HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/06/20 - Agenda Packet - (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY JUNE 20, 2000 5:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Peter Tolstoy John Mannerino Dan Coleman
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.
5:00. —5:30 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00.30-
KINKO'S—The development of a 6,500 square foot retail/business service
supply store on 0.66-acre of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard
between Aspen and Spruce Streets—APN: 208-352-88.
5:30—6:00 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-18—
UNION BANK—The development of a 6,000 square foot bank on 1.2 acres
of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue.
APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32.
6:00_6:30 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-
15—FARMER BOY'S.RESTAURANT—The development of a 2,775 square
foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru on 1-acre of land in Subarea 7
(Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south
side of Foothill Boulevard east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31,
and 32.
6:30— 7:00 p.m.
(Emily) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-65- REGENCY HOMES-The development
of four single-family hillside homes in the Very-Low Residential District (<2
du/ac), located on Paddock Place (Lots 74, 75, and 76) and on Morgan
Place (Lot 134) in Haven View Estates- APN: 1074-551-01, 02, 03 and
1074-541-14.
DRC AGENDA
June 20, 2000
Page 2
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
7:00—7:40 p.m.
(Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-
40 —TARGET CORPORATION- The proposed addition of 52,320 square
feet to the existing 101,800 square foot Target store with an 11,738 square
foot outdoor garden center; an increase in the existing parcel from 8.45
acres to 11.45 acres; and a modification to the Town Center Master Plan for
the 61.9-acre Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of
Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the Community Commercial (CC)
land use district of the Terra Vista Community Plan. APN: 1077-421-068,
and a portion of 087.
7:40 -8:20 p.m.
(Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-
13—COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH-A request to develop a temporary
Youth Center totaling 4,900 square feet on 4.95 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District located at the Community Baptist Church, 9090 19th
Street, at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street. APN: 201-
221-08.
8:20—8:50 p.m.
(Sal\Duane) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-20—D.R. HORTON-A request to amend the
design and building plans of 79 single-family residences that were previously
approved by the City as part of Tentative Tract Map 15727,which is located
west of Archibald Avenue, between 4th and 6th Streets. The 79 lots are
distributed throughout the Tentative Tract Map area. APN: 210-451-39
through 42; 210-461-50 through 60; and 210-062-49.
8:50— 9:50 p.m.
(Tom) MODIFCATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13—THE HEIGHTS AT
HAVEN VIEW ESTATES, LLC. — A minors revision to the grading plan of
Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single-family homes on 25.35 acres of land in
the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre),
located east of Haven Avenue and north or Ringstem Drive—APN: 1074-
511-27 to 31 and 1074-621-1 to 35.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 20, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-30 — KINKO'S — The
development of a 6,500 square foot retail/business service supply store on 0.66-acre of land in
Subarea 7 (Industrial Park)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Streets —APN: 208-352-88.
Desiqn Parameters: The project is part of Development Review 99-04,a master plan including a 3
story hotel, which was approved by the Planning Commission in March of 1999. The site has
frontage on Foothill Boulevard with existing curb and gutter improvements in place. The site has
been rough graded and slopes at approximately 3 to 4 percent from north to south. The pad sits 13
feet below the Applebee's parking lot. Undulating landscaped slopes have been installed along the
project frontage. The on-site driveway spine has also been installed. The project is directly east of
the Applebee's restaurant, and the Haven Wine and Liquor building is approved for the site to the
east of the project. According to the developer, the Haven Wine and Liquor project and the Rancho
Cucamonga Hotel project have been abandoned (only the master plan will be utilized). Also, the
two buildings were not intended to exactly match each other in terms of architectural features.
Therefore, Kinko's could either 1) conform to the designs established by these two previously
approved, yet now abandoned projects, or 2) follow some of the design characteristics of the
Applebee's restaurant and Buddies Bistro to the west and southwest. Applebee's and Buddies
Bistro are completely different designs.
The building has a flat parapet and tile roof covered tower (similar to the tower on Buddies Bistro)
on the east side to establish an entry statement, wall surface/parapet projections, canopies,
decorative wall tile accents and light fixtures, and wainscoting. Overall appearance is very similar to
the Terra Vista Town Center across Foothill Boulevard (except for precision block wainscot). To
mitigate high winds, a vestibule has been provided at the entry.
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. Redesign loading area on south side of building to provide landscaping against wall.
2. Consider alternative grading and drainage solution along west side of building. Goal is to
plant trees within this space, which is prevented by retaining wall and 'V' gutter. One
suggestion would be to put retaining wall and'V'gutter at the property line instead of down the
middle of this 10-foot wide setback.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. All columns should have consistent 2-foot depth.
2. Provide additional trees (sycamores).and hedgerow planting along Foothill Boulevard
frontage. Many of the eucalyptus trees that were recently planted are dead. These should be
replaced with sycamore trees.
3. Brick veneer, similar to that of Applebee's, or tile wainscoting should be used instead of
precision block (i.e., concrete masonry units, "CMU", shown on plans).
4. Provide heavier member trellises on the east elevation. Trellises should match height of
canopies on north and south walls and receive vine plantings at their bases trained to climb.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-30 — KINKO'S
June 20, 2000
Page 2
5. Provide wall mounted trellises (minimum 2-inch wide square metal tubing)on east and south
elevations and provide vine planting for trellises to enhance blank areas of stucco walls.
6. Features such as parking lot light standards, landscape materials, decorative driveway and
pedestrian pathway paving,and trash enclosure shall match that of Applebee's restaurant and
the Buddies Bistro building.
7. The tile roofing shown on the elevation shall be mission tile as opposed to concrete shake.
8. Increase size and number of decorative tile wall accents to add visual interest.
9. Use color variation, trim, and widened reveals to further enhance all building elevations.
10. Extend enhanced paving into both handicap spaces at building entry.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. Any roof mounted equipment, such as HVAC,satellite dishes or other forms of communication
fixtures shall be completely screened through use of decorative walls that are incorporated
into the building architecture.
2. Provide,at a minimum,one tree per 30 linear feet of perimeter property line, plus one tree per
30 linear feet of building wall, plus one tree per three parking spaces to shake 50 percent of
the parking area. '
3. A maximum of three wall signs are allowed (or two wall signs and one monument).
4. Provide trellis over trash enclosure with roll-up door.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned in light of the above
comments and brought back for further review.
Attachments:
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommends approval subject to staffs comments with the following revisions. The
applicant agreed to all of the items:
1. It is not necessary to eliminate the low retainingwall along the west side of the site so long
as substantial shrub planting is provided along the top of the wall. The developer shall make
a good faith effort to find a tree species that will grow along the west side of the building. If
no such species can be found, the developer shall make a good faith effort to plant
additional trees along the east side of the Applebee's restaurant site so that there are trees
along the west elevation of the proposed building.
2. Provide double door vestibule for the main entry to mitigate strong seasonal winds out of the
northeast.
4.3 I
Eiji !!
i In Ij ! I
' .
I . .I
U jl I
i j OI
rnj I I� C. —.
.I I, 0
Ti-
IL
I �
i r �
I I ,
cu
,� - •
@.
co
��� IJ
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:30 p.m. Brent Le Count June 20, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-18—UNION BANK—The
development of a 6,000 square foot bank on 1.2 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken
Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32.
Design Parameters: The site is located at the main entrance to the Catellus Master Plan area,
which was approved by the Planning Commission in April of 1999; however, the approved Master
Plan was left "blank" in this area due to uncertainty of ultimate land use. It is northeast of the
Lowe's Home Improvement store now under construction. The site slopes from north to south at
approximately 3 percent. The site will be graded so that it sets approximately 3 to 4 feet below the
level of Foothill Boulevard. The building design incorporates the basic architectural features that
were established by the Lowe's building. The bank is proposed to have a drive-thru lane,which will
wrap around the east and north sides of the building,with ingress from the south. The building and
drive-thru lane will be visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard.
Master Plan: The project represents a modification to the Catellus Master Plan,which did not define
building pads or circulation in this area. An on-site traffic study was prepared which indicates that
the proposed location of the east-west driveway spine will not lead to circulation conflicts with main
access from Foothill Boulevard. The main access point, which aligns with future Mayten Street to
the north,will be the only signalized access from Foothill Boulevard. Master Plan (Sheet AO) is a
conceptual illustration only and is not part of this application; therefore, no comments will
be made.
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. Provide a porte-cochere matching that on the east elevation, or a major trellis, over the drive
thru lane on the north side of the building to minimizethe presence of the lane relative to
Foothill Boulevard. This will also add articulation and visual interest to the north elevation,
most visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard. Provide decorative wainscoting on this
elevation as well.
2. Eliminate or smooth out the awkward curve in the main east-west driveway spine west of the
site to avoid potential head-on collisions.
3. Mayten Street Entrance: Median island should be minimum width of 10 feet. Provide
minimum 20 feet of enhanced paving at entrance throat, outside public right-of-way, as
transition from Foothill Boulevard.
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 backsides of the parapet walls should be finished with cornice treatment to convey a
sense of quality. Decorative parapets should have returns to provide a sense of depth and
avoid a movie-set appearance.
2. Provide low decorative walls and landscaped berms on the east and north sides of the drive-
thru lane to screen cars from public view. Examples include the Texaco station at Foothill
Boulevard and Elm Street, and the Carl's Jr. at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-18 — UNION BANK
June 20, 2000
Page 2
3. Provide planter area against the building between columns on west elevation, north of the
main entry.
4. Provide decorative driveway paving at the driveway entrance to Union Bank parking area.
5. Extend landscape finger planters to the full length of parking stalls (i.e. 18 feet).
6. Extend enhanced paving to include both handicap parking stalls at main entry.
7. Provide additional trees to shade northerly row of parking spaces.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. The Planning Commission Drive-thru Design Policy requires drive-thru businesses to be
located at least 300 feet away from any intersection (such as Foothill Boulevard and Mayten
Street) and from another drive-thru facility on the same side of the street. In this case, the
Union Bank and Farmer Boy's restaurant will be 300 feet apart. Union Bank is located at the
intersection of Foothill Boulevard and .Mayten Street. The policy can be waived when a
project is being developed within a shopping center or master plan. Other examples of drive-
thrus approved at intersections include the Mobil car wash, Jack-in-the-Box and Carl's Jr.,
which are all located at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive,about one half block to the east.
2. All roof and ground mounted equipment and utilities shall be fully screened. Surround trash
enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return for further
review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval subject to staffs comments with the following revisions.
The applicant agreed to all of the items and the following:
1. The Committee is open to provision of a trellis along the north side of the building over the
drive-thru lane instead of a porte-cochere. The trellis members should be substantial with
heavy and decorative footings.
2. The median is the driveway entrance from Foothill Boulevard, at Mayten Street and may
require modification or elimination subject to review and approval of the Engineering
Division.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
1
6:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 20, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-15—FARMER BOY'S
RESTAURANT—The development of a 2,775 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru on 1-
acre of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south
side of Foothill Boulevard east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32.
Design Parameters: The site is located within the Catellus Master Plan area,which was approved
by the Planning Commission in April of 1999, and within the Lowe's Home Improvement center
approved by the Commission in May of 1999. The site slopes from north to south at approximately
3 percent. The site will be graded so that it sets approximately 3 to 4 feet below the level of Foothill
Boulevard. The building design incorporates some of the basic architectural features that were
established by the Lowe's building. The restaurant is proposed to have a drive-thru lane which will
wrap around the north and west sides of the building. The building and drive-thru lane will be
visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard and will contribute to the entry experience to the Lowe's
center. No outdoor dining is proposed.
The project represents a modification to the Catellus Master Plan,which did not include a drivethru
use in this location. However, the project meets the basic intent of the Drive-thru Design Policy in
that it is located 300 feet from an intersection and other drive-thru uses and the drive-thru lane
respects the 45-foot setback.
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. Exterior should be completely redesigned, starting with the elimination of the mansard roof.
The building lacks a strong architectural statement,which detracts from the quality desired for
a building so prominently located on Foothill Boulevard at the entrance to Lowe's. The
strongest element is a tile mansard roof, which gives the building a dated appearance. This
style of mansard roof has become synonymous with the"corporate"design of fast food drive
thru chains. Suggest incorporating gable and/or hip roof elements, and curved arches,_
consistent with architectural theme established by Lowe's (see Exhibit"A").
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Eliminate or smooth out the awkward curve in main eastwest drive aisle between Farmer Boys
and Union Bank to avoid potential head-on collisions.
2. Provide low screen wall to enhance screening of drive-thru lane. See Cads Jr. at Foothill
Boulevard and Masi Drive, orTexaco/Taco Bell at Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue.
3. Provide porte-cochere or large member trellis out over the drive•thru lane on the north side of the
building to help minimize the presence of the drive-thru lane and incorporate it with the overall
building.
4. East Elevation-Entry feature should project more by making columns same depth as width(i.e.,2
feet 9 inches)to provide a true covered entry.
5. Change base of building to a Sawteel 12-inch by 12-inch tile material to match Lowe's.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 00-15— FARMER BOY'S RESTAURANT
June 20, 2000
Page 2
6. Signs-Ancillary information such as,'World Famous Hamburgers"or the like is prohibited by the
Sign Ordinance. Business name only.
7. Plant trees between north side of building and drive-thru lane.
8. Extend enhanced paving into both handicap stalls at building entry.
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 and ground mounted equipment and utilities shall be fully screened. The low 15-foot
parapet height may not be sufficient to screen roof-mounted equipment from public views
along Foothill Boulevard because building pad is 3 feet below Foothill Boulevard. Restaurants
typically have larger/taller roof equipment because of cooking facilities. A detailed cross
section should be provided to demonstrate screening.
2. Surround trash enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned in light of the above
comments and brought back for further review.
Attachments:
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee requested thatthe project be redesigned and brought back for further review subject
to staffs comments and the following additional comments. The applicant agreed to explore design
revisions accordingly. The Committee also recommended:
1. If the applicant wishes to include an outdoor dining area it must be protected with decorative
walls, etc., from strong seasonal winds out of the northeast and the outdoor dining area
must be included in overall parking calculation.
2. That a double door vestibule be provided at the main entry to mitigate strong seasonal
winds.
3. The drive-thru lane be screened either by the use of a low wall or a berm or a combination
thereof.
4. The applicant agreed to completely restudy the architectural design of the building to provide
a higher quality architectural statement consistent with Foothill Boulevard design standards
and the remainder of the Lowe's development.
3 s
u
Ati• /1
I
Cl;
1pKt �+n
C` ,a'
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:30 p.m. Emily Wimer June 20, 2000
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-65— REGENCY HOMES - The development of four single-family
hillside homes in the Very-Low Residential District(<2 du/ac), located on Paddock Place (Lots 74,
75, and 76)and on Morgan Place (Lot 134)in Haven View Estates-APN: 1074-551-01, 02, 03 and
1074-541-14.
Design Parameters: The project will consist of two floor plans each, 4,788 square feet and 5,119
square feet, and all two-story. The overall height is 29 feet. All four homes have a four-car garage
and five bedrooms. There are four distinct, and very attractive, architectural treatments provided.
The homes incorporate many features in the 360-degree architecture requirement on all four
homes. Features include architectural quoins, brickwork, wood potshelves, decorative balcony
banisters, key moldings, and porte-cocheres. The applicant has been working diligently with staff to
ensure that design requirements are met.
All lots have been rough graded with existing curb, gutter, driveway approaches, and street
improvements. All lots are "cross slope" conditions where the slope falls from side to side,
essentially with contours running perpendicular to street.The project complies with the cross slope
building envelope requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance.
The fill quantity exceeds 5 feet and 1500 cubic yards; therefore, the application requires Design
Review Committee recommendation and Planning Commission action, according to the Hillside
Development Ordinance. Lot 74 (5651 Paddock Place) has a maximum fill of 7 feet. The four lots
have a total of 2,200 cubic yards of cut and fill quantities.
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. Proposed design has excessive grading and fill which is inconsistent with the stated purpose
of the Hillside Development Ordinance to minimize the adverse effects of grading, and limit
the extend of grading alterations. As proposed, Lot 74 will have a total of 7 vertical feet of fill
in the rear of the property. The applicant intends to fill the rear portion of the property to
create more useable space. Without the excess fill, the applicant will need approximately 2
feet of vertical fill for the 15 feet of useable flat rear yard required under the City's Hillside
Ordinance. The 2-foot fill will also be well below the 5-foot maximum allowed under the Hillside
Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed slope on the rear property should be reduced to closely
match the natural grade.
2. All four homes show finished contours with 40 to 75 feet of flat useable rear yard. This does
not conform to the hillside regulations, which limits lot padding to the boundary of the house
foundation and a useable rear yard area of 15 feet adjacent to the house. Instead of
excessive lot padding,options should be used such as decks, patios and balconies. Contour
grading shall be used to preserve natural terrain characteristics instead of mass grading.
Excessive grading shall be avoided with any hillside development.
3. The existing grade falls 6 to 8 feet from the uphill to the downhill side of all homes; however,
only a single pad split of 1.5 or 2 feet is proposed. To conform to the hillside requirements the
floor plans should step more dramatically when a 6-8 foot grade difference exists. Staff
suggests that a revised Plan 3 incorporate more steps and grade differentiation (adding steps)
between the entryway and the family room and also between the opposite end of the hallway
and living room. Plan 2 has a 24-inch step down; however, the grade falls 6 feet under the
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-65 — REGENCY HOMES
June 20, 2000
Page 2
house. Staff recommends adding a step down into the living room and down into the dinning room
to balance grade difference on both sides of the house.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Driveways on all homes are currently 18 feet in width. Code regulations require a maximum
of 16 feet in width.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and return for further
review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Pam Stewart,.Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
The applicant presented redline drawings at the meeting, which addressed all three major issues.
The flat rear yard area was lowered to 15 feet, allowing minimal, cut and fill (1,300 cubic yards).
The houses were stepped and contoured the natural terrain reducing the vertical fill to a maximum
of 3 feet instead of 7 feet. The Committee recommended approval with review at the next Grading
Committee.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Debra Meier June 20, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-40 — TARGET
CORPORATION-The proposed addition of 52,320 square feet to the existing 101,800 square foot
Target store with an 11,738 square foot outdoor garden center; an increase in the existing parcel
from 8.45 acres to 11.45 acres; and a modification to the Town Center Master Plan for the 61.9acre
Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in
the Community Commercial (CC)land use district of the Terra Vista Community Plan. APN: 1077
421-068, and a portion of 087.
Design Parameters: The Target store is located in the westerly portion of Terra Vista Town Center.
The existing Target store, along with much of Town Center was built approximately ten years ago.
The store has been very successful and the owners now desire additional square footage to
accommodate an increased display area in the store, a second-story stock storage area, and the
construction of a second building entry on the westerly portion of the south elevation.
To accommodate the additional parking demand as required to meet Development Code
requirements, the parcel associated with the Target store will increase from 8.45 acres to 11.45
acres. Adequate parking is available on-site to allow the increased square footage.
In addition, the Town Center Master Plan, for that area northerly of Target, is being modified to
accommodate the anticipated future users of this portion of Town Center. The modificatim includes
relocation of driveways from Town Center Drive onto the site, and reconfiguring of the existing
parking area in this location to accommodate anticipated uses in this portion of the project, as well
as the Target store and the theater.
All streets surrounding Town Center have been improved with curb, gutter and pavement.
Complete street improvements, including sidewalks,driveways,streetlights, etc.,will be completed
along with the various phases of the amended Master Plan.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
TARGET Expansion Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. The second-story addition at the rear of the building may have a negative effect to the
architectural integrity of the building as viewed from Haven Avenue,or parking and circulation
in the rear of the store. The front of Target is approximately 600 feet north of Foothill
Boulevard, and the second-story addition is another 300 feet north of the front of the store,
therefore, the line-of-site from Foothill Boulevard will be minimized.
However, the west elevation, facing Haven Avenue, is approximately 240 feet east of the
street right-of-way. At some time in the future, a building may be constructed on Pad H that
may help to screen.this elevation; however, there is no approved project for Pad H at this
time. Therefore, the easterly and northerly corners of the store addition will have the most
exposed view (see note 2). The Planning Commission worked hard to obtain a 360-degree
architecture in Terra Vista Town Center. The proposed addition is a simple box, with no
architectural interest other than a cornice, and is inconsistent with the very high quality of this
shopping center.
The applicant shall provide a true representation, by means of line-of-sight, of the degree of
visibility that the second-story addition will have from the parking lot behind Target from
Haven Avenue. Use an overlay to depictthe second-story addition on the color rendering for
Committee review.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 99-40 —TARGET CORP.
June 20, 2000
Page 2
2. Address the northwest corner of the building through a combination of architecture and
landscaping. A tower element would work well at this corner as a focal point from both the
west and north as project entry points are oriented in this direction. In addition, look at the
option of closing the circulation on the south side of Pad H,to provide a landscape screen for
the west elevation of Target.
3. Along the north edge of the loading dock(Rear Elevation), connect the walkway from the rear
exit door to the sidewalk running along the front of the parking stalls, and add landscaping
along the retaining wall separating the parking from the loading dock.
4. Add landscape planters at the front expansion at the new west entry(also around the corner
on the west side of the entry), similar to those at the front of the existing east entry.
5. The applicant is proposing additional building signage on the front elevation—PHARMACY.
The sign program permits this type of secondary signage, with DRC approval. Examples of
similar signage in Town Center and Town Center Square include: the existing GARDEN
CENTER sign at Target; the Wards ELECTRIC AVENUE sign; and the COPYMAX and
FURNITURE MAX signs at the Office Max. The Office Max is the only store with two
secondary signs.
6. Add landscaping along the most easterly projection of the east elevation (Right), this is an
employee entrance.
Master Plan Issues:
1. The southerly termination of the new entry off of Town Center Drive (easterly of Polar Ice)
lacks a focal point at the southerly terminus of the drive aisle. A proposed solution to the
driveway alignment is attached for your consideration (see Exhibit"A").
2. The drive aisle that runs between Sav-On and Polar Ice should be shifted easterly (toward
Polar Ice) in order to create a better intersection behind Target, (see Exhibit "B").
3. The pedestrian promenade through the parking lot(between Polar ice and the Theater)shall
include the promenade elements used in the front portion of Town Center (i.e. kiosks,
benches, etc.). In addition, the large parking area shall include the concept of "Drifting"
sycamore (London plane)-through the parking areas as is done in front.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and returned for further
review.
Attachments:
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The Committee recommended approval subject to the following changes being worked out with
staff, prior to Planning Commission:
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 99-40—TARGET CORP.
June 20, 2000
1 Page 3
TARGET Expansion Issues
1/2. The Committee concurred thatthe 40-foot high wall at the rear elevation, and the northwest
corner of the building must be addressed with additional design detail. The applicant
presented an alternate Plan with the second story addition pushed to the east side of the
building. This Plan allows a stepping of the building height from the west elevation. They
also presented a second Plan, which reflected tower feature at the northwest corner of the
building (at the second story level).
The Committee felt that the wall needed features to bring it down to a human scale, such as
trellis. The Committee also expressed concern about the length/height of the rear elevation
and the desire for additional attention to details such as— enlarge the tile medallions,
change the locations and proportions of the building bands along with the height of the
building color change; use attached trellis elements with, or whiteout attached vines, etc.
The Committee preferred the tower detail in combination with some of the ideas discussed
with the architect. The architect can work with staff to adequately address the committees
concerns, prior to proceeding to the Planning Commission.
3/4/6. Include these comments as conditions of approval, or identify on revised plans.
5. The Committee did not approve the use of the Pharmacy sign as proposed. Throughout
Town Center, if a secondary sign was used, it was to identify a second entry into the store,
as noted above. However,the Pharmacy sign may be considered if it were placed near the
second entry. The Committee discouraged the use of two TARGET signs as suggested by
the applicant. The Planning Commission will review the proposed sign placement and make
the final determination.
Master Plan Issues
1. The applicant presented a layout solution to this driveaisle that the Committee found acceptable.
The solution offers a large landscape island at the southerly end of the driveway, similar to the
example provided as Exhibit"A."
2. The applicant discussed with the Committee the various advantages and/or disadvantages
of relocating the driveway as shown on Exhibit"B." The Committee agreed to maintain the
driveway in its present design configuration, with the elimination of 6 parking spaces near
the northwest corner of TARGET so they would not be backing into the intersection.
3. Include as condition of approval.
1 p
L..
1 � _
1 I
III - f:�\` `'•/ // /�� /..� - ..
1
1 .
.3.
ter•.
:Y
r.. (
q.
ri !'�•j..l. ~.lr,i•:�-. ..A :43rc' ..a: .wJ:a �1. •���
D
!SjC!V4M dmgs
14;600 SF ` /fir
+ _
RETAIL
5;200
SF
j
.''REITAIL'
°3,600 40'
oSFo
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Debra Meier June 20, 2000
i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-13— COMMUNITY
BAPTIST CHURCH-A request to develop a temporary Youth Center totaling 4,900 square feet on
4.95 acres of land in the Medium Residential District located at the Community Baptist Church,9090
19th Street, at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street. APN: 201-221-08.
Design Parameters: This item was reviewed by the Commission as a PreApplication Workshop on
March 22, 2000 (PAR 00-05). The Community Baptist Church is an existing campus including a
sanctuary and a 2-story classroom building totaling approximately 26,000 square feet. The entire
site is developed, including landscaping, parking lot with 330 spaces,and street improvements. The
proposed Youth Center is to be located on an existing lawn area immediately north of the classroom
building. The Development Code allows temporary structures for up to five (5) years.
The intent of the Youth Center is to provide additional space to conduct on-going youth programs
that have out-grown the existing space available on-site. The Youth Center will provide a safe,
positive environment for local teens to worship, do homework, receive counseling and tutoring, use
computers, study, and play games.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
1. Consider a material more in the nature of the building materials/colors to screen the AC units,
rather than the redwood fence. Perhaps a wood fence structure that is stucco-coated to
match building color, or taking into account, the size of the units, perhaps shrubbery alone
would be sufficient screening.
2. Provide additional shrub base planting on all sides of the building.
Staff Recommendation: Upon discussion of the above referenced items and any additional
concerns as may be raised by the Committee, staff recommends that these items be placed as
conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit and forwarded to the Commission for full
consideration.
Attachments:
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Members Present: Larry McNeil, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The Committee recommended subject to providing a masonry wall with stucco-coat is used to
screen the air conditioning units in front of the structure and shrub planting around the base of
the entire building.
B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 00-05 — COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - Review of r
conceptual plans for a temporary Youth Center, totaling 4,900 square feet, on 4.96 acres of
land in the Medium Residential District, located at the northwest comer of 19th Street and Beryl
Street-APN: 201-221-08.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the purpose of the Pre-Application Review process.
Rob Acker, Senior Pastor, Community Baptist Church, introduced the group and reviewed the
Church's intent. In attendance were Ed Ringer, Executive Pastor, Senator Brulte, Craig Hutchinson,
and William Fox from the Sprung Structure Company. Pastor Acker said the Church intends to
relocate eventually for more space but in the meantime, the congregation is outgrowing the capacity
of the facilities and a large enclosed space with high ceilings is needed. He explained the
temporary building would be used mostly for teen recreation and mentoring activities. He said the
tensioned structure is proposed instead of attached modular buildings because of the high ceiling
height (useful for recreation) and the flexibility to disassemble and move it to their eventual new
location or sell it. He stated a two-toned color can be used to visually blend the structure with the
existing facilities, existing trees will provide screening and additional landscaping can be provided,
and windows and dormers can provide a greater sense of permanence. He said the structure will
be very hard to see from 19th Street and only visible for a short distance on Beryl Street. Pastor
Acker reported that the church had sent out invitations to all property owners within 400 feet of the
site (about 160 homeowners) for a neighborhood meeting but no one attended; therefore, in his
opinion, the matter does not appear to have neighborhood controversy. He closed by stating that
he is aware that the City is very cautious in approving temporary structures but he felt this structure
is a major improvement over modular type buildings. He thought the structure would not set a
negative precedent due to the unique nature of the church's needs, site orientation, and screening
options.
Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, stated there are unique circumstances faced by the church that
tend towards the proposed solution. He acknowledged that it will be difficult for the church to make
the tensioned structure look like something it's not but said it is equally difficult to make modular
buildings appear as anything other than they are. He noted door pop-outs and window dormers,
as well as trellis structures, can be provided to help convey a sense of permanence. He observed
the church has indicated that the structure can be colored to match the existing facilities. He stated
the building will primarily be visible for southbound drivers on Beryl Street and said he had driven
by the site and found that with existing development and landscaping to the north, the building will
only be visible for a short distance.
Commissioner Stewart said that she'd been invited by the Church to review the proposal. She liked
the two-tone color scheme and felt there should be an emphasis on landscaping along Beryl Street.
She supported the use so long as it can be effectively screened.
Commissioner Mannerino said that he also is in favor of the design. He reported he was also
invited to review the proposal by the church. He thought the integrity of the people involved sets
the proposal apart from other, similar uses. He suggested that something be done to the top of the
building so it doesn't look so "bald" and to break up the skyline.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he visited the site. He felt it is an innovative solution and said he
tends to favor innovation. He thought the tensioned structure, with two tone color scheme and
landscaping, will look better than modular trailers.
PC Adjourned Minutes -3- March 22, 2000
Chairman McNiel indicated he had also met with church representatives and he has no problem
with the proposal. He thought it will be important to color the building to match the existing facilities.
He felt the building will serve the community well. He asked about longevity of the structure.
Pastor Acker indicated that five years would be adequate and said the church intends to relocate
within Rancho Cucamonga.
Brad Buller, City Planner, summarized the Commissioners comments: The next step in the process
will be for the Church to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, window dormers and door pop-outs will
help give a look of permanence, and special attention should be paid to color scheme and
landscaping. Mr. Buller expressed appreciation for how hard the Church worked to get to this point.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Br Iler
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes -4- March 22, 2000
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Sal Salazar/Duane Morita June 20, 2000
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-20— D.R. HORTON- A request to amend the design and building
plans of 79 single-family residences that were previously approved by the City as part of Tentative
Tract Map 15727,which is located west of Archibald Avenue, between 4th and 6th Streets. The 79
lots are distributed throughout the Tentative Tract Map area. APN: 210-451-39 through 42;
210-461-50 through 60; and 210-062-49.
Background: In 1998, the City approved the design and building plans for the homes within
Tentative Tract Map 15727. Tentative Tract Map 15727 comprises 82 acres and was approved as
a 339-lot subdivision. Griffin Homes was the original builder and is currently constructing those
homes approved with the Tentative Tract Map and other design approvals. D.R. Horton, applicant
for this Development Review application, has acquired 79 lots from Griffin Homes for purposes of
constructing single-family residences, but at sizes larger than originally approved in 1998. See
Exhibit "A", which locates the specific lots being acquired by D.R. Horton. D.R. Horton is only
constructing residences on finished pads. The previous builder, Griffin Homes, has or will provide
all perimeter walls, common landscaping, sidewalks, and other on-site and off-site improvements.
Previous design and building plans approved for Griffin Homes included three house plans, each
with four elevation styles. The Plan 1 product included single-story structures, with three to four
bedrooms,two to three bathrooms,two-car garages, and ranged in size from 1,431 to 2,294 square
feet. The Plan 2 product included two-story structures, with three to four bedrooms, two to three
bathrooms, two-car garages, and ranged in size from 1,604 to 2,851 square feet. The Plan 3
product also included two-story structures, with three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms,
three-car garages, and ranged in size from 1,710 to 2,989 square feet. All house plans included
window surrounds and foam, shutters, and corbel treatments. Some elevations also included
synthetic stone veneer. Refer to Exhibit"B"for reductions of approved Griffin Homes'design and
building plans.
Design Parameters: Those D.R. Horton design and building plans being considered with this
Development Review application propose three house plans with three elevation styles. In addition,
alternative window designs affecting shape, actual number of windows, and surrounds are also
being considered. ,
As a comparison, the D.R. Horton plans propose larger homes; none of the Griffin Homes' plans
exceeded 3,000 square feet in size (except for the Piedmont Section). All D.R. Horton homes will
be two-story structures; no single-story homes are being proposed. The Plan 1 product will have
four bedrooms, loft area, three bathrooms,three-car tandem garage, and range in size from 2,575
to 2,660 square feet. Optional features include a den, bonus room, and a larger family room. The
Plan 2 product will have five to six bedrooms, three bathrooms,two-car garage, and range in size
from 2,962 to 3,194 square feet. Optional features include a larger family room, den, loft, extra
bedroom, and third garage. The Plan 3 product will have five bedrooms,three bathrooms,threecar
garage, and range in size from 3,192 to 3,614 square feet. Optional features include a bonus room,
loft, den, and sixth bedroom. Refer to Exhibit "C" for a reduction of D.R. Horton's design and
building plans.
Depending upon the particular plan, light brown stucco exterior walls, with either brown blend
concrete flat the or "S" tile will be provided. Accent features include brown or green blend wood
trim, wood shutters, and stucco recesses. Stone veneer will be provided on certain elevations.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-20 — D.R. HORTON
June 20, 2000
Page 2
Staff finds the amended building plans to be well designed. The elevations are characterized by
strong vertical and horizontal changes. Roof styles include varied hip and gable designs, which
make for interesting elevations. Though three-car garages are being proposed, the garage does
not appear to dominate the front elevations of the various plans. Window surrounds and treatments
are provided for all elevations. Furthermore, the amended Conceptual Site Plan and building
elevations comply with the various setback requirements of theCity's Development Code,except for
proposed
Lot 1, which is discussed in the following section. Refer to Exhibit "D" for a reduction of the
Conceptual Site Plan.
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 Additional Corner Side Yard Setback for Lot 1: The City's Development Code
requires a 10-foot corner side yard setback for corner lots within the Low-Medium Residential
District.The Conceptual Site Plan indicates an insufficient eight-foot corner side yard setback
for Lot 1. An additional two feet of corner side yard setback is required. Refer to Exhibit"E",
which presents Lot 1. The interior side yard setback is currently designed at 10 feet. The
Development Code requires only a five-foot interior side yard setback. Therefore, there is
sufficient area to "move" the proposed residence to ensure compliance with Development
Code setback requirements. Staff has notified the applicant's engineer regarding this issue.
The Conceptual Site Plan will be revised prior to Planning Commission consideration.
2. Provide Shutters for Major Second-Story Windows for Residences Located on Corner Lots
and Residences Backing on 4th Street: In 1998,the City conditioned Griffin Homes to provide
shutters on all major second-story windows that side-on or back-on to streets. This condition
applies to those D.R. Horton lots that either are located on corner lots or back onto 4th Street.
Staff has notified the applicant's architect that additional shutters will be required for these
particular lots. The affected elevations will be revised accordingly, prior to Planning
Commission consideration.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the modifications as recommended above.
Attachments
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Duane Morita
The Committee recommends approval subject to staffs comments and the following'
1. Revise the Conceptual Site Plan to provide additional corner side yard setback for Lot 1. An
additional 2 feet of corner side yard setback is required.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-20 — D.R. HORTON
June 20, 2000
Page 3
2. Revise building plans and elevations to provide shutters for major second-story windows for
residences facing Fourth Street,facing industrial buildings along Archibald Avenue,and facing
Golden Oak Park.
i
l )I
6/h 8TliEET
sHEEr 8 LEGEND
--------- /ND/GTESLOTS
1 I PURCHASE BY O.R. HORTON
1
POPPYRELD COURT 1
i
I 1
or
BROOKV SMOOWBROOK DR.
CT.
a
j
W
BREEZE OR.
HEARTHS/DE
H OO
y
O OLD POST DR- CUTTOA8Y000 Q '�
V ~ ~ U
W E V
Z�l x _ W
h m
� O HOMESTEAD DR �' �� U
T
V �
D
L/VE OAK RI E ti� ARWRaiN DRNE SH
z nT
i 1
I
T SHADOWCROYE MAC
� I
� � 1
0
CLEAWRE COURT SPR/ /L 1 SPR/NC K ORNF
o t
41h BTREET SHEET 4
Q I
N 6
! fiF n_c_e %%i[ g I V'J'VO1�iOL�Sd'J1L'7 O7�2�LY?I _ 2 Z
v blown mm3mrfau Z,
IC
c S;`
YQ : ' ��'Ei= 8Dik118f10N1 Nld�lklO iu a
Vt
�1.4.:i:y r:z�Espy. s� •.yp�` yS.,yg� C � a Nlir -.9 S pg.lr°rah +r€.
M1 ,9q�
iJis4u�`fr?2R�4�iY1;h� 4St6g �ky�Z � �� �gpF$r� ►'. ��r B 6�$�Y�1�3�Yr
�FxOV`s' x sx:.
^r.{,,.,.�..a,s.von._•:��:Rip"l.t:A�RiGRx.^^, �..
dD, A D
= i�1L4-
,�
X00
�'-
w
p p 6
4-.7. Oi
?'' Q
LL
.4
�A
�TM[
l`
..... ..............
T
AL
J
O '
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:50 p.m. Tom Grahn June 20, 2000
MODIFCATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 — THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW
ESTATES, LLC.—A minor revision to the grading plan of Tract 14771, consistingof 40 single-family
homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per
acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north or Ringstem Drive—APN: 1074-511-27 to 31 and
1074-621-1 to 35.
Design Parameters: Tract 14771 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on
November 14, 1990, and received final approval by the City Council on October 15, 1997.
Development Review 98-13 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1998, and
was appealed to the City Council and approved on November 18, 1998.
Conditions of Approval for Tract 14771 require the installation of a channel along the north boundary
of Tract 14771, prior to the removal of the existing levee. The original channel design proposed off
site grading on the property to the north of the channel. The property owner, Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, denied permission to grade on their property. The applicant is
proposing a minor revision to the channel design, which shifts the channel to be on-site. The
revised rectangular concrete channel design is approximately 10 feet wide and 4 feet deep, and is
located approximately 12 feet from the property line. The revised design decreases the area to be
graded and eliminates the need to grade on the adjacent property to the north. The revised channel
design lowered the channel elevation and requires the installation of various retaining walls along
the north side of the channel.The uphill (north)channel wall will also be extended to rebin up to 2.5
feet. A 12-foot wide paved access road will be provided on the south side of channel for
maintenance.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project.
1. Various retaining walls are proposed between the north property line and the north side of the
channel. The retaining walls are a maximum height of 3 feet and range from 50 to 310 feet in
length. In conditions where additional retaining height is needed,a second adjacent 3-foot
high retaining wall is proposed, and is separated by a minimum of 3 feet,to create a terraced
effect consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance. A 6-foot split face block wall is
proposed at the downhill (south)edge of the service road, which will block most of the views
of retaining walls. The retaining walls should be split face block and with appropriate
landscaping to soften their appearance.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the City
Planner for consideration. Under Section 17.02.070(A)(5) of the Development Code, the City
Planner may approve minor revisions or modifications to conceptual gradirrJ plans. Minor revisions
and modifications include grading alterations,which do not change the basic concept, increase the
slope, or building elevations, or change the course of drainage, which could adversely affect
adjacent or surrounding properties.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
This item was continued by Staff to July 6, 2000 meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
JUNE 20, 2000, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary