Overlay. The applicant's proposal contemplates asingle-story house, with a roof pitch at the south side • of the house that "falls" with the slope. The applicant has also included planters along the south side of the house to mitigate the height of the south face of the building wall. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00303-STEVEN PATTON • August 31, 2004 Page 2 2. The applicant proposes to construct planters (about 4 feet high) around the south and west base of the detached garage in order to address the height limit. When measured from the top of these planters, the overall height of the garage is 19 feet; 16 feet at the rear yard setback line. However, the planter wall is only about 2 and 4 feet from the west and south building faces, respectively, of the garage. Therefore, the perceived height of the garage will not be mitigated sufficiently. The planter along the west elevation cannot be widened because it would encroach into the equestrian and drainage easements on that side. Shifting the garage eastward may affect its usability, as it is currently only 22 feet from the rear of the house. Note that this detached garage is not required to satisfy the parking requirement for a single-family residence; an attached garage at the front of the house has been provided. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Does the design meet the intent of Section 17.20.050 A. 2. (Municipal Code) Equestrian overlay district which states; "This district is intended to promote a "rural/farm" character in an urban setting. (Ord. 211 § 6 (part), 1983)? Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. There are no Policy Issues. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee require "steps" in the floor consistent with previously approved Hillside Design Reviews. Staff also recommends that the detached garage be deleted or relocated prior to approval by the City Planner. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Coleman, McPhail, Stewart Staff Planner: Mike Smith The Committee recommended approval subject to submittal of revisions to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The Committee directed the applicant to step the house a minimum of 18 to 24 inches at the south end. The Committee was willing to accept the detached garage design if landscaping is added around it and a 6:12 roof pitched is used. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • August 31, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Br Iler Secretary • C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY AUGUST 31, 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REVISED AGENDA mmittee 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. 7:00 p.m. (Doug/gene) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330-GRANITE HOMES-A review of site plan and elevations for 29 single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of Wilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-1. This . project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. 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. 7:20 p.m. (Donald/Mark) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00199 - MCA ARCHITECTS - The development of a 6,048 square foot office building and a 10,184 square foot retail building on 1.51 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Sebestian Way - APN: 0229-011-51 and 52. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1992. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declaration. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP91-24 and Parcel Map 13845. 7:40 p.m. • (Mike/Cam) HILLSIDE REVIEW DRC2003-00303-STEVENPATTON-A request to construct asingle-family residence of 5,600 square feet (including garages, patios, porches) on a 21,800 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5032 Laredo Place -APN: 1061-801-09. DRC REVISED AGENDA August 31, 2004 Page 2 • PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy o% the foregoing agenda was posted on August 26, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting perGovernment Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn August 31, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330 -GRANITE HOMES - A review of site plan and elevations for 29single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of W ilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-1. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. ORAL REPORT AND PLANS WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Members Present: f, J • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Donald Granger August 31, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00199 -MCA ARCHITECTS -The development of a 6,048 square foot office building and a 10,184 square foot retail building on 1.51 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Sebestian W ay - APN: 0229-011-51 and 52. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1992. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declaration. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP91-24 and Parcel Map 13845. Background: The proposed project is part of Masi Plaza, a 27-acre commercial and industrial use master-planned planned complex located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Design Parameters: The project site is located on the south side of Sebastian W ay, on two parcels of land. The applicant is proposing two buildings, Buildings 19A and 19B. Building 19A is planned for office use, and Building 19B is planned for retail use. Building 19A was formerly approved as Building 17 (Development Review DR00-36) and has an approved entitlementfor an 11,500 square foot daycare facility (Conditional Use Permit CUP00-19). Even with the proposed changes of use and revised building locations, the proposed two-building project is in substantial compliance with . the approved master plan with regard to site planning, building size, and orientation. The architectural style, fenestration and accent elements on both buildings will match the buildings in Masi Plaza. 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. Site Plan should be adjusted to provide space for trees along the west elevation of Building 196. No trees are shown on the Landscape Plan. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. There are minor technical issues affecting the Site Plan that staff will address through the Technical Review Committee. These include parking stall length less than 17-foot (after 1-foot overhang allowance) and planter islands less than 6 feet. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. All trash enclosures shall match the existing trash enclosure design found in Masi Plaza. • 2. All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened by the parapet. 3. All colors, materials, and textures shall match the established architectural theme of Masi Plaza. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00199 -MCA ARCHITECTS August 31, 2004 • Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval to the Planning Commission subject to the above recommendations as conditions of approval and compliance with all City and Fire District standards. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Donald Granger Members Present: L • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Mike Smith August 31, 2004 HILLSIDE REVIEW DRC2003-00303 -STEVEN PATTON - A request to construct asingle-family residence of 5,600 square feet (including garages, patios, porches) on a 21,800 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5032 Laredo Place - APN: 1061-801-09. Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Very Low Residential District and is included in the Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Districts. The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lots size and configuration. Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner. However, because of the unique design proposed, the project has been forwarded to the Design Review Committee for discussion. Design Parameters: The project site is located on the west side of Laredo Place on a parcel of about 22,000 square feet. The existing topography slopes from about 2,223 feet on the north side to about 2,207 feet on the south side. The applicant is proposing to construct asingle-story residence with an attached two-car garage and a detached multi-vehicle garage at the rear of the property. The detached garage and most of the house will be constructed on a finished pad of • 2,216 feet. The attached garage will have a finished pad of 2,218 feet. The south side of the house (about ~/a of the floor area of the house) will be over a raised floor 5 feet above the existing grade. This results in increased height and the overall visual bulk of the house as seen from the east, west, and (most significantly) south. At no point on the lot is excavation or fill exceeding 5 feet. The detached garage, with an area of about 1,400 square feet, is located at the west side of the property and is situated partially within the required 30-foot rear yard area. The overall height of this garage will be about 22 feet; 20 feet at the rear yard setback line (see attached). The maximum height in this rear yard area is 16 feet. This lot is within the Equestrian Overlay Area and has an existing 20-foot wide Local Feeder Trail Easement across the rear. The proposed detached garage is immediately adjacent to the trail. The trail surface and trail fencing are in need of replacement. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The applicant's proposal will not have "steps" in the floor. Houses within the Hillside Overlay are generally required to have several "steps" in the finished floor and finished pad. A stepped floor will allow the house to follow the existing topography, reduce the visual bulk of the house, and minimize excavation/fill. This solution is preferable and, with very few exceptions, is typical of other homes that have been approved in the past throughout the Hillside Overlay. The applicant's proposal contemplates asingle-story house, with a roof pitch at the south side • of the house that "falls" with the slope. The applicant has also included planters along the south side of the house to mitigate the height of the south face of the building wall. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00303 -STEVEN PATTON • August 31, 2004 Page 2 2. The applicant proposes to construct planters (about 4 feet high) around the south and west base of the detached garage in order to address the height limit. When measured from the top of these planters, the overall height of the garage is 19 feet; 16 feet at the rear yard setback line. However, the planter wall is only about 2 and 4 feet from the west and south building faces, respectively, of the garage. Therefore, the perceived height of the garage will not be mitigated sufficiently. The planter along the west elevation cannot be widened because it would encroach into the equestrian and drainage easements on that side. Shifting the garage eastward may affect its usability, as it is currently only 22 feet from the rear of the house. Note that this detached garage is not required to satisfy the parking requirement for a single-family residence; an attached garage at the front of the house has been provided. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Does the design meet the intent of Section 17.20.050 A. 2. (Municipal Code) Equestrian overlay district which states; "This district is intended to promote a "rural/farm" character in an urban setting. (Ord. 211 § 6 (part), 1983)? Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. There are no Policy Issues. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee require "steps" in the floor consistent with previously approved Hillside Design Reviews. Staff also recommends that the detached garage be deleted or relocated prior to approval by the City Planner. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Mike Smith Members Present: L~ zl~ 22 i'~i~ •-I - - iP-N ~d ~ '~~~ a s~~,,s' d ~ ~ '~ I: ~,'~~ ~ i C i ~ {~.~ o i N / ~ W I ~ '~~~ h: + ~ ~' 1 ~ ~ ~ fik a t"~~ ~ I :Y k o ~~ ~ / II ~*~ / \ I i W ~ ~ ~~ ~, Q U I a ~ ~ ~'~~ ~5 `~ 1 ~ I i,Fi~SQ~~i~.. o ~ ~ Q g ~fi~ W ~ -b ll.l ~ I .~ N w 1 1 ~ r~ li I 'S W 0 ~ ~~ ,~ I ~ ;~~ ~ t ~ ~ 4~ 1 ti r ~ \ ~ ~C J ~ d f Q \ z 0. ~~ ~ t r ~ n a • ~~ d ~ f it ELI u Z ~ ~ W C~ ~~ IQ C~ Rio •~zZ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY AUGUST 31, 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 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. 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/Mark) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00199 - MCA ARCHITECTS -The development of a 6,048 square foot office building and a 10,184 square foot retail building on 1.51 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Sebestian Way - APN: 0229-011-51 and 52. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission on Jufy 22, 1992. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declaration. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit CUP91-24 and Parcel Map 13845. 7:20 p.m. (Mike/Cam) HILLSIDE REVIEW DRC2003-00303-STEVENPATTON-A request to construct asingle-family residence of 5,600 square feet (including garages, patios, porches) on a 21,800 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5032 Laredo Place - APN: 1061-801-09. 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 August 26, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 9~he~:ad o~ G~x~~liJ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Donald Granger August 31, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00199 -MCA ARCHITECTS -The development of a 6,048 square foot office building and a 10,184 square foot retail building on 1.51 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Sebestian Way - APN: 0229-01 1-51 and 52. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1992. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declaration. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit CUP91-24 and Parcel Map 13845. Background: The proposed project is part of Masi Plaza, a 27-acre commercial and industrial use master-planned planned complex located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Design Parameters: The project site is located on the south side of Sebastian W ay, on two parcels of land. The applicant is proposing two buildings, Buildings 19A and 196. Building 19A is planned for office use, and Building 19B is planned for retail use. Building 19A was formerly approved as Building 17 (Development Review DR00-36) and has an approved entitlementforan 11,500 square foot daycare facility (Conditional Use Permit CUP00-19). Even with the proposed changes of use and revised building locations, the proposed two-building project is insubstantial compliance with • the approved master plan with regard to site planning, building size, and orientation. The architectural style, fenestration and accent elements on both buildings will match the buildings in Masi Plaza. 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. Site Plan should be adjusted to provide space for trees along the west elevation of Building 196. No trees are shown on the Landscape Plan. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. There are minor technical issues affecting the Site Plan that staff will address through the Technical Review Committee. These include parking stall length less than 17-foot (after 1-foot overhang allowance) and planter islands less than 6 feet. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. All trash enclosures shall match the existing trash enclosure design found in Masi Plaza. • 2. All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened by the parapet. 3. All colors, materials, and textures shall match the established architectural theme of Masi Plaza. ,~ DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00199 -MCA ARCHITECTS August 31, 2004 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval to the Planning Commission subject to the above recommendations as conditions of approval and compliance with all City and Fire District standards. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Donald Granger Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith August 31, 2004 HILLSIDE REVIEW DRC2003-00303 -STEVEN PATTON - A request to construct asingle-family residence of 5,600 square feet (including garages, patios, porches) on a 21,800 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5032 Laredo Place - APN: 1061-801-09. Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Very Low Residential District and is included in the Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Districts. The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lots size and configuration. Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner. However, because of the unique design proposed, the project has been forwarded to the Design Review Committee for discussion. Design Parameters: The project site is located on the west side of Laredo Place on a parcel of about 22,000 square feet. The existing topography slopes from about 2,223 feet on the north side to about 2,207 feet on the south side. The applicant is proposing to construct asingle-story residence with an attached two-car garage and a detached multi-vehicle garage at the rear of the property. The detached garage and most of the house will be constructed on a finished pad of • 2,216 feet. The attached garage will have a finished pad of 2,218 feet. The south side of the house (about Y4 of the floor area of the house) will be over a raised floor 5 feet above the existing grade. This results in increased height and the overall visual bulk of the house as seen from the east, west, and (most significantly) south. At no point on the lot is excavation or fill exceeding 5 feet. The detached garage, with an area of about 1,400 square feet, is located at the west side of the property and is situated partially within the required 30-foot rear yard area. The overall height of this garage will be about 22 feet; 20 feet at the rear yard setback line (see attached). The maximum height in this rear yard area is 16 feet. This lot is within the Equestrian Overlay Area and has an existing 20-foot wide Local Feeder Trail Easement across the rear. The proposed detached garage is immediately adjacent to the trail. The trail surface and trail fencing are in need of replacement. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The applicant's proposal will not have "steps" in the floor. Houses within the Hillside Overlay are generally required to have several "steps" in the finished floor and finished pad. A stepped floor will allow the house to follow the existing topography, reduce the visual bulk of the house, and minimize excavation/fill. This solution is preferable and, with very few exceptions, is typical of other homes that have been approved in the past throughout the Hillside Overlay. The applicant's proposal contemplates asingle-story house, with a roof pitch at the south side • of the house that "falls" with the slope. The applicant has also included planters along the south side of the house to mitigate the height of the south face of the building wall. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00303 -STEVEN PATTON • August 31, 2004 Page 2 2. The applicant proposes to construct planters (about 4 feet high) around the south and west base of the detached garage in order to address the height limit. When measured from the top of these planters, the overall height of the garage is 19 feet; 16 feet at the rear yard setback line. However, the planter wall is only about 2 and 4 feet from the west and south building faces, respectively, of the garage. Therefore, the perceived height of the garage will not be mitigated sufficiently. The planter along the west elevation cannot be widened because it would encroach into the equestrian and drainage easements on that side. Shifting the garage eastward may affect its usability, as it is currently only 22 feet from the rear of the house. Note that this detached garage is not required to satisfy the parking requirement for a single-family residence; an attached garage at the front of the house has been provided. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Does the design meet the intent of Section 17.20.050 A. 2. (Municipal Code) Equestrian overlay district which states; "This district is intended to promote a "rural/farm" character in an urban setting. (Ord. 211 § 6 (part), 1983)? Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. There are no Policy Issues. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee require "steps" in the floor consistent with previously approved Hillside Design Reviews. Staff also recommends that the detached garage be deleted or relocated prior to approval by the City Planner. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Mike Smith Members Present: • .~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY AUGUST 17, 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. 7:00 p.m. (Vance/Shelley) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway -APN: 0201-272-03. 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. (Doug/Rene) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330 -GRANITE HOMES - A review of site plan and elevations for 29 single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of Wilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-1. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. 7:20 p.m. (Larry/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16605 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 7 lots for condominium purposes on 21 acres of land in the Western Foothill Corridor Mixed Use area of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Development Review DRC2003-00637, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. • DRC ACTION AGENDA August 17, 2004 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 225 condominiums on 21 acres of land in the Western Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor area of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16605, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. • 8:10 p.m. (Nancy/Joe) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00688-LANDRY'S-The review of detailed site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed 7,000 square foot restaurant, Joe's Crab Shack, on restaurant pad 3 within the Foothill Crossing Center in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. 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 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy August 17, 2004 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway - APN: 0201-272-03. STAFF WILL PRESENT ORAL REPORT AT THE MEETING Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, Stewart . At the meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Committee for review. The revised plans showed the addition of the tower element over the "pick-up" window, a striped 4-way stop at the entry, the height of the westerly parapet where the pitch of the room canopy increased, and additional landscaping. The Committee recommended approval with the condition that the false window at the tower should have multi-pane mullion consistent with the existing tower in the shopping center. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Doug Fenn August 17, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330 -GRANITE HOMES - A review of site plan and elevations for 29single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of W ilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-1. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. Design Parameters: The applicant proposes the exact same elevation product of their previously approved single-family development of Blackstone Ridge across the street of Day Creek Boulevard. The proposed project, Blackstone Ridge East, is for 29 homes with four elevations such as: Ranch, Country, Monterey, and Bungalow. The square footage of these homes varies from 3,889 to 4,633 square feet. The project is in conformance with Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee • discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Architecture-The Committee should carefully reviewthe side and rearelevations based upon recent Commission concerns with "boxy appearance," lack of articulation, and detail. Staff believes that the proposed design has sufficient variation of form, massing, articulation. The design details are consistent with the architectural style of the front elevations. 2. Decks -The decks should be a standard feature, not an option, for all lots that have reverse frontage on Day Creek Boulevard or lots along Street "A." The supporting structural members on the decks should match the secondary materials on the houses (river rock, stacked stone, brick, etc.). The secondary material should be carried up to the deck flooring. The decks should have upgraded treatment and variation consistent with architectural style of home. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to revised plans addressing the above comments prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, Stewart Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • The Committee explained to the applicant that commentaries have been received recently from City leaders and concerned residents that the architecture of the homes are identical. In response, the Planning Commission will require new projects to have a variety of design; will not accept two-story DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00330 -GRANITE HOMES August 17, 2004 • Page 2 box without substantial variation to the building plane and roof plane; and, in a minimum, a single-story product will have to be included. However, the Committee stated that because this product has been in the process for some time, they would not ask for the single-story product but would require the house design to have exceptional architectural treatment as follows: The building design should have architectural elements and treatment that would be true to its style. For example: a San Juan style home would not have the same roof pitch as a Country style home, or use of the same vents design for all architectural styles. The design for each architectural style should be very distinctive. 2. Break up the building plane for the side elevations with dormers, window pot-outs, etc 3. Design the fireplace and chimney to fit the architectural style and treat them with rich materials such as river rock, stone, etc. 4. Use arch windows for the San Juan and Monterey architectural styles. 5. Enhance the design of the balconies and decks with solid decorative columns and fence, and rich materials. Some decks should include roof coverings. Balconies and decks are a standard for Lots 1 through 5. 6. Use decorative material such assplit-face block for perimeter project walls, corner side, return • walls, and interior side yard walls. All walls should have a decorative cap. 7. Provide disclosure statement to all future buyers regarding its proximity to a proposed school. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Larry Henderson August 17, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16605 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 7 lots for condominium purposes on 21 acres of land in the Western Foothill Corridor Mixed Use area of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Development Review DRC2003-00637, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 225 condominiums on 21 acres of land in the Western Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor area of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16605, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. Design Parameters: The site is located in a hillside area on the southerly flank of Red Hill surrounding the historic Sycamore Inn Restaurant. The site contains 71 heritage trees. To the north are the Red Hill Condominiums (Medium Residential 8-14 dwelling unit per acre). To the west is the Sycamore Inn, vacant land, and single-family homes. To the east is the elevated and abandoned Pacific Electric Railway corridor. To the south is Foothill Boulevard, and further south, Knocker's • bar, and an automotive repair shop. The properties to the west are Mixed-Use (MU) land use, and Office/Commercial to the southwest. The Red Hill Golf course is located northwest of the project site adjacent to the medium density residential development. The most significant design challenge is the steep topography, in which 34 percent of the site is greater than 30 percent slope. Development on land with over 30 percent slopes requires both Development Code and General Plan Amendments. The proposed project must also be designed in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.32, Foothill Boulevard Districts, Guidelines for Development of Subarea 1. The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). An Historical Assessment of the project site was conducted by Stephen R. Van wormer in May 1990, and revealed the following: four historic resources were identified as a result of research and field survey and include: 1) the Cucamonga Stage station site, 2) the Sycamore Inn, 3) the Red Chief Motel (recently demolished), and 4) the San Bernardino Museum Archaeological Information has noted the presence of two previously recorded historic bridges (CHS-1786-1 andCHS-1786-6) as well as the old Los Angeles to San Bernardino road route (PS-BR-3-H) adjacent to the project boundaries. These resources are outside the project area and will not be impacted. It is noted that the Sycamore Inn site is affected from asite-specific impact, since the main access to the residential project is through the parking lot. Careful attention to the current restaurant needs of the Inn must be considered with the residential design so that the economic viability of this unique historical resource is not adversely affected. Pre-Application Review: The Planning Commission conducted a workshop on August 13, 2003 (see attached minutes). Staff identified four major issues: 1) development on hillside slopes 30 percent or greater contrary to the Hillside Development Ordinance, 2) building heights exceeding 30 feet • maximum allowed in Hillside areas, 3) architecture, and 4) private open spaces and entrances. The Commissioners (Macias, Fletcher, Stewart) liked the overall concept and provided direction to applicant. DRC ACTION COMMENTS SUBTT16605 AND DRC2004-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES August 17, 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. View Protection - As an infill, hillside site, consideration and sensitivity to protection of neighbors' views is critical. The applicant has provided sight-line sections through each adjoining Red Hill Condominium unit. The developer was asked to conduct a neighborhood meeting to obtain community input prior to this meeting. 2. Architecture -The Community Recreation Building is well articulated with a high degree of materials and definite 360-degree architecture policy compliance. However, the multi-family buildings are not on the same level of architectural development and lack sufficient articulation of the building planes for the ends and rear. Because of the relative large massing of the residential structures, additional movement of the building planes is recommended. In addition, the stacked stone should be an element that is utilized on all sides of the proposed residential architecture. 3. Building Height - On the downhill side, the buildings are 3-story, which exceeds the 30-foot hillside building envelope. The Ordinance encourages stepping building. The applicant is requesting a Development Code Amendment to resolve this issue; however, the Committee • should still discuss whether the upper floors should be stepped back more than the 2 to 3 feet proposed to soften the height impact. 4. Tree Preservation -The site contains 71 heritage trees on-site, including Oak, Sycamore, Pepper, Elm, and a few Eucalyptus trees. The City tree ordinance, which states, "The Eucalyptus, Palm, Oak, Sycamore, Pine, and other trees growing within the City of Rancho Cucamonga are a natural aesthetic resource which helps define the character of the city. Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent soil erosion, provide shade, wind protection, screening and counteract air pollution." An Arborist Report (David Evans and Associates, September 2003) identified the existing conditions of the trees and reported on their type and general health (predominately focusing on Sycamores, Oaks, and Ornamentals). Pertaining to sycamore trees, if drainage is altered, it may affect the amount of water that the sycamores receive. The trees could be adversely effected if they were to receive significantly less water than they have received historically. Should this be, the developer should be required to replace the lost water with an irrigation system. In addition, it is recommended that grading be prohibited with the drip line of trees, which are to be protected in place. Also, it is recommended that the drainage source or proposed irrigation be designed in such a mariner that additional moisture is not encouraged at the base of a tree trunk or allowed to collect immediately adjacent to the tree truck, as this can cause rot. There are 44 heritage trees are located in the northwest corner of the site. This is an area that has been revised by the applicant, since the Pre-Application Review, to reduce the number of buildings from three to two and shifted the on-site driveway to the west. The arborist recommended preservation of 35 on-site trees. The developer is proposing to save 25 on-site trees; however, 10 of these are not those recommended by arborist. Preservation of all 35 trees recommended by arborist would require major site plan revisions. Further, based upon the Arborist Report, staff believes that the proposed improvements would cause the demise of • four trees the developer has proposed to save: Tree #s 39, 43, 45, and 59. The Tree Preservation Ordinance establishes the following priorities: 1) preserve-in-place healthytrees, 2) if trees cannot be preserved-in-place, then transplant elsewhere on-site, and as a last resort, 3) remove and replace with largest nursery grown stock available. The developer is proposing to plant hundreds of new trees, ranging from 15-gallon up to 36-inch box. DRC ACTION COMMENTS SUBTT16605 AND DRC2004-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES August 17, 2004 • Page 3 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Recreation Amenities-The project requires a minimum of five amenities; however, onlythree qualifying amenities have been provided. Most of the items proposed do not qualify under Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.08.040.H: gazebos, trellis, and individual rooms within the Recreation Building (kitchen, billiards, exercise). Onlyone BBO facilityatthe pool is shown; hence, does not meet the requirement for more than one. Also, staff recommends that a tot lot be provided for children (to qualify, multiple tot lots are required). 2. Architecture -The remote garages and trash enclosures are plain in comparison to all the other buildings, with stucco being the sole wall surface material. The incorporation of the stacked stone would create an integrated appearance to the overall project. 3. Architecture -Vary garage door designs. 4. Grading - In at least three locations near on-site driveways or parking lot, 5-foot retaining walls are proposed which exceeds the 3.5 feet (downslope) and 4 feet (upslope) allowed under Hillside Development Ordinance. The applicant is requesting a Development Code Amendment to resolve this issue. 5. Grading - "Brow ditches," "bench drains," and cross and down drains are a prominent feature • of this project. The Hillside Development Ordinance requires special "naturalized appearance" with river rock as a liner or within a closed drainage pipe. 6. A mailbox center should be incorporated into the recreation building or designed as a stand alone structure designed in keeping with the architectural style and materials of the complex. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the applicant re-design and re-submit the project based on staff and Committee comments as appropriate. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, Stewart Staff Planner: Larry Henderson The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve the following critical design areas and return to the Committee for further review of the revised plans: The height and mass of the buildings needs to be reduced. Increasing the height of retaining walls and greater variation in building and roof planes is required. 2. The amenities package is not adequate and a tot lot needs to be added as well as spreading out the amenities to a greater level and making the main recreation area more centralized to all the units. • 3. The Sycamore Inn entry area is not acceptable and must be safe as well as workable for the operation of the Inn. 4. Greater definition and planning for Heritage Tree preservation needs to be addressed. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 p.m. Nancy Fong August 17, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00688 - LANDRY'S -The review of detailed site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed 7,000 square foot restaurant, Joe's Crab Shack, on restaurant pad 3 within the Foothill Crossing Center in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. Design Parameters: The site is approved for a restaurant pad. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed restaurant design in aPre-Application Review (PAR) workshop. The Planning Commission raised the following comments and concerns: Acceptance of the use of siding for the building; allowance of the blues band around the building without stars; use of one color for the gooseneck light fixtures and awnings; limited visibility of play equipment within the outdoor patio; need for hardscape to blend with the center design; and compliance with the Sign Ordinance and Sign Program. The Planning Commission was split in its comments regarding the use of brick versus river rock and the use of metal roof and its color. Attached is a copy of the June 9, 2004, workshop minutes. 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. Brick versus River Rock. The proposed design includes the use of old bricks. At the PAR workshop, there was not a consensus from the Planning Commission whether the building should have brick material. The architectural theme for the entire center is one of winery where the buildings are mostly stucco, similar to the Virginia Dare Winery Center. The treatment at the two corners (southeast and southwest of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard) consisted of trellis works and river rock columns. The trail fencing along the east side of Day Creek Boulevard also contains river-rock columns. Staff is of the opinion that using the same river rock material will unify the center. The applicant has indicated in the PAR workshop that either material will work for the building design. 2. Metal Roof and Color. There are two levels of metal roof, the lower level metal roof which is grayish tone and the taller gable roof which is a "patina green." The question is whether the metal roof and the two colors would be acceptable. 3. Signs: a. Roof Sign. The "Eat at Joe's" sign mounted on the roof is prohibited by Sign Ordinance. b. The maximum number of signs, a combination of wall and monument, is three for any one business. The proposed restaurant showed a total of six walls and one monument sign. Reduce to comply with the Sign Ordinance. One of the wall signs for "Joe's Crab Shack" could be changed to "Eat at Joe's." c. The sign area for the proposed wall signs is 90 square feet with dimensions of 6 feet by 15 feet. The Uniform Sign Program allows a maximum sign area of 75 square feet with maximum dimensions of 3 feet by 25 feet. An alternative sign allowed by the Sign Program is a trademark logo with a sign height of 5 feet provided that the sign area is reduced by 50 percent. DRC ACTION COMMENTS Drc2004-00688 - LANDRY'S • August 17, 2004 Page 2 Extraneous information. The words and graphics "free, crab, tomorrow" and the faded painted graphics of "peace, love & crab" are extraneous information and considered as signs, which the Sign Ordinance discourages. Allowing these types of signs will set a precedent for the entire City. 4. Site plan. The corner trellis and its stairs were intended for future pedestrian connection. The orientation of the restaurant blocks any pedestrian connection from the corner trellis and stairs that could lead to the front building entry. See attachment. 5. Noise Attenuation. A large outdoor dining patio is located at the northwest corner of the building near the intersection of Foothill and Day Creek Boulevards. Also, an outdoor children's play area is located between the north end of the building and Foothill Boulevard. The elevations do not show required sound attenuation barriers. Provide noise study and appropriate design elements to mitigate traffic noise levels exceeding City standards of 60/65dBA (nighUday). For example, clear Lexan panels (similar to those at Romano's Macaroni Grill Restaurant). The wood guardrail will not provide sound attenuation. 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 roof cover for the patio seating is the grayish tone corrugated metal. Consider using wood trellis with Plexiglas underneath the wood trellis. • 2. Wood latticework is used for roof screen parapet wall. Enhance the roof screen wall with solid wall and treated with the same wood siding material as in the building wall. 3. Eliminate the long florescent roof mounted lights, which is not allowed. The gooseneck type of light fixtures is acceptable. 4. Eliminate the stars from the blue band per direction of the Planning Commission. 5. The play equipment extends 8 feet above the wood guard rail fence. However, the grade for the play area is about 4 feet below the street top of curb grade, and with adequate number of tall shrubs, it would not be too visible from the street. The placement of monument sign should comply with the approved location per the Uniform Sign Program. The applicant should work with the developer for this issue. Attachment Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to work with staff in addressing all the above-identified design issues. Once the design issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of staff, then the project could be forwarded to the City Planner for review and approval. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, Stewart Staff Planner: Nancy Fong DRC ACTION COMMENTS Drc2004-00688 - LANDRY'S • August 17, 2004 Page 3 The applicant submitted revised elevations that addressed design issues listed in the staff comments. The revised elevations showed only three wall signs and no monument sign, a pedestrian connection if provided from the trellis work at'the corner, and elimination of the long florescent roof-mounted lights replaced with small up-lights mounted on the wood poles. The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The Committee directed the applicant to replace the brick with river rock for the utility area at the east elevation subject to City Planner review and approval. The rest of the building may have bricks as a wainscot. 2. The applicant agreed to work with staff in addressing the noise issue for the outdoor patio/play area. 3. The Committee agreed to allow a color strip around the building approximately 16 to 18 inches wide consisting of gold and blue colors. 4. The Committee members stated that they do not object to murals on building walls as long as the subject of the mural is generic and not related to the service, food, or products of the restaurant. For example, a beach scene mural would be acceptable. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS August 17, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B d Buller Secretary C~ • \J Committee Members: Alternates: CONSENT CALENDAR Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Nancy Fong Rich Macias Richard Fletcher 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. (Vance/Shelley) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway -APN: 0201-272-03. 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. (Doug/Rene) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330 -GRANITE HOMES - A review of site plan and elevations for 29 single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of Wilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-1. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. 7:20 p.m. (Larry/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16605 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 7 lots for condominium purposes on 21 acres of land in the W estern Foothill Corridor Mixed Use area of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Development Review DRC2003-00637, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY AUGUST 17, 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRC AGENDA August 17, 2004 • Page 2 8:10 p.m. (Nancy/Joe) • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 225 condominiums on 21 acres of land in the Western Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor area of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16605, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00688 - LANDRY'S -The review of detailed site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed 7,000 square foot restaurant, Joe's Crab Shack, on restaurant pad 3 within the Foothill Crossing Center in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. 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 August 12, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. r~ u CONSENT CALENDAR DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy August 17, 2004 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A requestto construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway - APN: 0201-272-03. STAFF W ILL PRESENT ORAL REPORT AT THE MEETING Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy Members Present: • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Doug Fenn August 17, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330 -GRANITE HOMES - A review of site plan and elevations for 29single-family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of W ilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496,and SUBTT14496-1. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2001. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. Design Parameters: The applicant proposes the exact same elevation product of their previously approved single-family development of Blackstone Ridge across the street of Day Creek Boulevard. The proposed project, Blackstone Ridge East, is for 29 homes with four elevations such as: Ranch, Country, Monterey, and Bungalow. The square footage of these homes varies from 3,889 to 4,633 square feet. The project is in conformance with Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee . discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Architecture -The Committee should carefully review the side and rear elevations based upon recent Commission concerns with "boxy appearance," lack of articulation, and detail. Staff believes that the proposed design has sufficient variation of form, massing, articulation. The design details are consistent with the architectural style of the front elevations. Decks -The decks should be a standard feature, not an option, for all lots that have reverse frontage on Day Creek Boulevard or lots along Street "A." The supporting structural members on the decks should match the secondary materials on the houses (river rock, stacked stone, brick, etc.). The secondary material should be carried up to the deck flooring. The decks should have upgraded treatment and variation consistent with architectural style of home. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to revised plans addressing the above comments prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Larry Henderson August 17, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16605 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 7 lots for condominium purposes on 21 acres of land in the Western Foothill Corridor Mixed Use area of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Development Review DRC2003-00637, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 225 condominiums on 21 acres of land in the Western Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Corridorarea of the Foothill Districts (Subarea 1), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-13, 31, and 34. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16605, Minor Exception DRC2003-01082, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00082. Design Parameters: The site is located in a hillside area on the southerly flank of Red Hill surrounding the historic Sycamore Inn Restaurant. The site contains 71 heritage trees. To the north are the Red Hill Condominiums (Medium Residential 8-14 dwelling unit per acre). To the west is the Sycamore Inn, vacant land, and single-family homes. To the east is the elevated and abandoned Pacific Electric Railway corridor. To the south is Foothill Boulevard, and further south, Knocker's bar • and a automotive repair shop. The properties to the west are Mixed-Use (MU) land use, and Office/Commercial to the southwest. The Red Hill Golf course is located northwest of the project site adjacent to the medium density residential development. The most significant design challenge is the steep topography, in which 34 percent of the site is greater than 30 percent slope. Development on land with over 30 percent slopes requires both Development Code and General Plan Amendments. The proposed project must also be designed in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.32, Foothill Boulevard Districts, Guidelines for Development of Subarea 1. The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). An Historical Assessment of the project site was conducted by Stephen R. Van wormer in May 1990, and revealed the following: four historic resources were identified as a result of research and field survey and include: 1) the Cucamonga Stage station site, 2) the Sycamore Inn, 3) the Red Chief Motel (recently demolished), and 4) the San Bernardino Museum Archaeological Information has noted the presence of two previously recorded historic bridges (CHS-1786-1 and CHS-1786-6) as well as the old Los Angeles to San Bernardino road route (PS-BR-3-H) adjacent to the project boundaries. These resources are outside the project area and will not be impacted. It is noted that the Sycamore Inn site is affected from asite-specific impact, since the main access to the residential project is through the parking lot. Careful attention to the current restaurant needs of the Inn must be considered with the residential design so that the economic viability of this unique historical resource is not adversely affected. Pre-Application Review: The Planning Commission conducted a workshop on August 13, 2003 (see attached minutes). Staff identified four major issues: 1) development on hillside slopes 30 percent or greater contrary to the Hillside Development Ordinance, 2) building heights exceeding 30 feet . maximum allowed in Hillside areas, 3) architecture, and 4) private open spaces and entrances. The Commissioners (Macias, Fletcher, Stewart) liked the overall concept and provided direction to applicant. DRC COMMENTS SUBTT16605 AND DRC2004-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES August 17, 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. View Protection - As an infill, hillside site, consideration and sensitivity to protection of neighbors' views is critical. The applicant has provided sight-line sections through each adjoining Red Hill Condominium unit. The developer was asked to conduct a neighborhood meeting to obtain community input prior to this meeting. 2. Architecture -The Community Recreation Building is well articulated with a high degree of materials and definite 360-degree architecture policy compliance. However, the multi-family buildings are not on the same level of architectural development and lack sufficient articulation of the building planes for the ends and rear. Because of the relative large massing of the residential structures, additional movement of the building planes is recommended. In addition, the stacked stone should be an element that is utilized on all sides of the proposed residential architecture. 3. Building Height - On the downhill side, the buildings are 3-story, which exceeds the 30-foot hillside building envelope. The Ordinance encourages stepping building. The applicant is requesting a Development Code Amendment to resolve this issue; however, the Committee should still discuss whether the upper floors should be stepped back more than the 2 to 3 feet • proposed to soften the height impact. 4. Tree Preservation -The site contains 71 heritage trees on-site, including Oak, Sycamore, Pepper, Elm, and a few Eucalyptus. The City tree ordinance, which states, "The Eucalyptus, Palm, Oak, Sycamore, Pine, and other trees growing within the City of Rancho Cucamonga are a natural aesthetic resource which helps define the character of the city. Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent soil erosion, provide shade, wind protection, screening and counteract air pollution." An Arborist Report (David Evans and Associates, September 2003) identified the existing conditions of the trees and reported on their type and general health (predominately focusing on Sycamores, Oaks, and Ornamentals). Pertaining to sycamore trees, if drainage is altered, it may affect the amount of water that the sycamores receive. The trees could be adversely effected if they were to receive significantly less water than they have received historically. Should this be, the developer should be required to replace the lost water with an irrigation system. In addition, it is recommended that grading be prohibited with the drip line of trees, which are to be protected in place. Also, it is recommended that the drainage source or proposed irrigation be designed in such a manner that additional moisture is not encouraged at the base of a tree trunk or allowed to collect immediately adjacent to the tree truck, as this can cause rot. There are 44 heritage trees are located in the northwest corner of the site. This is an area that has been revised by the applicant, since the Pre-Application Review, to reduce the number of buildings from three to two and shifted the on-site driveway to the west. The arborist recommended preservation of 35 on-site trees. The developer is proposing to save 25 on-site trees; however, 10 of these are not those recommended by arborist. Preservation of all 35 trees recommended by arborist would require major site plan revisions. Further, based upon the Arborist Report, staff believes that the proposed improvements would cause the demise of • four trees the developer has proposed to save: Tree #s 39, 43, 45, and 59. The Tree Preservation Ordinance establishes the following priorities: 1)preserve-in-place healthy trees, 2) if trees cannot be preserved-in-place, then transplant elsewhere on-site, and as a last resort, 3) remove and replace with largest nursery grown stock available. The developer is proposing to plant hundreds of new trees, ranging from 15-gallon up to 36-inch box. DRC COMMENTS SUBTT16605 AND DRC2004-00637 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES August 17, 2004 • Page 3 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Recreation Amenities-The project requires a minimum of five amenities; however, onlythree qualifying amenities have been provided. Most of the items proposed do not qualify under Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.08.040.H: gazebos, trellis, and individual rooms within the Recreation Building (kitchen, billiards, exercise). Onlyone BBO facility atthe pool is shown; hence, does not meet the requirement for more than one. Also, staff recommends that a tot lot be provided for children (to qualify, multiple tot lots are required). 2. Architecture -The remote garages and trash enclosures are plain in comparison to all the other buildings, with stucco being the sole wall surface material. The incorporation of the stacked stone would create an integrated appearance to the overall project. 3. Architecture -Vary garage door designs. 4. Grading - In at least three locations near on-site driveways or parking lot, 5-foot retaining walls are proposed which exceeds the 3.5 feet (downslope) and 4 feet (upslope) allowed under Hillside Development Ordinance. The applicant is requesting a Development Code Amendment to resolve this issue. 5. Grading - "Brow ditches", "bench drains", and cross and down drains are a prominent feature of this project. The Hillside Development Ordinance requires special "naturalized appearance" with river rock as a liner or within a closed drainage pipe. 6. A mailbox center should be incorporated into the recreation building or designed as a stand alone structure designed in keeping with the architectural style and materials of the complex. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the applicant re-design and re-submit the project based on staff and Committee comments as appropriate. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Larry Henderson Members Present: • housing portion along San Bernardino Road. With either plan, she felt the architecture needs to~ supenor. • Commissioner Stewart said that she did not care for either design as presented be they both look over built. While she commented that she did not care for auto-courts added that she could support an auto-court plan that has an appropriate amount of open .She believed that a tot lot is needed. She proposed that some bungalows along Foot ' ulevard might enhance a "Route 66" streetscepe. She felt high quality landscaping is n d along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Chairman Macias agreed with Commissioner Ste at he was not fond of the auto court concept however, he preferred the auto-court plan een the two designs submitted. He added that Commissioner Stewart's suggestion reg g bungalows along Foothill Boulevard had merit within the "Route 66" context. He also be' d that both plans appear too dense and that a reduction in units might be waranted. He ded by saying that any plan needs to be pedestrian friendy and a tot lot is a must for the ex Brad Buller, City PI er, summarized the comments of the Commission. He stated that the plans conform to the 's multiple family density range. Further he added that single story bungalow type elements d be appropriate along Foothill Boulevard and that such features might provide a less dense earence from the major street frontage. He advised the applicants that they could move f with submittal of a Design Review application for either type of project. ..:.: NEW BUSINESS B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW TENTATIVE TRACT MAP G rBlT1RR 5 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00637 -SYCAMORE TOWN HOMES -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A Pre-Application Review to consider a conceptual design concept for the proposed development of 86 town homes and 133 flats on 20.00 acres of land in the Western Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor area within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Districts, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between San Bernardino Road and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-101-31 and 34. Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the item and gave an overview of the Pre-Application Review process. He emphasized that the purpose of the workshop was to look at the proposed project design overall and its relationship to the surrounding area. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, introduced the development team and gave an overview of the project. He indicated that the project is currently going through the development process with the City, and added that there have been some revisions to the project layout that were not reflected on the plans the Commissioners received for the workshop. However, he thought the Commissioners and staff would Tike the new changes. He indicated that someone has done a lot of grading on the property and flattened out an area; however, they have not been able to discoverwho did it. Victor Mahony, Chief Financial Officer for Cameo Homes, discussed the proposed project in detail. Using photo simulations of the site for reference, he explained the project layout. He also noted that the adjacent property owner, Sycamore Inn, is in support of the project. Chris Giannini, Associate Landscape Architect, added that the applicant's intention is to save as • many trees on-site as possible. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- August 13, 2003 Commissioner Fletcher asked the developer if the project was a gated community. The developer indicted it would be. • Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, pointed out the following four key items for the Planning Commissioners to consider: 1) Development on hillside slopes 30 percent or greater, 2) Building heights exceeding 30 feet in the Hillside Overlay; 3) Architecture of the buildings; and 4) Layout of private open space and entrances. Mr. Buller, stated his concem with the proposed project as it relates to the Hillside Ordinance. He indicated that the project, as proposed, does not meet the Hillside Ordinance. He also stated his concem with the photo simulations the applicant presented to the Commissioners because they did not appear to accurately depict the proposed development on the hillside. He noted that the existing Sycamore Inn parking lot on the east side of the restaurant would.be separated from the restaurant by the development of the Foothill Boulevard entrance to the project, but felt comfortable that pedestrian access from the parking lot to the restaurant crossing over the project entrance can be worked out. He questioned whether it was possible to save trees with the proposed grading scheme that will mass grade the site and fill in the natural ravines. He indicated that in his conversations with the owner of the Sycamore Inn, their support for project was very conditional. He stated that cross sections and sight line analysis from the Red Hill town homes is important. Mr. Buquet said that they will submit a section through every unit on Red Hill Mr. Giannini Garified that the only trees that the developer could possibly save were on the perimeter of the project because of the project's mass grading concept. Commissioner Stewart stated she likes the project location next to the Sycamore Inn restaurant and wants it to move forward. She also indicated that she would like the site to be designed with a • village feel that included wood motif street signs and other elements. Commissioner Fletcher stated he liked the overall concept of the project; however, was concerned the misleading depiction of the project on the photo simulations. He asked the applicant to revise the simulations to be more reflective of the actual project proposed. Commissioner Macias echoed Commissioner Stewart and Fletcher's feelings for the project. He indicated that the project was unique. He stated, that although there could be issues with the project, he thought they could be worked out. He also thought it was important for the applicant to submit realistic photo simulations of the project so the Commissioners could get a true picture of the proposed project. He then directed the applicant to work future issues out with staff and the Sycamore Inn. Mr. Buller summarized the comments of the Commission and directed the applicant to move forward with the development process. •f C. PR - ICATION REVIEW DRC2003-00733 - HOGLE IRELAND, INC. - A review of conceptua ~ n concept for the proposed development of 10 duplexes consisting of 20 units and 5 single-fame es on 4.20 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (48 dwelling units per acre) Foothill Districts (Subarea 3), located south of Foothill BoulevarcJ, at the terminus of Hampshire evon Streets - APN: 0208-331-18. This item was continued to August 27, of the applicant. .:... PC Adjourned Minutes -3- August 13, 2003 . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 p.m. Nancy Fong August 17, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00688 - LANDRY'S -The review of detailed site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed 7,000 square foot restaurant, Joe's Crab Shack, on restaurant pad 3 within the Foothill Crossing Center in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. Design Parameters: The site is approved for a restaurant pad. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed restaurant design in aPre-Application Review (PAR) workshop. The Planning Commission raised the following comments and concerns: Acceptance of the use of siding for the building; allowance of the blues band around the building without stars; use of one color for the gooseneck light fixtures and awnings; limited visibility of play equipment within the outdoor patio; need for hardscape to blend with the center design; and compliance with the Sign Ordinance and Sign Program. The Planning Commission was split in its comments regarding the use of brick versus river rock and the use of metal roof and its color. Attached is a copy of the June 9, 2004, workshop minutes. 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. Brick versus River Rock. The proposed design includes the use of old bricks. At the PAR workshop, there was not a consensus from the Planning Commission whether the building should have brick material. The architectural theme for the entire center is one of winery where the buildings are mostly stucco, similar to the Virginia Dare Winery Center. The treatment at the two corners (southeast and southwest of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard) consisted of trellis works and river rock columns. The trail fencing along the east side of Day Creek Boulevard also contains river-rock columns. Staff is of the opinion that using the same river rock material will unify the center. The applicant has indicated in the PAR workshop that either material will work for the building design. 2. Metal Roof and Color. There are two levels of metal roof, the lower level metal roof which is grayish tone and the taller gable roof which is a "patina green." The question is whether the metal roof and the two colors would be acceptable. 3. Si ns: a. Roof Sign. The "Eat at Joe's" sign mounted on the roof is prohibited by Sign Ordinance. b. The maximum number of signs, a combination of wall and monument, is three for any one business. The proposed restaurant showed a total of six walls and one monument sign. Reduce to comply with the Sign Ordinance. One of the wall signs for "Joe's Crab Shack" could be changed to "Eat at Joe's." c. The sign area for the proposed wall signs is 90 square feet with dimensions of 6 feet by 15 feet. The Uniform Sign Program allows a maximum sign area of 75 square feet with • maximum dimensions of 3 feet by 25 feet. An alternative sign allowed by the Sign Program is a trademark logo with a sign height of 5 feet provided that the sign area is reduced by 50 percent. DRC COMMENTS Drc2004-00688 - LANDRY'S August 17, 2004 • Page 2 d. Extraneous information. The words and graphics "free, crab, tomorrow" and the faded painted graphics of "peace, love & crab" are extraneous information and considered as signs, which the Sign Ordinance discourages. Allowing these types of signs will set a precedent for the entire City. 4. Site clan. The corner trellis and its stairs were intended for future pedestrian connection. The orientation of the restaurant blocks any pedestrian connection from the corner trellis and stairs that could lead to the front building entry. See attachment. 5. Noise Attenuation. A large outdoor dining patio is located at the northwest corner of the building near the intersection of Foothill and Day Creek Boulevards. Also, an outdoor children's play area is located between the north end of the building and Foothill Boulevard. The elevations do not show required sound attenuation barriers. Provide noise study and appropriate design elements to mitigate traffic noise levels exceeding City standards of 60/65dBA (nighUday). For example, clear Lexan panels (similar to those at Romano's Macaroni Grill Restaurant). The wood guardrail will not provide sound attenuation. 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 roof cover for the patio seating is the grayish tone corrugated metal. Consider using wood trellis with Plexiglas underneath the wood trellis. • 2. Wood latticework is used for roof screen parapet wall. Enhance the roof screen wall with solid wall and treated with the same wood siding material as in the building wall. 3. Eliminate the long florescent roof mounted lights, which is not allowed. The gooseneck type of Tight fixtures is acceptable. 4. Eliminate the stars from the blue band per direction of the Planning Commission. 5. The play equipment extends 8 feet above the wood guard rail fence. However, the grade for the play area is about 4 feet below the street top of curb grade, and with adequate number of tall shrubs, it would not be too visible from the street. 6. The placement of monument sign should comply with the approved location per the Uniform Sign Program. The applicant should work with the developer for this issue. Attachment Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to work with staff in addressing all the above-identified design issues. Once the design issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of staff, then the project could be forwarded to the City Planner for review and approval. Design Review Committee Action: • Staff Planner: Nancy Fong Members Present: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 9, 2004 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Cristine McPhail, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner ..~~. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2004-00525-0&SHOLDINGS,LLC-The review of the site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed restaurant, Joe's Crab Shack, of approximately 7,000 square feet to be located on Pad 1 of the Foothill Crossing center, located • at the southeast corner of Foothill and Day Creek Boulevards in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 0229-021-62, 63 and 64. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the Pre-Application Review process. Carl Chesney, Landry's Restaurants, Inc., described the design of the restaurant, the materials, and the colors. He stated that the metal roof with its sea foam green is the restaurant signature and is important for them to have. He then described the outdoor play area with equipment that might be visible. He stated that he could work with the City with regards to signs. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, pointed out the Commission's policy on roof material where the use of copper is preferable to metal. She recommended the use of river rock instead of red brick for the building to tie in with the center. She pointed out that there were too many signs proposed and the blue stripe and stars would be considered as a sign. She recommended simplifying the multi-colored light fixtures, awnings, and graphics to one color. She mentioned that the play equipment would need to be enclosed to be consistent with the Commission's past policy. Mr. Buller opened the meeting for Commission response. Commissioner Fletcher thought it would be impractical to require the building design for a seafood restaurant relate to a winery theme. Commissioner Stewart stated that she believed this whole area; including the mall, Foothill Crossing center, and up to Base Line Road; is a very special area and that would justify a change from • Planning Commission policy on roof material. She did not object to a metal roof. She stated that brick is acceptable and she could accept the blue stripe but not the stars. She believed the light fixtures and awning should be one color. She suggested that the "peace, love, and crab" could be • C~ • designed in such a way to be considered a mural. She expressed concern about the safety of the play equipment and said the project must comply with City's regulations on signs. Commission McPhail responded that she would like to see consistency in applying the roof material policy. She mentioned that she does not support the red brick with the fake white aging look and preferred to see river rock. She did not care for the blue stripe and stars, roof signs, multi-color light fixtures, and awnings. She favored an enclosed play area. Vic Chairman McNiel stated that in reviewing signature architecture in the past, the Commission struggled with such design departure from established style. He did not favor the signature architecture. He observed that in the past the Commission turned away applicants' requests to use metal roofs. He did not care for the blue stripe and stars. He believed the entire building is a sign and recommended that the number of signs be reduced. Mr. Buller summarized the Commission's comments and concerns as follows: • There is no opposition to the use of siding. • The Commission is split in the use of metal roof and its color. • There is consensus that the Commission would accept the blue band but not the stars. • The Commission is split in the use of, brick versus river rock. • There is consensus that the light fixtures and awnings need to be simplified to one color • The project needs to comply with the City's sign regulations. • The hardscape needs to blend with the center design. .,.<, PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. <.... ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 15, 2004, for a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to be held in the Tri-Communities Room. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -2- June 9, 2004 ti~ . ~ L'SS L 3 Z, L m , _ co II ~ ~ 8 'Z8 ?~ 3 N v> "~ ~~ ~ ~ r12 SS .t>~ ~ if :;' ~ ~, i '4~ere' ^ ^ , \`~ ~~ ~ ~ ° o 00 ~~6~.., , ,s ~:. ,~~ ;~ ~. ;~. ^°°^°°^ ' t,{F ~n .L -------.~ ,~ ~ ~ t --------,~-~-_. __._ ~~ f ~ ~ E- f- ~ f• _ r r r _ ~ , F r r ~~ ~ -006~'F Sant 2004 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY AUGUST 3, 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 Nancy Fong 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. NO ITEM 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/Shelley) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The review of site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of W ilson Avenue along Wardman-Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 0226-102-17. 7:20 P.M. (Vance/Shelley) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway -APN: 0201-272-03. 7:40 p.m. (BrenURene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16812 - BCA DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request to subdivide 8.85 gross acres of land into 30 single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of the 210 Freeway west bound off-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard, and the west side of Stable Falls Avenue -APN: 0225-161-19, 32, 33, and 34. 8:00 p.m. (Nancy/Joe) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN -The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Red Robin restaurant with a bar and outdoor seating area within the approved Foothill Crossing commercial center in the Regional Related Commercial Office District, located at the southwestcorner of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. DRC ACTION AGENDA August 3, 2004 • Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT J • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy August 3, 2004 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The reviewof site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of Wilson Avenue along Wardman-Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0226-102-17. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14759 on November 10, 1999. The applicant is now proceeding with proposals to design homes for the tract. The tract will be developed in four phases. This current application request is for the phase that includes the 93 large lots in the northeast corner of the original tract. The tract is south of W ilson Avenue at Wardman-Bullock Road. The project is located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Under the Etiwanda Specific Plan, this portion of the entire 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 other portion of the tract (not a part of this request) is developed under the Optional Development Standards and the Etiwanda Specific Plan suggests the traditional architectural styles for Etiwanda: Victorian, California Bungalow, California Ranch, any other integrated design style meeting plan intent. Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The list of traditional architectural styles given in the Etiwanda Specific Plan does not include "Cottage" and "Early California." Staff worked with the applicant to increase the level of detail of each design. These styles have been approved for other tracts within Etiwanda. 2. The approval for this tract took into account several issues with trees in the site. Mitigation conditions were set for several cases; however, staff can address during plan check. a. The transplanting of a grove of Olive trees elsewhere on the site. These trees are not on the current proposed conceptual landscape plan. b. The replanting of Eucalyptus windrows. No Eucalyptus replanting is proposed on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. The requirement is for 5-gallon trees at 8-foot spacing at a rate of 50 linear feet of windrow per acre. c. The preservation of the Eucalyptus windrow on the easterly boundary of the project. This windrow is not noted on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. d. The Coastal Live Oak tree near the northeast of the site is to be transplanted. No Oak trees are shown on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. 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 Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that at least 50 percent of the dwellings not be plotted parallel to the street. The general intent is to break up the typical monotonous rectilinear pattern by having a great number of the houses sited askew to the street and to each other. DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. • August 3, 2004 Page 2 The siting of many of the houses shows little discernable skewing. The skewed houses are bunched together, as well as the parallel houses. Intermingling of the two orientations would be best. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: As this portion of the tract was approved under the Basic Development Standards, and Lots 4, 11, 13, 86, and 89 exceed the maximum lot coverage of 30 percent, the size of the footprints for the houses must be reduced. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the proposal and provide comments on the design and continue the item for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy The project was continued to give the applicant an opportunity to address the following issues: 1. Olive tree replacements: Work with staff. The non-fruiting variety is okay, but it must be the largest available nursery-grown size and placed in a grove setting. The park spaces are the best locations. 2. Oak tree replacement: Seven minimum 48-inch box size Oak trees are to be placed in the park areas. 3. Eucalyptus windrows: Accepted as presented. 4. Model Park: The small houses should not be in the model park or with the large houses. Small house models should be with the "small lots. 5. Corner houses: No small houses are to intermingle in the large lots. Use large single-story plans for corners. 6. Driveways: No double driveways. Only one maximum 16-foot wide driveway may penetrate the parkway. For split garages, use the "Y" configured driveway employed onthe cul-de-sacs. Skewed house plotting: The 50 percent minimum required for skewed house plotting should be fully exhibited in the straight sections of street rather than only one or two. 8. Site Plan: Show the porches for all plans on the plotting on the Site Plan, especially Plan 2. 9. Architectural design: The Committee strongly emphasized the need for 360-degree • architecture. The side and rear elevations must be greatly enhanced and provided with substantially richer detail. The front elevation features and details should be exhibited in all situations, but especially along the rear elevations of those homes along Wardman-Bullock Road and Wilson Avenue. An important note was made that either substantial, design- appropriate balconies or an equivalent substantial architectural feature should be placed on DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. • August 3, 2004 Page 3 the rear elevations of the homes along W ardman-Bullock Road and W ilson Avenue, but that most should be balconies. The Committee made it clear that roofline and roof pitch should show much more variation throughout all the plans and that variation in the pitch of the roof truss will be a likely solution. Largetwo-story wall heights on the elevations must be avoided. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Vance Pomeroy August 3, 2004 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A requestto construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway - APN: 0201-272-03. Design Parameters: This proposal is for the addition of a freestanding fast food restaurant 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 northwest corner of the center was originally slated for retail space. The center has two other locations for expansion: a building pad to the south of the supermarket for which an application has been made for a restaurant and shop spaces; and a wireless telecommunications facility for which planning entitlements have been issued but which has not been constructed. The Haven Village center has a distinctive rustic architectural theme with wood siding and river stone as the key materials. Hipped roof elements with covered and open beam sections and exposed rafter tails cover the walkways and other areas around the buildings. The most awkward element in the site designing of any fast food restaurant is the drive-through • lane. This center has an existing McDonalds fast food restaurant to the south with siting issues similar to the proposed project. The applicant has chosen to locate the drive-through lane in a similar fashion to McDonalds with the drive-through lane coming around the street-facing west elevation with a continuous decorative screen wall. The Del Taco site also has an advantage in that the pad grade sits 4 to 5 feet below Haven Avenue. The applicant has worked with staff to improve the site design and the architectural design, and has made important improvements to the landscape design. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Architecture -The proposed fast food restaurant uses many of the thematic features of the center but does so in a static manner that does not provide an intermingling of the various elements. The perimeter of the building is surmounted by long roof canopies without the open beam portions at the ends as is typical throughout the center. The horizontal parapet elements are monolithic. The use of river stone is sparse in comparison with the rest of the center. 2. Site Plan -The proposal to place another fast food restaurant in this center on a space originally slated for retail creates challenges: a. The circulation in and around the project site. The exit from the drive-through lane • empties into an important drive lane and would require drivers to make a very tight 360-degree turn to exit the shopping center. Visibility here is problematic for the safe use of the lanes. DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00148 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES • August 3, 2004 Page 2 b. Truck unloading space is not provided on or adjacent to the project site. Truck unloading will necessitate a delivery truck to stand in a drive lane during the unloading. The delivery company provided information on their schedule, however the location is not practical. c. The applicant should explore alternatives, possibly similar to McDonalds "U"-shaped drive-through. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Clarity is needed as to whether the drive-through lane is set down three feet with a retaining wall on the street-facing portion: the Landscape Plan shows a wall and the Grading Plan shows no wall. 2. The drive-through lane needs more screening with the addition of trees along the west and south sides. 3. Trellis elements along the drive-though lane can add more screening opportunities 4. Rafter tails are to be uniform in spacing at 24 inches on center. • 5. The small landscaping strips in front of the easterly parking stalls will be prone to trampling and should be paved. In the place of much needed landscaping could be two tree wells. Note: This area of the Site Plan does not conform to following standards: a) minimum parking stall depth of 17 feet (after 1-foot overhang), b) minimum 26-foot wide Fire Lane, and c) minimum 6-foot wide planter island. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Trash enclosure to meet City standard for size, pedestrian access, and trellis covering. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the project be revised and return to this Committee. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy The project was continued to August 17, 2004, to give the applicant an opportunity to address the following issues: • 1. Drive-through lane: The Committee expressed concern over the drive-through lane configuration. However, this configuration can be used with additional signage (a stop sign and a "No Right Turn" sign) at the end of the drive-through lane. Also, afour-way stop at the adjacent intersection of drive lanes in the center is necessary. DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00148 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES • August 3, 2004 Page 3 2. Landscape Plan: A richer plan is needed which provides more layering of plants, and greater variation in color and size of materials. 3. Unloading: The applicant will be required by condition to adhere to the delivery times and frequency shown on their letter of June 28, 2004. 4. Architectural design: The Committee was receptive to the revisions shown that included the open rafters and additional use of rock. In addition, the Committee directed the following further revisions: • Increase the pitch of the roof canopy features to match those of the main buildings of the center. • Push the westerly parapet to the greatest extent possible (which will be near 3 to 5 feet) to the east in order to reduce the bulk of the building. • Provide a tower element over the pick-up window area of the drive-through lane to match the tower elements in the center (square in plan, hipped roof, etc.) Integrate the tower into the massing of the building. Provision of a sign area on the south side of the tower may be appropriate while the other three sides should match the other towers in the center in detailing. . Reduce the height of the westerly and northerly "sign area" "slabs" by one or two feet to better balance with the vertical aspect of the proposed tower element. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count August 3, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16812 - BCA DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request to subdivide 8.85 gross acres of land into 30single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of the 210 Freeway west bound off-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard, and the west side of Stable Falls Avenue - APN: 0225-161-19, 32, 33, and 34. Design Parameters: The site is located on the north side of the 210 Freeway, and is surrounded by single-family homes. To the north is zoned Low Residential and the smallest adjoining lot area is 7,500 square feet. To the east is zoned Very Low Residential and the smallest adjoining lot area is 20,000 square feet. W hile the site has a relatively gentle slope, it has been the recipient over the years of large boulders making for a very rough terrain. Removal of the boulders itself will do much to making the site more livable. The developer has master planned the land to the west so that there will eventually be a thru connection for secondary access. In the meantime, the site will act as an 1,100-foot long cul-de-sac where Fire Protection District regulation limits cul-de-sac lengths to 600 feet. The developer's solution, which the Fire Protection District has accepted, is to install fire sprinklers in those homes that extend beyond 600 feet of cul-de-sac length. The site is regulated by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) and is within the Day Creek neighborhood theme area of said Plan; however, no house product is proposed at this time. The project design meets all • required Basic Development Standards as shown below. Required by ENSP Proposed by Applicant Minimum Net Average Lot Area 10,000 square feet 10,040 square feet Minimum Net Lot Area 7,200 square feet 7,215 square feet Lot W idth ~ Front Setback 65 average +/- 5 feet 60 feet minimum Corner Lot W idth 70 feet 80 feet Lot Depth 100 feet 120 feet Minimum Frontage @ Front P.L. 40 feet 60 feet Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Lot Pattern -The proposed tract is at the boundary between the Low Residential District (proposed tract) and the Very Low Residential District (existing tract to the east). Should Lots 26 through 30 be reduced to three lots of similar width as the three Yz-acre lot across Stable Falls Avenue for compatibility? The applicant has indicated that their neighborhood meeting will not occur until after the Committee meeting. • Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: DRC ACTION COMMENTS SUBTT16812 - BCA DEVELOPMENT,INC. • August 3, 2004 Page 2 Provide a decorative sound wall as necessary to effectively mitigate noise from the 210 Freeway. The design of the freeway sound wall and retaining wall shall match that of the existing sound wall to the east. The proposed design is a combination of a retaining wall up to 10.3 feet and a 16-foot high sound wall (see Grading Plan Section D-D) similar to the existing freeway sound attenuation walls. Therefore, the applicant has filed a Variance application (see attached Retaihing Wall Variance Exhibit). 2. There is an existing 10-foot wide water easement, and a portion of an existing storm drain easement along the east tract boundary at Lot 1 (see Grading Plan Section C-C). Landscaping should be provided using awater-conserving ground cover. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Lot 2 is proposed to drain across Lot 1. Planning Commission Resolution 92-17 states that drainage from single-family lots shall flow directly to the streets. If cross-lot drainage is determined to be necessary, "drainage from only one lot shall flow through only one other lot." Cross-lot drainage shall be contained in a concrete/rock lined swale or reinforced concrete pipe (12-inch minimum diameter). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of Tentative tract 16812 with appropriate direction regarding Major Issue. • Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: Provide transition of density by eliminating one lot along Stable Falls Avenue. 2. Provide soundwall per staff comments. 3. Address all technical and grading issues to the satisfaction of staff. 4. Modify Street C and the master plan to the west per staff's design. Revise development plans to address the above items prior to Planning Commission review. C~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Nancy Fong August 3, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN -The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Red Robin restaurant with a bar and outdoor seating area within the approved Foothill Crossing commercial center in the Regional Related Commercial Office District, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. Design Parameters: On May 18, 2004, the Design Review Committee (Stewart and McPhail) reviewed the proposed project and determined that the restaurant prototype design did not provide compatibility to the winery theme established in the center and that the design of the building fagade appeared too "Hollywood-ish." The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff in addressing the identified design issues. The applicant has worked diligentlywith staff to revise the elevations. 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 revised elevations showed curvilinear parapet with higher columns, which provided an improved proportion. Overall, the parapet wall has been increased in height. River rock wainscot is provided on all sides of the building. Staff believes the applicant has addressed the major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues, which could be placed as conditions of approval: 1. The lumber for the column needs to be substantial in size such as 8 inches by 8 inches. 2. The trellis at the patio area also need to have substantial size lumber such as 6 inches by 8 inches for the trellis beam and cross beam and 4 inches by 4 inches at 2 feet on center for the trelliswork. The exposed rafter tails for the trellis should not be the "stuck-on" type. 3. Provide the same cornice treatment to the second tier roof parapet. 4. Landscaping: a. Instead of the proposed two Cedar trees, place two specimen size (36-inch box) accent flowering tree, one on each side flanking the main entry at the south elevation. b. Provide colorful perennials at the southeast and southwest corner of the south elevation. c. At the north elevation, replace the sod with colorful high growing perennials because of grade difference. • 5. The developer (O & S Holdings) needs to provide details of enhanced hardscape and landscape information for the areas east of Red Robin and south of the activity center. • DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN August 3, 2004 Page 2 Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Use real river rock. 2. Exposed neon tubing (red LED strip lighting) is not allowed by Sign Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to the Committee with the secondary issues as conditions of approval. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to placing all the • secondary issues as conditions of approval. The Committee agreed to the applicant's request of placing evergreen trees that flank the main entry. The Committee also agreed to have S inches by 8 inches for the post and beam and 3 inches by 4 inches for the trelliswork at 2 feet on center. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • AUGUST 3, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ..~-_. B a Buller Secretary • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY AUGUST 3, 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 and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEM 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/Shelley) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The review of site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of W ilson Avenue along Wardman Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 0226 102-17. 7:20 P.M. (Vance/Shelley) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway -APN: 0201-272-03. 7:40 p.m. (Brent/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16812 - BCA DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request to subdivide 8.85 gross acres of land into 30 single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of the 210 Freeway west bound off-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard, and the west side of Stable Falls Avenue -APN: 0225-161-19, 32, 33, and 34. , 8:00 p.m. (Nancy/Joe) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN -The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Red Robin restaurant with a bar and outdoor seating area within the approved Foothill Crossing commercial center in the Regional Related Commercial Office District, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0229-021-62, 63, 64. DRC AGENDA August 3, 2004 • Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 29, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • ~' DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy August 3, 2004 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The reviewof site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of Wilson Avenue along Wardman Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0226-102-17. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14759 on November 10, 1999. The applicant is now proceeding with proposals to design homes for the tract. The tract will be developed in four phases. This current application request is for the phase that includes the 93 large lots in the northeast comer of the original tract. The tract is south of Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road. The project is located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Under the Etiwanda Specific Plan, this portion of the entire 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 other portion of the tract (not a part of this request) is developed under the Optional Development Standards and the Etiwanda Specific Plan suggests the traditional architectural styles for Etiwanda: Victorian, California Bungalow, California Ranch, any other integrated design style meeting plan intent. Staff Comments: • Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The list of traditional architectural styles given in the Etiwanda Specific Plan does not include "Cottage" and "Early California." Staff worked with the applicant to increase the level of detail of each design. These styles have been approved for other tracts within Etiwanda. 2. The approval for this tract took into account several issues with trees in the site. Mitigation conditions were set for several cases; however, staff can address during plan check. a. The transplanting of a grove of Olive trees elsewhere on the site. These trees are not on the current proposed conceptual landscape plan. b. The replanting of Eucalyptus windrows. No Eucalyptus replanting is proposed on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. The requirement is for 5-gallon trees at 8-foot spacing at a rate of 50 linear feet of windrow per acre. c. The preservation of the Eucalyptus windrow on the easterly boundary of the project. This windrow is not noted on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. d. The Coastal Live Oak tree near the northeast of the site is to be transplanted. No Oak trees are shown on the cunent proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. 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 Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that at least 50 percent of the dwellings not be plotted parallel to the street. The general intent is to break up the typical monotonous rectilinear pattern by having a great number of the houses sited askew to the street and to each other. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. • August 3, 2004 Page 2 The siting of many of the houses shows little discernable skewing. The skewed houses are bunched together, as well as the parallel houses. Intermingling of the two orientations would be best. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: As this portion of the tract was approved under the Basic Development Standards, and Lots 4, 11, 13, 86, and 89 exceed the maximum lot coverage of 30 percent, the size of the footprints for the houses must be reduced. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the proposal and provide comments on the design and continue the item for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy Members Present: I-1 U • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Vance Pomeroy August 3, 2004 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00148 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to construct a 2,260 square foot Del Taco fast food restaurant with adrive-through (plus 382 square foot outdoor dining patio) on .41 net acre of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, including a modification to the Haven Village shopping center master plan for same, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of 210 Freeway - APN: 0201-272-03. Design Parameters: This proposal is for the addition of a freestanding fast food restaurant 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 northwest corner of the center was originally slated for retail space. The center has two other locations for expansion: a building pad to the south of the supermarket for which an application has been made for a restaurant and shop spaces; and a wireless telecommunications facility for which planning entitlements have been issued but which has not been constructed. The Haven Village center has a distinctive rustic architectural theme with wood siding and river stone as the key materials. Hipped roof elements with covered and open beam sections and exposed rafter tails cover the walkways and other areas around the buildings. The most awkward element in the site designing of any fast food restaurant is the drive-through • lane. This center has an existing McDonalds fast food restaurant to the south with siting issues similar to the proposed project. The applicant has chosen to locate the drive-through lane in a similar fashion to McDonalds with the drive-through lane coming around the street-facing west elevation with a continuous decorative screen wall. The Del Taco site also has an advantage in that the pad grade sits 4 to 5 feet below Haven Avenue. The applicant has worked with staff to improve the site design and the architectural design, and has made important improvements to the landscape design. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Architecture -The proposed fast food restaurant uses many of the thematic features of the center but does so in a static manner that does not provide an intermingling of the various elements. The perimeter of the building is surmounted by long roof canopies without the open beam portions at the ends as is typical throughout the center. The horizontal parapet elements are monolithic. The use of river stone is sparse in comparison with the rest of the center. 2. Site Plan -The proposal to place another fast food restaurant in this center on a space originally slated for retail creates challenges: a. The circulation in and around the project site. The exit from the drive-through lane • empties into an important drive lane and would require drivers to make a very tight 360- degreeturn to exit the shopping center. Visibility here is problematic for the safe use of the lanes. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00148 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES August 3, 2004 Page 2 Truck unloading space is not provided on or adjacent to the project site. Truck unloading will necessitate a delivery truck to stand in a drive lane during the unloading. The delivery company provided information on their schedule, however the location is not practical. c. The applicant should explore alternatives, possibly similar to McDonalds 'U'-shaped drive-through. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Clarity is needed as to whether the drive-through lane is set down three feet with a retaining wall on the street-facing portion: the Landscape Plan shows a wall and the Grading Plan shows no wall. 2. The drive-through lane needs more screening with the addition of trees along the west and south sides. 3. Trellis elements along the drive-though lane can add more screening opportunities 4. Rafter tails are to be uniform in spacing at 24 inches on center. • 5. The small landscaping strips in front of the easterly parking stalls will be prone to trampling and should be paved. In the place of much needed landscaping could be two tree wells. Note: This area of the Site Plan does not conform to following standards: a) minimum parking stall depth of 17 teet (after 1-foot overhang), b) minimum 26-foot wide Fire Lane, and c) minimum 6-foot wide planter island. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Trash enclosure to meet City standard for size, pedestrian access, and trellis covering. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the project be revised and return to this Committee. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy Members Present: C~ • r~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count August 3, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16812 - BCA DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request to subdivide 8.85 gross acres of land into 30single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of the 210 Freeway west bound off-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard, and the west side of Stable Falls Avenue - APN: 0225-161-19, 32, 33, and 34. Design Parameters: The site is located on the north side of the 210 Freeway, and is surrounded by single-family homes. To the north is zoned Low Residential and the smallest adjoining lot area is 7,500 square feet. To the east is zoned Very Low Residential and the smallest adjoining lot area is 20,000 square feet. W hile the site has a relatively gentle slope, it has been the recipient over the years of large boulders making for a very rough terrain. Removal of the boulders itself will do much to making the site more livable. The developer has master planned the land to the west so that there will eventually be a thru connection for secondary access. In the meantime, the site will act as an 1,100-foot long cul-de-sac where Fire Protection District regulation limits cul-de-sac lengths to 600 feet. The developer's solution, which the Fire Protection District has accepted, is to install fire sprinklers in those homes that extend beyond 600 feet of cul-de-sac length. The site is regulated by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) and is within the Day Creek neighborhood theme area of said Plan; however, no house product is proposed at this time. The project design meets all • required Basic Development Standards as shown below. Required by ENSP Proposed by Applicant Minimum Net Average Lot Area 10,000 square feet 10,040 square feet Minimum Net Lot Area 7,200 square feet 7,215 square feet Lot W idth @ Front Setback 65 average +/- 5 feet 60 feet minimum Corner Lot W idth 70 feet 80 feet Lot Depth 100 feet 120 feet Minimum Frontage @ Front P.L. 40 feet 60 feet Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Lot Pattern -The proposed tract is at the boundary between the Low Residential District (proposed tract) and the Very Low Residential District (existing tract to the east). Should Lots 26 through 30 be reduced to three lots of similar width as the three''/z-acre lot across Stable Falls Avenue for compatibility? The applicant has indicated that their neighborhood meeting will not occur until after the Committee meeting. • Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: DRC COMMENTS SUBTT16812 - BCA DEVELOPMENT,INC. • August 3, 2004 Page 2 Provide a decorative sound wall as necessary to effectively mitigate noise from the 210 Freeway. The design of the freeway sound wall and retaining wall shall match that of the existing sound wall to the east. The proposed design is a combination of a retaining wall up to 10.3 feet and a 16-foot high sound wall (see Grading Plan Section D-D) similar to the existing freeway sound attenuation walls. Therefore, the applicant has filed a Variance application (see attached Retaining Wall Variance Exhibit). 2. There is an existing 10-foot wide water easement, and a portion of an existing storm drain easement along the east tract boundary at Lot 1 (see Grading Plan Section C-C). Landscaping should be provided using awater-conserving ground cover. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Lot 2 is proposed to drain across Lot 1. Planning Commission Resolution 92-17 states that drainage from single-family lots shall flow directly to the streets. If cross-lot drainage is determined to be necessary, "drainage from only one lot shall flow through only one other lot." Cross-lot drainage shall be contained in a concrete/rock lined Swale or reinforced concrete pipe (12-inch minimum diameter). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of Tentative tract 16812 with appropriate direction regarding Major Issue. • Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count Members Present: -, ,. .. ~ . n I 'P li ~ ~ I I I .. I ~ I _ r ; ' _ ~ I ' a ~ ~;. I- , --~~I I ~ I ~ I :~ ~~ r ~ I~:1 , 1 I 2F I n . , .. ~ l . ' fa41 4 . f~ ~ ' ~'' ~ I ~' . ; ~3" - ~ 12 ~ 20 ~ 21 30 ~ ;, - tI _~ - _ te , " § r. " - ;,:_ ~ - ~ 1 ... . . --, ~ : r --- - ,~ : -- - ., 23:= N.: 28;4 I. ' ~ I ,. ...i I , ~ _: _ - 1 1 i y. -- .J.. 6- I ,_ -_ 7~.t..~_. .-_- • ~-PROPf AND PR~AFi® BY: ~ ... Pii~AFi®^FOR ~; ,~~~ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 77760 FITCH STREET, SUITE 120 IRVINE, CA. 92614 PHONE: (949) 863-1055 FAX~1949)863-0065 AND A. & J. RESOURCES, INC. 25 ~. ~' ';'26i - gym/ Ali ..-_.. ~~ l :.i IBINATION RETAINING WALL 'ALL TO EXCEED 8 FEET IN HEIGHT. 1 n~ _- ... ~- ~,J ,i - _ „y.' 1 NOTE APPROXIMATE SOUND WALL HEIGHT ALONG SOUTHERN TRACT BOUNDARY LOTS 1-11, IS 16 FEET. (SUB T.T. 16812) ° TENTATIVE TRACT No. 16812 RESIDENTIAL LOTS 1-30 S`A`E.'-=15° RETAINING WALL VARIANCE EXHIBIT DATE PREPARED JUNE 07, 2004 CfIY OF RANCFp CUCAMONGA, COUNTY ~ SAN BEWJARDtlJO, STATE OF CALFORMA • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Nancy Fong August 3, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN -The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Red Robin restaurant with a bar and outdoor seating area within the approved Foothill Crossing commercial center in the Regional Related Commercial Office District, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, 64. Design Parameters: On May 18, 2004, the Design Review Committee (Stewart and McPhail) reviewed the proposed project and determined that the restaurant prototype design did not provide compatibility to the winery theme established in the center and that the design of the building fagade appeared too "Hollywood-ish." The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff in addressing the identified design issues. The applicant has worked diligently with staff to revise the elevations. 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 revised elevations showed curvilinear parapet with higher columns, which provided an improved proportion. Overall, the parapet wall has been increased in height. River rock wainscot is provided on all sides of the building. Staff believes the applicant has addressed the major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues, which could be placed as condition s of approval: 1. The lumber for the column needs to be substantial in size such as 8 feet by 8 feet. 2. The trellis at the patio area also need to have substantial size lumber such as 6 feet by 8 feet for the trellis beam and cross beam and 4 feet by 4 feet at 2 feet on center for the trelliswork. The exposed rafter tails for the trellis should not be the "stuck-on" type. 3. Provide the same cornice treatment to the second tier roof parapet. 4. Landscaping: a. Instead of the proposed two Cedar trees, place two specimen size (36-inch box) accent flowering tree, one on each side flanking the main entry at the south elevation. b. Provide colorful perennials at the southeast and southwestcornerofthesouthelevation. c. At the north elevation, replace the sod with colorful high growing perennials because of grade difference. • 5. The developer (O & S Holdings) needs to provide details of enhanced hardscape and landscape information for the areas east of Red Robin and south of the activity center. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN August 3, 2004 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Use real river rock. 2. Exposed neon tubing (red LED strip lighting) is not allowed by Sign Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to the Committee with the secondary issues as conditions of approval. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Nancy Fong Members Present: • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Nancy Fong May 18, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN -The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Red Robin restaurant with a bar and outdoor seating area within the approved Foothill Crossing commercial center in the Regional Related Commercial Office District, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, 64. Design Parameters: The proposed Red Robin restaurant is taking the approved building pad at the southwest corner of Foothill and Day Creek Boulevards. This corner is designated as an activity center per the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan and a very prominent corner where there is truly no backside to a building. The building pad is part of the approved Foothill Crossing master planned commercial center, which included an established winery theme architectural program. Previously, the Planning Commission has approved architecture for this building pad that consisted of a Tuscan winery theme with file roof and generous stonework on the building walls (Exhibit "A). Although the ends of the Red Robin building include a curved parapet, similar to that of Sears Grand, and a river rock wainscot, the overall effect is not at the same level of richness and detail as the previously approved plans or the winery architectural theme. 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 proposed building design is low profile and basically a box with curved trellis. Because this is a prominent corner, the building (all four sides) needs to exhibit a strong architectural design that includes taller elements such as, but not limited to, a roof tower to the main building entry and repeated at other sides, curvilinear parapet consistent with the design in the commercial center, articulation to the building plane with substantial size/depth of recessed and pop-outs areas, and articulation to building surface with rich materials. 2. The north elevation faces Foothill Boulevard. The side of the building particularly needs enhancement with roof tower, curvilinear parapet, river rock, etc. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Use battered river rock columns for trellis works at the outdoor patio area and at the main entry. 2. Provide trees around the perimeter of the building. Use the same tree species as in the center 3. The outdoor seating area is next to the activity center. The design should not compete nor should it be totally separated from the activity center. The outdoor seating area should interface and be integrated with the activity center so that the two areas are designed to appears as one in terms of hardscape, trellis work, materials, colors, walkways, and • landscaping. 4. The wood rafter ends have the appearance of being tacked-on to the trellis. Modify the design so that they are true trellis element. DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2004-00332 -RED ROBIN May 18, 2004 Page 2 Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Exposed neon tubing is not allowed by Sign Ordinance. 2. The Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program allow a maximum of three wall signs, or two wall signs and a monument sign. Four wall signs are proposed. The maximum wall sign area is 75 square feet and the maximum sign height is 3 feet per the Sign Program. Revise the signs to comply with the Sign Program. 3. Sign copy should display the name of the business only and not include marketing slogans, lists of products or services. Delete "America's Gourmet Burgers & Spirits". 4. Use real river rock rather than manufactured rock veneer. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the applicant revised the elevations to address the above identified issues and resubmit for Committee review. Attachment . Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fong, McPhail, Stewart Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Design Review Committee stated that the design of the restaurant is one of prototype and did not provide compatibility to the winery theme established for the center, and that the design of the building has facade elements that appear too "Hollywood-ish:' The Committee did not object to the corporate burgundy accent color. The Committee accepted the logo sign provided that they comply with the sign area and sign height as contained in the Uniform Sign Program. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff in revising the elevations and submit for Committee review. • ~~~'i~6~F~F09~ d~E.lY9~`99~~ z4Q'.~9~,al8ds4°i~`®ie~683`@ ~~~ ~~.~$;~~~ d~~~~s ~~ ~° o f ~ J d J i. J ! ~ 4 N J 1 Y tl s d m~ N A r 9 0 6 ~~ ~. ~ b,: _~ LL LL -~ v . x- ~- _ . -. ~I ¢~ ~~g ~a Y 4b 6B 4~ E ~ ~ ~54 B~~Bn~ ~4 4354 ji ~86~ Z 1 d J 6 W s J z~< m J a d f /' ~ '\ .~ i 1 -__ ~+._ a / ,~ _.=" ~ M ~~ ep~ p ~B ~~ t ~ ~~ rl .~~ ~ l a~ . ~ ii gl ~ ~~ ~I e i~ °) ~ppt rs .. J