HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/12/15 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY DECEMBER 15, 1998 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: John Mannerino Rich Macias Nancy Fong
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Pam Stewart
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.
(Alan/Sal) DESIGN REVIEW 98-21 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - The review of amended
development proposal for Phases 3 and 6 of Tract 15727.
DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - The review of amended
development proposal for Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 15727 for compliance
with the City's Residential Optional Development Standards.
8:00 P.M.
(Cecilia) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-23 (DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
13564) - STANDARD PACIFIC - The design review of the detailed site plan and
building elevations for a previously County approved residential subdivision of
182 lots on 117 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than
2 dwelling units per acre), located between Wardman Bullock Road and the San
Savaine Wash - APN: 226-082-30 and 58 through 63.
8:40 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-25 -
CHEVRON -A request to demolish an existing Chevron service station and build a
new 2,167 square foot service station/mini market on 0.74 acres of land in the
Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 8687 Base Line Road - APN: 207-
022-041.
9:20 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15915-WOODSIDE
HOMES - A request to subdivide 21 acres of land into 36 lots for the purpose of
single family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (0 to 2 dwelling
units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101- 4, 12, and 14.
DRC AGENDA
December 15, 1998
Page 2
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 ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
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.
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 10, 1998,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. Alan Warren/Sal Salazar December 15, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW 98-21 -GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES -The review of amended development proposal for
Phases 3 and 6 of Tract 15727.
Design Parameters: Since the initial approval for Tract 15727 the developer, Griffin Industries, has
presented various design review applications for three product types and gate features for a private
community. With this application Griffin Industries is requesting approval to modify the previously
approved floor plans and elevations for Phases 3 and 6. The prime motivation for this request is to
improve the building design and to increase the floor area for the "executive area" of the residential
development. The previously approved design provided three basic floor plans of 2,126 square feet,
2,630 square feet and 2,740 square feet in size, each with four model elevations. The elevations
included two reverse floor plans and two side garage variations, each one of the phases had at least
eight possible floor plan configurations.
In order to comply with the residential guidelines, the developer is proposing four different floor plans
with three different elevations for a total of 12 different variations. The revised design provides one
extra floor plan to compensate for the elimination of the side-on garage concept. The floor plans are
2,329 square feet, 3,093 square feet, 3,317 square feet and 3,559 square feet in size. Staff is of the
opinion that the revised floor plans and elevations are done in good taste and would compliment the
rest of the gated community.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project:
1. Streetscape - Architecture: The applicant is proposing facade and floor plan modification
concurrently with Development Review 98-23 a request to allow the project to be constructed
under the optional development standards. The optional development standards would allow
the residential units to be as close as 10 feet from property line. The two-story floor plans do
not provide any one-story element large enough to break-up the continuous two-story
streetscape, and the one-story floor plan is used only in most of the corner lots. Therefore,
the main concern about the proposed modification is the fact that the two-story houses could
be located as close as 10 feet from property line thereby creating a tunnel type of streetscape
design.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Should the proposed modifications be approved by the Design Review Committee, the
developer shall be required to design all dwelling units to meet all other applicable
development standards, including side yard setbacks and usable rear yard. As there are no
Variance requests to deviate from the side and rear setbacks, the developer is required to
redesign the configuration of the existing floor plans or to create a new floor plan layout for
those units that do not meet current development standards. Furthermore, should a
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-21 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES
December 15, 1998
Page 2
1
Variance application be submitted, staff would not support the request as there are no unique or
unusual circumstances applicable to the project, otherthan the developer's desire to maximize the size
of the residential dwelling units. The developer shall, therefore, be required to address the following
development standard deficiencies:
Lot Page Number Development Deficiency
23 22 Increase street sideyard setback to
block from 4.7 feet to 5 feet
15 20 Increase required setback to 10 feet
11 17 Increase required setback to 10 feet
24 17 Increase required setback to 10 feet
15 15 Increase usable year yard setback
to 15 feet
9 11 Increase required setback to 10 feet
20 10 Increase required setback to 10 feet
2. Staff recommends that the largest of the two-story sides of each house be at least
15 feet from the adjoining house to avoid extensive two-story 10-foot wide canyons between
houses. Furthermore, the developer should also avoid placing two media/chimney center
adjacent to each other (within the 5-foot setback) in order to avoid having the units as close
as 6 feet from each other.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:.
1. All policy issues from Development Review 97-44 shall apply to the project, including but not
limited to the following: (see attached list)
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the architectural elevations,with colors and materials
as previously approved, be approved subject to City Planner approval.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Alan Warren/Sal Salazar
Of the items listed as major issues (streetscape) the applicant agreed to work with staff in order to
break-up the two-story streetscape for Phases 3 and 6. The applicant will be replacing a minimum of
seven two-story homes with one-story plans.The one-story homes, will be placed at strategic locations
to provide needed variation in the streetscape. Staff was directed to work with the applicant on this
issue, before scheduling for planning commission review.
With regards to the secondary issues, the applicant agreed to comply with staffs recommendation.
F DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-44 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
April 28, 1998
Page 3
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The front entry/porch structures of all elevations of Plan 1 should not exceed 14 feet in height
(as presently scaled).
2. The stucco corbels (#13 Materials Legend) adjacent to the front windows on Elevation B, Plan
1, should match the corbels on the entry columns. The corbels should also be included on the
side column elevation of the entry structure.
3. The rear yard retaining wall on Lot 26, Phase 3 should be extended, or returned at a less severe
angle, to provide 15 feet of level area from the northwest corner of the house.
4. On the right elevation of Plans 2 and 3, the large second floor window should have mullions as
the first floor windows directly below. These windows will be visible from the street frontage.
5. The perimeter walls along Golden Oak are to be located outside of the landscape easement and
the 8-inch wall width reduces the side yard dimension for those Lots (39, 40, etc.) along the
street. The houses should be shifted westerly to insure that 5 feet clear is provided between the
perimeter wall and the house.
6. Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds shall be painted an
alternate complementary trim color.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy or were included in
Phases 1 and 2, and should be incorporated into Phases 3 and 6 without discussion:
1. All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from the streets, should consist
of a decorative exterior material or finish including a decorative cap (as provided in the Master
Plan of Walls).
2. Provide double fascias along all eaves. Eave overhangs shall be at least 18 inches all around.
3. Provide a minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on comer side yards and sidewalk.
4. Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain, paint or water seal.
5. Chimneys (and caps) should be integrated and treated to be consistent with the house design,
to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
6. Decorative paving in individual driveways should consist of various pattems/textures of concrete,
as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
7. Native rock should be used where cobblestone is called out. Other forms of stone/masonry may
be manufactured products.
8. Eighteen feet of driveway area should not exceed 7.5% slope. This was the maximum driveway
slope approved for Phases 1 and 2.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Alan Warren/Sal Salazar December 15, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW 98-23-GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES -The review of amended development proposal for
Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 15727 for compliance with the City's Residential Optional
Development Standards.
Design Parameters: Since the initial approval for Tract 15727 the developer, Griffin Industries, has
presented various design review applications for three product types and gate features for the private
community. With this application Griffin Industries is requesting approval to develop the phase(s) not
yet under construction under the City's Residential Optional Standards. The prime motivation for this
request is to expand the backyards of each lot and to allow the houses to be located with a reduced
front yard setback. Basic City standards call for 32-foot average (vary +/- 5-feet) front yard in the
Landscape Maintenance District. The Optional Standards allow for a 15-foot average (vary +/-5 feet)
. The applicant is proposing a 22-foot average front setback.
The Optional Standards, however, come with some performance standards in excess of what is
required of Basic Standard developments. Specifically, while the front yard setbacks maybe reduced,
more useable open space is required. Some of the major issues regarding the proposed optional
standards are:
1. Are the proposed reduced front yard setbacks acceptable with the proposed two-story
residential dwelling units in Phases 3 and 6?
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project:
1. Streetscape - Architecture - One of the major issues is the building massiveness. The
developer proposes, for Phases 3 and 6, to use four different floor plans and elevations (see
Development Review 98-21), and the previously approved floor plans and elevations for the
rest of the development. The proposed floor plans are one and two-story high. All floor plans
and elevations are done in good taste and staff is in support of the revised elevations,
however,the two-story floor plans do not have any one-story elements large enough to break-
up the massiveness of the buildings. The two-story massiveness is a concern to staff due to
the fact that the optional standards would allow the residential units to be as close as 10 feet
from face of curb.
2. Open Space and Recreational Amenities - The proposed plan has almost 11 percent of the
total area in common open space. The vast majority of this space are the private
(Homeowners' Association maintained) parkways between the curb face and front lot lines.
The Optional Standards allow rip vate parkways to be counted in this fashion. The remainder
is located in two small parks one with a volley ball court, 100 foot long open play area, and
a gazebo totaling over 30,000 square feet and a smaller tot lot park of 11,566 square feet.
The 5-acre public park outside of the private gates along Sixth Street is not part of the
required open space.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES
December 15, 1998
Page 2
The standards list the requirement for court facilities, inferring more than one. The proposal shows one
volley ball court. Staff believes at least one additional (for a total of two) court facility should be
provided to satisfy minimum optional requirements.
3. Jogging/Par Course. The applicant is proposing to install a jogging trail within the private
community. However, Engineering concerns do not seem to make it possible. However, staff
agrees with the developer's concept but the trail as recommended (as stated in the
completeness letter for Development Review 98-23)should be installed on Golden Oak Road
only. Additionally, staff believes that wide jogging paths (6= feet) encourage their use rather
than jogging on the asphalt streets. Since the developer did not submit any detailed plans
for the proposed jogging trail, staff is, therefore, requesting that detail information be
submitted, before a positive recommendation could be made.
4. Additional recreational facilities. Staff is of the opinion that one additional park
should be constructed in the southwest portion of the project. The park would help in
accommodating some additional amenities (ie. Volley ball court) that were previously
discussed. In addition, the park would evenly distribute the recreational facilities throughout
the private community. Thereby enhancing the use of the parks by all residents.
5. Energy Conservation - The optional standards require the developer to provide an
alternative energy system to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units. Solar energy
is the primary energy system unless other alternative systems are demonstrated to be of
equivalent capacity. The intent of this requirement is to find an alternate source of energy that
would result in the reduction of energy used for water heating in the house. The applicant is
proposing an innovative system called hot water on demand. The system as proposed would
reduce the amount of water that is wasted when a homeowner turns the hot water faucet on
and waits until the hot water comes through the faucet. According to the applicant, the
amount of water wasted during the above-described process could be as much as 50 gallons
per day per household. The applicant and staff agree that the proposed hot water on demand
system meets the intent and spirit of the Energy Conservation requirement. Therefore, staff
is supporting this aspect of the optional standards.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Should the optional development standards be approved by the Design Review Committee,
the developer shall be required to design all dwelling units to meet all other applicable
development standards, including side yard setbacks and usable rear yard. As there are no
Variance requests to deviate from the side and rear setbacks, the developer is required to
redesign the configuration of the existing floor plans or to create a new floor plan layout for
those units that do not meet current development standards. Furthermore, should a Variance
application be submitted, staff would not support the request as there are no unique or
unusual circumstances applicable to the project, other than the developer's desire
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES
December 15, 1998
Page 3
to maximize the size of the residential dwelling units. The developer shall, therefore, be required to
address the following development standard deficiencies:
Lot Page Number Development Deficiency
23 22 Increase street sideyard setback to
block from 4.7 feet to 5 feet
15 20 Increase required setback to 10 feet
11 17 Increase required setback to 10 feet
24 17 Increase required setback to 10 feet
15 15 Increase usable year yard setback
to 15 feet
9 11 Increase required setback to 10 feet
20 10 Increase required setback to 10 feet
2. Staff recommends that the largest of the two-story sides of each house be at least
15 feet from the adjoining house to avoid extensive two-story 10-foot wide canyons between
houses. Furthermore, the developer should also avoid placing two media/chimney center
adjacent to each other(within the 5-foot setback) in order to avoid having the units as close as
6 feet from each other.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All policy issues from Development Review 97-44 shall apply to the project, including but not
limited to the following: (see attached list)
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the optional standards and site plans be reviewed
and considered by the Design Review Committee members. Because there are numerous technical
issues regarding the ability to"fit"the new models on all the lots, staff is not at this time recommending
approval. If the Design Review Committee approves the major features of the proposal, staff will work
with the applicant to work out all the outstanding technical issues and return this item to the Design
Review Committee when completed.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Alan Warren/Sal Salazar
Of the items listed as major issues (streetscape). The issue was addressed by the recommended
modifications under DR 98-21.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES
December 15, 1998
Page 4
With regards to the amenities provided for the Open Space area(s). The applicant agreed to eliminate
the court in the smaller park and to provide a redesigned multi purpose court (basket ball, volley ball,
and roller hockey) in the larger park.
The developer already addressed item number 3 Qogging trail) by increasing the width of the sidewalk
from 4 to 6 feet. This amenity was approved by the Design Review Committee, subject to providing
a detailed site plan showing station locations.
Item number 4, the applicant agreed to work with staff to provide a shelter/gazebo large enough to
accommodate gatherings for a minimum of 50 people). Design Review Committee recommended and
the applicant concurred that the gazebo/shelter should be of the same quality and architectural design
as the guard house and be at least 20 feet in diameter.
Item number 5, Energy conservation,the Design Review Committee concurred with staff and approved
the innovative system, Hot Water on Demand.
All other features of the Optional Development Standards will be retained in the final submittal as
conditions of approval, along with the above-mentioned changes.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97:4 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
April 28, 1998
Page 3
$econdary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The front entry/porch structures of all elevations of Plan 1 should not exceed 14 feet in height
(as presently scaled).
2. The stucco corbels (#13 Materials Legend) adjacent to the front windows on Elevation B, Plan
1, should match the corbels on the entry columns. The corbels should also be included on the
side column elevation of the entry structure.
3. The rear yard retaining wall on Lot 26, Phase 3 should be extended, or returned at a less severe
angle, to provide 15 feet of level area from the northwest corner of the house.
4. On the right elevation of Plans 2 and 3, the large second floor window should have mullions as
the first floor windows directly below. These windows will be visible from the street frontage.
5. The perimeter walls along Golden Oak are to be located outside of the landscape easement and
the 8-inch wall width reduces the side yard dimension for those Lots (39, 40, etc.) along the
street. The houses should be shifted westerly to insure that 5 feet clear is provided between the
perimeter wall and the house.
6. Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds shall be painted an
alternate complementary trim color.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy or were included in
Phases 1 and 2, and should be incorporated into Phases 3 and 6 without discussion:
1. All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from the streets, should consist
of a decorative exterior material or finish including a decorative cap (as provided in the Master
Plan of Walls).
2. Provide double fascias along all eaves. Eave overhangs shall be at least 18 inches all around.
3. Provide a minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on comer side yards and sidewalk.
4. Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain, paint or water seal.
5. Chimneys (and caps) should be integrated and treated to be consistent with the house design,
to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
6. Decorative paving in individual driveways should consist of various pattems/textures of concrete,
as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
7. Native rock should be used where cobblestone is called out. Other forms of stone/masonry may
be manufactured products.
B. Eighteen feet of driveway area should not exceed 7.5% slope. This was the maximum driveway
slope approved for Phases 1 and 2.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 P.M. Cecilia Williams December 15, 1998
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-23(DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564) -STANDARD
PACIFIC - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously County
approved residential subdivision of 182 lots on 117 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District
(less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located between Wardman Bullock Road and the San Savaine
Wash - APN: 226-082-30 and 58 through.63.
Background: Tract 13564 is part of the Etiwanda Highlands community approved by the County and
annexed into the City per Development Annexation Agreement 88-02. Development of the site is
governed by the Etiwanda Highlands Development Plan,which includes an approved grading plan with
conventional grading using terraced pads. Subsequently, a revised grading scheme for the project site
was reviewed under Development Review 97-08. The new grading concept eliminated cross-lot
drainage, and provided slopes in excess of 15 feet in vertical height with variation and undulation to
avoid constant 2:1 slope gradients. The grading scheme revisions were reviewed by the Design
Review Committee on May 6, 1997 and approved by the City Planner on May 12, 1997.
Standard Pacific has graded the project contrary to the approved plans; therefore, is requesting
another change in the grading plan which affects approximately 20 lots. The developer is proposing
to drop the pad elevations. In most cases the change in pad elevation is 1 to 4 feet, and in a few
cases, 10 feet. The 10-foot drop in pad elevations has created excessive rear yard slopes. The
developer then submitted revised rough grading and precise grading plans for Grading Committee
review on November 3, 1998. The Grading Committee did not recommend approval of the changes
which they found to be substantial and inconsistent with the plans approved under Development
Review 97-08. They have referred the changes to the Design Review Committee for review.
Staff Comments: The following comments are meant to provide an outline for committee discussion:
Maior Issues: Pad elevation changes that create excessive rear yard slopes are the primary concern
of staff. On lots 26, 27, and 28, the developer is proposing to drop the building pads an additional 10
feet. This change, as well as 4-foot drops in elevation on Lots 20 and 21, have created rear yard
slopes in excess of 25 feet in height. To mitigate the massive slope areas and provide a rear yard that
is manageable for the property owner and visibly appealing, the following treatments should be
provided to slopes on Lots 20, 21, 26, 27, and 28:
1. Terrace rear yard slopes to break up slope mass by providing flat bench areas and/or
terraced walls.
2. Areas of constant 2:1 slope should be limited to a maximum vertical height of 15 feet.
3. Provide connections to slopes for maintenance such as steps or switchbacks.
4. Any retaining walls shall be composed of a decorative block material or receive a decorative
exterior treatment.
5. Augment landscaping beyond the City's Slope Planting requirements. Provide additional box
trees, 15-gallon shrubs 10 feet on center, and ground cover at 10 inches on center.
6. Provide full rear yard landscaping, including landscaping flat areas.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-23 - STANDARD PACIFIC
December 15, 1998
Page 2
7. Provide Lots 21 and 27 with larger flat rear yard areas. Flat rear yard areas shown are the
minimum 15 feet. Deeper flat areas would mitigate tall slopes in rear yards. Utilize retaining
walls to push slopes back.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the change
in pad elevations subject to the above provisions to mitigate rear yard slope mass.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Cecilia Williams
The Committee directed the applicant to incorporate terraced walls, flat bench areas, and pathways
for maintenance on the rear yard slopes. The Committee stated that the excessive rear yard slopes
required special treatment to mitigate massing and provide the property owner with a yard that was
more maintainable. In addition, the Committee requested that flat rear yard areas be increased to
provide more than the minimum 15 feet of flat area. The Committee stated that enhanced landscaping
on the slope areas was insufficient to mitigate excessive slopes. The Committee instructed the
applicant to work with staff to address the Committee's concerns and provide appropriate treatment
to slope areas.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:40 p.m. Brent Le Count December 15, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-25-CHEVRON-A request
to demolish an existing Chevron service station and build a new 2,167 square foot service station/mini
market on 0.74 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 8687 Base Line
Road. APN: 207-022-041.
Design Parameters: The 0.74 acre site is located at the northeast corner of the Sunrise Shopping
Center developed prior to incorporation of the City. The site is elevated by as much as 10 feet above
the adjacent shopping center property. Across Carnelian Avenue to the east is the relatively new
MacDonalds restaurant. The site is currently occupied by a Chevron service station, which will be
demolished to accommodate the new building. The existing pumps and pump island canopy will
remain in-place without any modification. A trash enclosure and electrical equipment is proposed to
be located on the south (rear) side of the building within a landscaped area. The Engineering Division
is requiring closure of the southernmost driveway on Carnelian Avenue which opens up a large portion
of the site for landscaping.
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. Bring tower element out over entry similar to Chevron project at Foothill Marketplace (see
Exhibit "A").
2. Provide cornice on tower eave to match the rest of building similar to Chevron project at
Foothill marketplace (see Exhibit "A"). Adjust height of tower as necessary.
3. Retain existing mature street scape landscaping, in particular trees, or replace on a one-for-
one basis with equivalently sized mature specimen trees.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Add as much landscaping as possible at southeast corner of the site given driveway closure.
2. Relocate existing public telephones to northwest or southeast corner of new building. Existing
location is dangerous requiring public to stand in the driveway entrance to use phones and
encourages short term parking within drive access.
3. Eliminate exterior roof access ladder. Roof access shall be from inside the building.
4. Plant 24-inch box size Jacaranda trees within landscape finger at northeast corner of building.
5. Stucco over existing block walls on site to match the building. Committee should discuss
whether both sides of walls should be stuccoed.
6. Provide decorative concrete trash receptacle near entrance to compliment 36-inch planter
pots.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 98-25 - CHEVRON
December 15, 1998
Page 2
7. New monument signs shall be designed with stucco base to compliment building.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Thirty percent of trees shall be large size, that is 24-inch box or larger.
2. All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from view.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications
as recommended above.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee(Macias, Mannerino, Henderson) reviewed the project and requested thatthe applicant
restudy the design and bring the project back for further review subject to the following:
1. - Provide a perspective rendering of the project as viewed from the intersection of Base Line
Road and Carnelian Street. Include the existing pump island and canopy. The existing
canopy may need to be remodeled to appear similar in design and materials to the proposed
new building.
2. Revise entry design to emphasize and embellish entry. It is strongly suggested that this
include popping the tower element out over the walkway, as well as the area of the joint
driveway at the southeast end of the site.
3. Add as much landscaping, including berm, at the northeast corner of the site given Carnelian
driveway relocation.
4. Work with staff to address planter island at northeast corner of building. Committee would
prefer to have Jacaranda tree planted there per staffs original comments but is open to other
solutions such as; significantly enlarging landscape area at northeast corner of site per item
3 above, and/or provision of a trellis feature on the front of the building.
5. Stucco over project site side of existing perimeter block walls. This shall also include a
decorative cap treatment.
6. Provide decorative concrete trash receptacle near building entrance.
7. Relocate handicapped parking clear area to align with building entrance and provide
decorative paving within clear area.
8. Restudy trash enclosure and equipment screening on south side of building. Suggest
enclosing all items within single enclosure wall covered with a trellis. The wall shall have
decorative treatment matching the building such as cornice and trim.
9, Decorative paving shall be interlocking paver type rather than "Bomanit" or other stamped
concrete product.
J
c
191 'li iiiii 19111 1111i m lull I
•I
a
I
I-1WI1 V
W
L
O
C
O
����f
iUlllh �
i7--Av5 rt "A"
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
9:20 p.m. Brent Le Count December 15, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15915 - WOODSIDE HOMES - A
request to subdivide 21 acres of land into 36 lots for the purpose of single family home construction
in the Very Low Residential District (0 to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101- 4, 12, and
14.
Design Parameters: The 21-acre site is currently vacant and slopes from north to south at
approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded by single family homes to the south, west, and east
with the homes to the south across an old rail road right-of-way and the homes to the east across
Etiwanda Avenue. The property to the north is vacant. Community trails are required along the south
and west project boundaries(the trail to the south being in the rail right-of-way)and private local feeder
trails are required for each lot. The City is currently working with the applicant to use a property at the
southeast corner of the site for relocation of the historic Isles house. A 6-foot high sound wall is
necessary on the north and east boundaries of Lot 36 to mitigate traffic noise from Etiwanda Avenue.
The project is subject to the Very Low Residential standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, which
require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a minimum average lot size of 25,000 square
feet. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows. The
Etiwanda Specific Plan requires windrows along Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street to be preserved
and allows others to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that
many are marginally worthy of preservation and about one-third are not at all worthy of preservation.
The project proposes to remove all of the trees and replace with new windrow planting consistent with
Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements.
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. Staff feels there are no major design issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Property lines should occur at the top of slope to ensure better slope maintenance by future
property owners.
2. Where feasible, make corner lots wider to accommodate corner side yard setbacks.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwanda Avenue (Lot 36) and Victoria Street (Lots 1, 2,
and 3) shall be preserved per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal
of individual diseased or damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minium
Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be
replaced with 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance
with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
2. The sound wall for Lot 36 shall respect a 30-foot average, 25-foot minimum setback from the
east property line. The wall shall also be designed to include field stone pilasters per the
Etiwanda Specific Plan Etiwanda Avenue Overlay standards.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15915
December 15, 1998
Page 2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee recommend approval of
the project with the above changes.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee (Macias, Mannerino, Henderson) reviewed the project and recommend approval
subject to the following:
1. Property lines shall occur at the top of slope to ensure better slope maintenance and
maximize useable rear yard area.
2. Where feasible,-make corner lots wider to accommodate corner sideyard setbacks. In
particular, Lot 36 which has frontage on Etiwanda Avenue and is subject to 30-foot building
setback.
3. The existing Eucalyptus windrows on Etiwanda Avenue (Lot 36) and Victoria Street (Lots 1,
2, and 3) shall be preserved per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows
removal of individual diseased or damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon
minimum Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on site-windrows shall be
replaced with 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance
with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
4. The sound wall for Lot 36 shall respect a 30-foot average, 25-foot minimum setback from the
east property line. The wall shall also be designed to include field stone pilasters per the
Etiwanda Specific Plan Etiwanda Avenue Overlay standards.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
December 15, 1998
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
B d Buller
Secretary