Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/06/06 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JUNE 6, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino 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) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-75—HOGLE- IRELAND — A request to construct five buildings totaling 156,601 square feet) on 7.90 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue—APN: 229-111-06. 7:05 p.m. (Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22 — LEGACY PARTNERS - The proposed development of four two-story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park(Subarea 6) District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District-APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15. 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) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-53 — RANCHO PACIFIC PROFESSIONAL CENTER—A request to develop a professional center consisting of a 4,450 square foot automotive fueling service and convenience center, a 3,500 square foot restaurant and a three-story, 32,000 square foot office building on 4 acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 6th Street- APN: 209-262 19 and 20. Related file: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-05. 7:45 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-08 — BENDETTI WAREHOUSE — A request to construct a 81,960 square foot industrial warehouse facility on 3.96 acres of land in the General industrial (Subarea 14)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue—APN: 229-331-07. DRC AGENDA June 6, 2000 Page 2 8:20 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50 — VANTIGER - A request to develop a 5,000 square foot service station (Shell) with drive-thru fast food service(Wendy's)and a self serve car wash on 2.0 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-161- 002. Related file: Variance 00-02. VARIANCE 00-02—VANTIGER—A request to reduce the required parking setback from 35 feet to 15 feet along Etiwanda Avenue to accommodate a service station with fast food and self serve car wash on 2.0 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, APN: 1100-161-002. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-50. 9:00 P.M. (Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-43 - AGUIRRE & ASSOCIATES: The proposed construction of a single-family residence on Inspiration Drive (Tract 10210, Lot 9) subject to the Hillside Development Regulations. 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 7:00 p.m. Douglas Fenn June 6, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW99-75—HOGLE-IRELAND—A request to construct five buildings totaling 156,601 square feet) on 7.90 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue—APN: 229-111-06. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Douglas Fenn The Committee recommended approval subject to additional sandblasted concrete vertical elements. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:05 p.m. Debra Meier June 6, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22—LEGACY PARTNERS-The proposed development of four two- story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land,located nearthe southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park(Subarea 6) District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District-APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081- 15. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier Following Design Review Committee meeting on May 16,2000,Committee Member Stewart had an opportunity to visit the project in Newport Beach upon which this project was modeled;and Committee Members McNiel, Coleman reviewed the photographs of the same project that were provided via e-mail by the applicant. Based on the perspective of the project gained by the site visit and photographs,the Committee once again analyzed the colored renderings that were the subject of the May 16, 2000 Committee meeting. The Committee agreed that they were much more comfortable with the elements of the project design, and with minor modifications to the design, there was no need to return for further Committee review. The Committee suggested the following: 1. The Committee expressed a question with respect to the design, material and texture of the cornice and windowsill elements. Commissioner McNiel indicated a preference that these items be pre-cast rather than foam. 2. The Committee recommended that the wainscot-like trim and color change be included as is present at the Newport Beach site. Upon resolution of these items with staff, the project may proceed to the Planning Commission for consideration. Additional information provided by the applicant and architect (June 7 2000): 1. The windowsill and the cornice are proposed to be foam add-ons. The architect indicated that the foam allows a greater depth of the cornice/windowsill, because of weight of thematerial and the ability to more easily attach to the building. The finish is proposed as EIFS (stucco)in a texture that matches as close as possible to the concrete surface of the building (lightly textured). The intent of this design is that there is no perceptible material change between these elements, only the paint color change. 2. The architect and the applicant had no objection to the addition of the wainscot as noted on the photos of the existing project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Douglas Fenn June 6, 2000 l ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99.53—RANCHO PACIFIC PROFESSIONAL CENTER — A request to develop a professional center consisting of a 4,450 square foot automotive fueling service and convenience center, a 3,500 square foot restaurant and a three-story, 32,000 square.foot office building on 4 acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 6th Street—APN: 209-26219 and 20. Related file: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 9905. Design Parameters: The site contains two contiguous 2-acre sized rectangular shaped vacant parcels that total 4 acres. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there other significant vegetation on the site. The site is currently cultivated as a vineyard. The site slopes from north to south. To the west of the site.is a large industrial warehouse building. To the north is an office complex, and to the east across Haven Avenue is an office complex. To the south across 6th Street is vacant land. The proposed project is for a professional center consisting of a 4,450 square foot automotive fueling service and convenience center(the reason for the Conditional Use Permit),a 3,510 square foot restaurant and a three-story, 32,000 square foot office building (the restaurant and proposed office building are permitted uses). The three buildings are designed to be oriented and front along Haven Avenue (approximately 654 feet) and the automotive fueling service and convenience center is the only building that will front 6th Street(239 feet). The automotive fueling service and convenience center is located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Haven Avenue with the gasoline canopyarea being screened by the convenience center building as seen from Haven Avenue. The restaurant building is directly north of the automotive fueling service convenience center. The three-story professional office building is north of a 36 foot-wide right-in and right-out textured access entryway off of Haven Avenue, that is also just north of the restaurant building. The buildings are located along Haven Avenue, which screens the majority of the parking spaces from public view. The three buildings incorporate three primary building materials, which are as follows: 1. Granite, which is used to create a base, look to the buildings and used as an accent. 2. Light brick which, is used along the majority of the building facade. 3. Sand blasted concrete that is used at entryways, and used as an accent. The three-story office building is very well articulated with strong vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane, that are carried throughout and along the facade of the building. A green metal. coping is used to create contrast and add a professional urban look to the building, perforated metal fins, accent lighting and spandrels glazing is all used to create a unique and quality look to the building. However, this creative urban look is somewhat lost on the restaurant building and automotive fueling service and convenience center. These two buildings do have the same quality materials but the over design and breakup of the buildings is much simpler than the threestory office building. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-53— RANCHO PACIFIC PROFESSIONAL CENTER June 6, 2000 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Provide taller element to strengthen Building"B"that is overpowered by Building"A,"which is 8 feet taller and nearly 1000 square feet larger floor area. This may also assist in providing screening of roof equipment. 2. Provide plaza areas in front of main (west) entries of Building "B" and "C" with decorative paving and seating. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide additional berming along Haven Avenue and 6th Street. 2. Reduce width of loading zone between Buildings"A"and"B"from 22 feet to 14 feet,which is City standard for trucks. 3. Provide decorative return wall between Buildings "A" and "B" to screen loading zone. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view using an arch itecturallyintegrated screen element,such as raised parapet. Staff is particularly concerned about the low profile of the restaurant Building"B." Restaurants typically have roof equipment that is larger and taller than normal for office buildings. 2. Provide an accessible trash enclosure for the restaurant. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return as a consent calendar item. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to staff comments. In addition, the Committee directed the applicant to provide plaza areas at the west entrance of professional office building with decorative paving and outdoor seating. Additionally, the Committee directed that a double trash enclosure with trellis be provided between the restaurant and service station. The applicant agreed to revise the project per the Committee's comments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:45 p.m. Douglas Fenn June 6, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-08 — BENDETTI WAREHOUSE — A request to construct a 81,960 square foot industrial warehouse facility on 3.96 acres of land in the General industrial (Subarea 14)of the IndustrialArea Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue—APN: 229-331-07. Design Parameters: The site contains one vacant parcel that is 3.96 acres. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there other significant vegetation on the site. The site is currently cultivated as a vineyard. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded by industrial building (Ryder trucks)to the north. To the east across Santa Anita Avenue are industrial buildings, and to the south across 4th Street are industrial buildings(City of Ontario). To the west is the Day Creek Channel and Edison power line corridor and further to the east is the Interstate 1-15. The proposed building is designed for a single warehouse tenant(Bendetti—men's clothing). The building design is oriented to front 4th Street (approximately 538 feet) and will front Santa Anita Avenue(289 feet)on the West Side of the property. The building will have office area(7,2)0 square feet of office ground floor and a 6,500 square foot mezzanine office area)that fronts the southeast corner of 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue on to Jersey Avenue. The storage and loading areas do not face or are visible from 4th Street or Santa Anita Avenue. The loading area is oriented towards the rear of the project facing north and will be screened from the 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue public rights-of-way with 8-foot high screen walls. The buildings incorporate three primary building materials; rough sandblasted concrete, concrete tilt-up panels and limestone. The office portion of the buildings is very well articulated with strong vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane, that are carried throughout and along the fagade, and are accented on the northwest and southwest corners of the building. The entry plaza to the building is well planned and has a curvilinear accent with an oval shaped flowerbed in the middle of a black granite plaza floor. Additionally, the public patio areas are designed to be away from the loading areas. The color variation of the building is white,with a blue accent color scheme on a concrete tilt-up fagade. There are limestone accents along with blue reflective colored glazing accents to help create contrast. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: Staff has no major issues with this project the applicant has addressed earlier issues with staff and staff is pleased with the outcome. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide a detail of the 4-foot high pedestrian plaza screen wall, to make sure that it is compatible with the architecture of the building. 2. The applicant should consider how to address severe Santa Ana winds, which may affect north-facing docks. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-08 — BENDETTI WAREHOUSE June 6, 2000 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee recommended approval of the project with no modifications. The Committee expressed how pleased they were with the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 6, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-50— VANTIGER - A request to develop a 5,000 square foot service station (Shell) with drive-thru fast food service (Wendy's) and a self serve car wash on 2.0 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 1100-161-002. Related file: Variance 00-02. VARIANCE 00-02—VANTIGER—A request to reduce the required parking setback from 35 feet to 15 feet along Etiwanda Avenue to accommodate a service station with fast food and self serve car wash on 2.0 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-161- 002. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-50. Design Parameters: The 2-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and slopes from north to south at approximately 2.5 percent. There is an existing occupied home on the property to the north and there is an abandoned home on the property to the east. Both homes fall within the Community Commercial District of Subarea 4, same land use district as the subject site. The car wash is proposed to be located within the north end of the site and has been designed with wing walls at the openings to prevent excessive car wash noise from impacting the occupied residence to the north. The project includes a master plan for retail development of the properties to the north and east. The master plan provides for access to the site from the east thereby permitting the driveway at the southeast corner of the site to exist in a temporary fashion (the driveway is located too close to the Foothill Boulevard/Etiwanda Avenue intersection to meet General Plan circulation design standards and must ultimately be removed). i The site falls within the Subarea 4 Activity Center per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. This Activity Center is intended to have a less urban character than the other Subareas and thus landscape and rolling berms are recommended as opposed to hardscape materials. A fast food drive-thru is proposed fronting both Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission Drive-Thru Design Policy calls for a minimum 45-foot setback from the face of curb to the drive-thru lane. The project is proposed to have only a 20-to 35-foot setback to the drive-thru lane. The applicant is providing a sloped area with retaining wall, landscaping, and substantial trellises to minimize the presence of the drive-thru lane. The building design has a very boxy appearance with blank stucco walls and river rock accents. The applicant is open to design suggestions but is not willing to vary from the basic building footprint. The site is grossly over- parked with only 43 parking spaces required and 70 spaces are provided. The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to allow substantial reduction of the parking setback along Etiwanda Avenue. The applicant claims that provision of a right turn lane as required by the City squeezes out room for the setback. Typically, a 15-foot parking setback and 25-foot building setback is required along property lines adjoining residential development. However, the home located to the east of the site has been abandoned for some time and is non-conforming relative to the Community Commercial land use designation for the property. The increased setbacks are therefor not required along the east property line. Background The site was previously occupied by the Pearson Filling Station and Garage,a Historic Landmark. In 1998, the City Council re-designated the station as a Historic Point of Interest thus allowing the building to be conditionally demolished. The building was soon thereafter demolished. One of the conditions placed on the redesignation was that the developer provide a historic plaque for the Pearson Station on the site with development. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 &VAR 00-02—VANTIGER June 6, 2000 Page 2 In May of 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review workshop on developing the site with a service station. The Commission had the following primary concerns: 1. The drive-thru lane shall be heavily screened with berms and landscaping. The drive-thru lane shall be so effectively screened that it will not be visible from Foothill Boulevard or Etiwanda Avenue. 2. The site functions as a gateway to Etiwanda. Therefor, the architectural design of the building shall incorporate features from the Etiwanda area as opposed to Foothill Boulevard/Route 66. The building design appears boxy and needs substantial improvement. 3. Potential conflicts between diesel/large truck use and automobile use of the site should be resolved. (The current design is gasoline/automobile use only). 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. Substantially revise the building design to provide a high quality architectural statement and better incorporate Etiwanda area architectural themes. This may include expanded use of river rock,wood siding, gabled roofs, "barn"type design features and massing, etc. Some examples include the Mobil station at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, and the Arco station located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard in Claremont. Also note-attached excerpts from the Wohl development plans showing creative use of river rock application, massing, and roof styles. Design of the car washbuilding, pump island canopy, and the storage building/trash enclosure should follow suit. 2. Break up the continuous flat parapet line with vertical change in plane and/or the roof elements. Staff is also concerned that the overall parapet height of 15 feet may not be adequate to screen roof-mounted equipment. Restaurants typically have roof equipment that is larger and taller than normal retail buildings, thus necessitating a taller parapet. 3. Project does not comply with 45-foot setback to drive-thru lane per Planning Commission policy. The applicant claims there is insufficient room on-site to accommodate the setback; however,the site is of substantial size and is 27 parking spaces over-parked. While the site may not be large enough to fulfill all of the applicant's wishes (such as car wash), the site is large, enough to accommodate reasonable development in conformance with the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback. The drive-thru lane is proposed to be screened by a retaining wall/slope and landscaping. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide substantial tree and shrub planting between the drive-thru lane and the streets. Plants should be layered to create a dense screen for the drive-thru lane. Sycamore trees shall be included along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Slopes in this area shall have softened, meandering appearance. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 &VAR 00-02—VANTIGER June 6, 2000 Page 3 1. Provide a heavily landscaped, sloped up area along the Etiwanda Avenue frontage to screen parking area and offset the reduced parking setback. 2. Provide substantial planting within the planter along the north property line to provide a buffer for the existing home to the north and offset the sparse landscaping elsewhere on- site. 3. Avoid having parking spaces loaded off of the east-west drive aisle (south of the car wash) as this is shown as the ultimate main east-west drive aisle in the Master Plan. 4. Provide a sidewalk connection from Foothill Boulevard to building entrance. 5. Provide decorative driveway paving within southern driveway. While this driveway is proposed to be temporary, the exact timing of its eventual removal is unknown because there is no pending development application to the east. It should be designed to the same quality as a permanent driveway. 6. The pedestrian/handicapped pathway along the east side of the building is only 30 feet wide between column and wall, which does not meet ADA access standards. Relocate southernmost handicap parking space as near as possible to main building entry. 7. The site contains a large oak tree and two Palm trees. These trees shall be preserved on site,either in-place or re-located. The remaining trees, namely Eucalyptus and Pepper trees may be removed. Their removal will be offset by provision of on-site landscaping. 8. Provide conceptual sign location, size, and materials. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and be brought back for further Committee review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project did not recommend approval. The Committes requested that it be revised in light of staffs comments and the following additional comments and brought back for further review: 1. The drive-thru aspect of the project is in conflict with the Activity Center theme for the intersection (reduced building setback, pedestrian-friendly streetscape). The Committee is not willing to accept any reduction in the 45-foot drive-thru lane setback requirement. 2. The project appears to be overbuilt,which is resulting in numerous setback encroachments. The Committee noted that there was nothing unusual about the site such as slope or topography, which would create setback problems. 3. The Committee is not willing to support any reduction in the 25-foot building setback from the car wash to the north property line and adjoining single-family home. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-50 &VAR 00-02—VANTIGER June 6, 2000 Page 4 4. The Committee indicated that the building footprint is not being questioned, but that the site planning and architectural design needs to be substantially upgraded. The Committee suggested restudying the pump island configuration,the car wash, and backup dimensions to make more efficient use of the site. The applicant showed the Committee drawings of a Mediterranean style building. The Committee indicated this design was previously rejected by the Planning Commission during the Pre-application Review; therefore, would not be supported by the Committee. The Committee directed the applicant to develop an architectural statement consistent with the Etiwanda area. The applicant agreed to substantially modify the building architecture provided the building footprint does not change. The Committee suggested that the applicant visit other projects and work closely with staff. n DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 9:00 P.M. Debra Meier June 6, 2000 t DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-43 - AGUIRRE & ASSOCIATES: The proposed construction of a single-family residence on Inspiration Drive (Tract 10210, Lot 9)subject to the Hillside Development Regulations. Design Parameters: This application for Hillside Residential Development Review was originally submitted in July 1999. Staff has persistently explained to the designer and the homeowner that not only were the plans incomplete but that the house and grading design did not meet the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations and guidelines. At this time the Grading Plan still contains minor errors; however,due the significant design issues related to this project, staff has determined that it was appropriate to bring the project forward for Design Review Committee review at this time. Several homes have been developed along Inspiration Drive since 1994. According to Planning Division files all of these homes have been approved with a step in the foundation to allow the house to accommodate the change in grade of the individual lot. Development Review 94-20 was approved for several lots within Tract 10210; however, not all were built. Lot 9 was included in Design Review 94-20 with a single-story home, which included a stepped foundation. Staff Comments: As proposed, the entire rear elevation of the home is nearly 6 feet above the existing ground surface. In accordance with_ Development Code Chapter 17.24 Hillside Development Regulations, any cut or fill of 5 feet or greater must be approved by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission. We have continued to encourage the designer and the homeowner to analyze the design in accordance with the recommendations provided in Chapter 17.24. Major Issues: The following design issue will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The building foundation should be stepped to conform to the contour of the ground as required by the Hillside Development Regulations,and preferably designed to reduce the amount of filirequired across this lot. In so doing, the homeowner may eliminate the need for further Design Review Committee or Planning Commission consideration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the building foundation be stepped to conform to the contour of the ground as required by the Hillside Development Regulations, and preferably be designed to reduce the amount of fill required across this lot. In so doing, the homeowner may eliminate the need for any further Design Review Committee or Planning Commission consideration. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee recommended that the applicant modify the plans to decrease the amount of fill in complete conformance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. The Committee suggested that these modifications be accomplished so that no further Design Review or Planning Commission actions are necessary. The applicant can use a combination of techniques including stepped foundation,stem walls, rear yard patio decks, small retaining walls, and contour grading to achieve the desired building design. If the home can be designed within these parameters a single story plan without any interior elevation changes is possible, based on staff review of the entire design package. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-43—AGUIRRE &ASSOCIATES June 6, 2000 Page 2 Upon discussion with the applicant of the issues identified by staff, Mr.Aguirre told the Committee that he has revised the grading design, however, has not provided staff with the latest revisions. He indicated that they now have new topography upon which they have based the revised design. The Committee suggested that Mr. Aguirre coordinate with staff for review of all the latest revisions and address the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. i DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS June 6, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bf6d Buller Secretary