HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/09/18 - Agenda Packet ACTION
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Lou Munoz Pam Stewart Corky Nicholson
Alternates: Richard Fletcher Frances Howdyshell Ray Wimberly
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Consent items will be heard at 7 p.m.)
No Items Submitted.
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding
their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although
the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:00 p.m.
(Mike S./Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -
DRC2006-00580 - MARK SATER - An application to construct two buildings, a
2,900 square foot gas station convenience store with a carwash tunnel and a
1,800 square foot drive-thru, fast-food restaurant, on a 1.75 acre of land, in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at 12925 Arrow Route (southeast
corner of Arrow Route and Etiwanda Avenue). APNs: 0229-141-11 and 0229-141-
10. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
7:20 p.m.
(Mike S./Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2007-00117 - WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY INC. - A proposal to construct a
98-room hotel in the Industrial Park (IP) District (Subarea 12), located at the west
side of Pittsburgh Drive, north of 4th Street -APN: 0229-341-11.
7:40 p.m.
(Mike S./Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2006-00337 - ELIAS ALFATA (for Bichara Mitri) - A request to build a 3,300
square foot full service car wash on .85 net acres of land in the General Commercial
(GC) District, located at 8517 Grove Avenue. The proposed development involves
removing the majority of the westernmost of the two existing automotive service
buildings; APN: 0207-222-05. Related file: Variance DRC2006-00737.
(Mike S./Cam) VARIANCE DRC2006-00737 - ELIAS ALFATA (for BICHARA MITRI) - A request to
allow the parking lot to reduce the parking setback along Arrow Route, a Major
Arterial street, from the required 30 feet to 20 feet in conjunction with a request to
build a 3,300_square foot full-service car wash on a .85 net acre of land in the
DRC ACTION AGENDA
September 18, 2007
Page 2
General Commercial (GC) District located at 8517 Grove Avenue
-APN: 0207-222-05. Related file: Conditional Use Permit DRC2006-00337.
8:00 p.m.
(Mike S.) SIGN PERMIT DRC2007-00699 - TODD TRAVIS DESIGN - A request to modify an
existing Uniform Sign Program (USP#50) to incorporate new text and design criteria,
and modify an existing monument sign for an existing office complex in the General
Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 3, located at 9007 Arrow Route; APN: 0209-012-19.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The Design Review Committee adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Mike Smith September 18, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00580 -
MARK SATER -An application to construct two buildings, a 2,900 square foot gas station convenience
store with a carwash tunnel and a 1,800 square foot drive-thru, fast-food restaurant on a 1.75 acre of
land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at 12925 Arrow Route (southeast corner of
Arrow Route and Etiwanda Avenue) - APNs: 0229-141-11 and 0229-141-10. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Design Parameters: The proposed commercial center will be located at the southeast corner of
Arrow Route and Etiwanda Avenue on a partially vacant parcel of about 2.07 acres. The project site
consists of two parcels with combined dimensions of about 300 feet (north-south) by 314 feet
(east-west). The site is partially vacant; on the south parcel (about one-third of the overall project site)
there is a single-story building of about 11, 700 square feet. The north parcel is dominated by short
grass. The property is bound on the east by a vacant parcel. To the north across Arrow Route is the
Victoria Woods apartment complex while to the south is an outdoor vehicle and materials storage facility
with a small building. Across the street to the west is Ameron, Inc., a concrete pipe manufacturing and
storage facility. The zoning of the property, the properties to the east and south is General Industrial (GI)
District, Subarea 8 while the property to the west is zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) District, Subarea 15.
The zoning of the property to the north is Medium (M) Residential, Etiwanda Specific Plan, South
Overlay. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about
1158 feet and 1151 feet, respectively.
The applicant proposes a commercial complex consisting of an ARCO AM-PM auto service court gas
station/convenience store, an automated carwash, and a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. The
existing structure will be removed. The gas station/convenience store will situated at the northwest
corner of the site. The restaurant will be located at the southeast corner of the site. The canopy over the
gas pumps will be located along the nort h side of the site. There will be two points of access - one via
Etiwanda Avenue and another via Arrow Route. Forty-eight parking stalls for employees and customers
will be provided. Landscape coverage is 15 percent; the minimum requirement is 12 percent for this
development district.
The proposed buildings will be a conventional type of construction consisting of wood or steel framing.
The exteriors will be finished with stucco in a. palette of four different colors. An additional primary
material will be river rock veneer while a secondary material will be glass panels. Key features at the
convenience store include 'tower' elements with tile roofs, a raised parapet with cornice, and a trellis
element that covers the majority of the drive aisle leading to the automated car wash. Storefront glass is
shown on the east and south elevation of the convenience store but not along the west and north
elevations (the elevation facing the streets). Key features of the restaurant include a 'tower' element with
a tile roof over the entrance, a raised parapet with a cornice element. There will be a trellis-covered
outdoor patio area near the front entrance and trellises over the drive-thru lane. Storefront glass has
been provided on the west elevation of the restaurant but is only sparingly applied on the north and south
elevations; there is no glass on the east elevation (although this is probably an error as the 'pay window'
is on this side).
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
DRC ACTION AGENDA - MARK SATER
September 18, 2007
Page 2
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of the Committee's discussion
regarding this project.
1. The project site is located at the important intersection of Arrow Route and Etiwanda Avenue. Both
streets are classified as "special boulevards" and "major arterials" according to the Development
Code and the General Plan, respectively. The level of traffic and visibility along these streets is
high and is a potential focal point for the City. Therefore, the architecture should be enhanced to
emphasize this importance. Recommendations include the additional application of materials,
greater variation in architectural elements, and emphasis of key features.. Tower elements should
appear to be towers and not simply raised parts of the building.
2. Revise the landscaping (berms, plants, and/or screen walls) to effectively screen the car wash and
the gas pumps.
3. Revise the landscaping (berms, plants, and/or screen walls) at the northwest corner of the project
site to reinforce the importance of the street intersection.
4. Increase the horizontal dimension of the landscaped area (measured from the back of sidewalk to
the parking lot/drive aisle) along Arrow Route as the site currently does not meet the minimum
landscape depth required by the Development Code. It is recommended that you narrow the width
of the drive aisle that is immediately adjacent to the northernmost gas pumps to accommodate this.
5. Eliminate the segment of the drive-thru lane that extends beyond the second row of parking stalls
-OR— close-off the entry closest to the building so that there is only one entry into the drive-thru
lane and the potential for 'wrong' way traffic is eliminated. In this location place additional
landscaping (see attached).
6. Provide a Uniform Sign Program for the Design Review Committee's review and recommendation
prior to the project being scheduled for Planning Commission consideration.
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 the word "Entrance" and "Exit" above the entry and exit of the car wash. These types of
signs should be mounted on the ground (as directional's) and are subject to the City's Sign
Ordinance.
2. Move the trash enclosure from its current location at the south side of the car wash to the east side
of the project site next to the trash enclosure for the restaurant. Combine the trash enclosures into
a larger unit. All trash enclosure shall have roll-up doors per City Standard.
3. Add climbing vines along the perimeter wrought iron fencing.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All ground-mounted equipment, utility boxes including transformers, and back-flow devices shall be
surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on center.
DRC ACTION AGENDA - MARK SATER
September 18, 2007
Page 3
2. All doors (roll-up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the
adjacent wall or glass panel.
3. Wherever river rock is used, it shall be real river rock and not a veneer.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised, as noted above, and
resubmitted for review by the Committee prior to being forwarded to the Planning Commission for review
and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
The applicant revised the project to include the following:
a. Increased landscaping along Arrow Route to comply with the minimum landscape depth required
along Major/Special Arterial Corridors per Section 17.30.040-D.
b. Eliminated one of the entrances to the drive-thru lane as noted above.
C. Re-located the trash enclosure as noted above.
The Committee directed the applicant to revise the application as follows and resubmit the
application for a follow-up review as a regular item:
a. Enhance the tower elements at the northwest corner of the convenience store and at the entrance
to the fast food restaurant. Raise their height and project their 'legs' further out from each
building's respective primary wall plane. Also, embellish the upper portions of the tower to provide
more character.
b. Add glass along the west elevation and northwest corner of the convenience store.
c. Change the proposed roofing material to barrel tile to match the architectural theme.
d. Revise the bases of all column elements so that they are vertical (i.e. eliminate the flared bases).
e. Provide 3' — 4' high planters along the base of the trellis located over the drive aisle leading to the
car wash.
f. Provide intensive landscaping with a 3' high berm and 3' high wall so that the entrance to the
carwash is screened from Etiwanda Avenue.
g. Provide trellises along the east elevation to balance the trellis on the west elevation.
h. No fluorescent lighting or metal on the gas station canopy. The materials/finish used on the main
buildings shall be incorporated into the design of the canopy.
i. The Committee emphasized that the buildings must have "360-degree" architecture and that
revisions to the fast food restaurant shall reflect the revisions to the convenience store.
j. Provide an accurate materials and color board.
DRC ACTION AGENDA -WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, INC.
September 18, 2007
Page 1
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Mike Smith September 18, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00117 - WOODBRIDGE
HOSPITALITY INC. - A proposal to construct a 98-room hotel in the Industrial Park (IP) District
(Subarea 12) at the west side of Pittsburgh Drive, north of 4th Street -APN: 0229-341-11.
Design Parameters: The proposed hotel would be located at the west side of Pittsburgh Avenue near
the west terminus of Mission Vista Drive on a parcel of about 2.10 acres. The project site is almost
square i.e., approximately 308 feet (north-south) by 305 feet (east-west). The site is currently vacant.
The property is surrounded by several hotels. To the west of the property is a Holiday Inn Express, to
the south is a Marriott Town Place Suites, and to the southeast is a Hilton Homewood Suites. To the
north is a California Highway Patrol station. The zoning of the surrounding properties is Industrial Park
(IP) District. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of
about 1051 feet and 1046 feet, respectively.
The applicant proposes to construct a 55' high, four-story hotel with 98 rooms. The proposed building
would have a conventional type of construction consisting of wood framing. The exterior would be
finished with stucco in a palette of four different colors. An additional primary material would be field
stone veneer. The primary entrance would be on the east side of the building. A key feature would be a
central element incorporating a Mission-style fagade flanked by two tower elements that would' be
finished with field stone veneer and topped with a standing seam metal roof, and porte-cochere. The
hotel would be generally symmetrical and would have the same features on the west side. There would
be a generous application of field stone veneer at key intervals along the east and west elevations and
on the entire base of the building (about 9 — 12 feet high). There would be two points of access from
Pittsburgh Avenue. Ninety-eight parking stalls, distributed around the hotel, would be provided as
required by the Development Code. Landscape coverage is 17 percent; the minimum requirement is 15
percent for this development district.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project.
1. The architecture appears to have two design themes. The top of the Mission-style fagade and
barrel tile roof is inconsistent with the rest of design elements such as the metal roof on the porte-
cochere and tower elements, and the field stone veneer.
2. Add a second color to the north and south elevations for contrast.
3. Revise the landscaping (berms, plants, and/or screen walls) at the west side of the project site to
screen the parking lot.
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 trash enclosure shall incorporate some of the materials used on the main buildings including
the field stone veneer. Also, the trash enclosure shall be constructed per City Standard.
DRC ACTION AGENDA -WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, INC.
September 18, 2007
Page 2
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All ground-mounted equipment, utility boxes including transformers, and back-flow devices shall be
surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18" on center.
2. All doors shall match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel.
3. All signs are subject to the City's Sign Ordinance.
4. The minimum horizontal separation between all walls, including the retaining walls along the north
side of the site, shall be 3 feet.
5. The maximum height of all light standards, including the base and measured to the top of the lamp
head, is 15 feet.
6. The minimum dimension for all 'diamond' planters, including the 6-inch concrete curb, is 6 feet.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved, with the noted revisions to be
verified by Staff, and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
.The applicant revised the project to include the following:
a. A revised color scheme on the south and north elevations as noted above.
The Committee directed the applicant to revise the application as follows and resubmit the
application for a follow-up review as a regular item:
a. Eliminate the metal roofing on the porte-cochere and at the top of the 'tower' elements. Use the
same roofing tile used on the rest of the building. Also, the multi-shade pattern of the roof tiles
was not accepted; all tiles shall be the same shade with no variations in color or appearance.
b. Revise the facade of the building so that it is more conventional and matches the architecture of
the rest of the building, i.e. do not use a Mission-style facade.
C. Provide an accurate materials and color board.
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
Members Present: Stewart, Munoz, and Nicholson
DRC ACTION AGENDA -ELIAS ALFATA.
September 18, 2007
Page 1
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Mike Smith September 18, 2007
VARIANCE DRC2006-00737 - ELIAS ALFATA (for BICHARA MITRI) - A request to allow the
parking lot to reduce the parking setback along Arrow Route, a Major Arterial street, from the
required 30 feet to 20 feet in conjunction with a request to build a 3,300 square foot full-service
car wash on a .85 net acre of land in the General Commercial (GC) District located at
8517 Grove Avenue - APN: 0207-222-05. Related file: Conditional Use Permit
DRC2006-00337.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00337
- ELIAS ALFATA (for Bichara Mitri) -A request to build a 3,300 square foot full service car wash
on .85 net acres of land in the General Commercial (GC) District, located at 8517 Grove
Avenue. The proposed development involves removing the majority of the westernmost of the
two existing automotive service buildings - APN: 0207-222-05. Related file: Variance
DRC2006-00737.
Design Parameters: The proposed full service car wash will be located at the southeast corner
of Arrow Route and Grove Avenue on a parcel of about 0.85 acre. The project site has
dimensions of about 216 feet (north-south) by 175 feet (east-west). The site is currently
developed with two buildings; on the east side there is an automotive repair garage with a small
office of about 3,600 square feet while on the west side there is an automotive body repair shop
of about 2,200 square feet. The property is bound on the east by single-family residences. To
the north, across Arrow Route, are additional single-family residences and a liquor store. To the
south is a vacant lot that appears to be in use for outdoor vehicle and materials storage. To the
west, across the street, are single-family residences in the City of Upland. The zoning of the
properties to the east, north, and south is General Commercial (GC) District. The subject
property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1212 feet and
1210 feet, respectively.
The applicant proposes a car wash to replace the existing body shop. The existing automotive
repair garage will remain in place. The two existing points of access - one via Grove Avenue
and the other via Arrow Route —will remain in use. Twenty-five parking stalls for employees and
customers will be provided with an additional 10 along the north side of the site to be used as an
area for drying the vehicles (total 35). Landscape coverage is 15 percent; the minimum
requirement is 15 percent for this development district. Currently, the site is fully paved with
asphalt and there is no landscaping on the,project site.
The proposed building will be a conventional type of construction consisting of wood or steel
framing. The exteriors will be finished with stucco in a palette of three different colors. An
additional primary material will be stack stone veneer while a secondary material will be glass
panels and decorative tiles. Key features include tower elements with tile roofs, a raised
parapet with cornice, and a trellis element that covers the drive aisle where employees will
vacuum cars and prepare the vehicles for the car wash. Storefront glass provided on the east
and south elevation of the convenience store but has not been provided along the west and
north elevations (the elevation facing the streets).
DRC ACTION AGENDA - ELIAS ELFATA
September 18, 2007
Page 2
The applicant proposes to,revise the exterior of the existing repair garage so that it will match
the car wash. Enhancements include new stucco finish, the addition of glass-paneled roll-up
doors to replace the one-piece, overhead door at each garage station, a raised parapet, the
addition of stackstone veneer, and the construction of a `tower' element at the office area.
Furthermore, the existing parking lot will be improved to comply with current City design and
development standards including new paving, stall striping, and landscaping.
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. Revise the north side of the carwash so that there is an overhead canopy, trellis, or
equivalent at the office entrance.
2. Revise the landscaping (berms, plants, and/or screen walls) within the area along Arrow
Route and Grove Avenue to effectively screen the car wash and drying/parking areas.
3. Revise the landscaping (berms, plants, and/or screen walls) at the northwest corner of the
project site to emphasize the importance of the street intersection and enhance this entry
corridor into the City.
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 trash enclosure shall incorporate some of the materials used on the main buildings
including stackstone veneer.
2. Add climbing vines along the perimeter wrought iron fencing.
3. The design, including materials and dimensions, of the entry monument sign at the street
corner shall match the sign shown on page III-214 of the General Plan.
4. All windows and roll-up doors shall be bordered with trim.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All ground-mounted equipment, utility boxes including transformers, and back-flow
devices shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of
18" on center.
2. All doors shall match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel.
3. A Uniform Sign Program shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the
consideration of any signs. All signs are subject to the City's Sign Ordinance.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved, with the noted
revisions to be verified by Staff, and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and
action.
DRC ACTION AGENDA - ELIAS ELFATA
September 18, 2007
Page 3
Design Review Committee Action: The Committee recommends approval of the project to
the Planning Commission with the above-noted revisions incorporated and verified by
Staff. The Committee also requested the following:
a. All trellises shall be constructed of larger timber members, i.e. the dimensions of each
beam should be no less than 4" x 12".
b. At all pedestrian level areas, the trim shall be constructed of concrete — not foam.
C. The beams on the trash enclosure and trellises shall have the same detail cuts.
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
Members Present: Stewart, Munoz, and Nicholson
DRC ACTION AGENDA -TODD TRAVIS DESIGN
September 18, 2007
Page 2
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Mike Smith September 18, 2007
SIGN PERMIT DRC2007-00699 - TODD TRAVIS DESIGN: A request to modify an existing
Uniform Sign Program (USP#50) to incorporate new text and design criteria, and modify an
existing monument sign for an existing office complex in the General Industrial (GI) District,
Subarea 3, located at 9007 Arrow Route; APN: 0209-012-19.
Background: The applicant is proposing to amend an existing uniform sign program. Staff has
reviewed these amendments and deemed them acceptable with one exception. The applicant
proposes exchanging an existing sign (Exhibit A) for a new sign (Exhibit B). Staff reviewed this
request and considered this sign to be a monument siqn. It was determined that it does not
comply with the City's Sign Ordinance, Section 14.20.110 (Exhibit C) that specifies that in
industrial zones a monument sign "may be permitted in lieu of a directory sign to identify the
development." However, the text on the sign can only identify the center where it is located.
Sign copy that includes the name of individual tenants, as is being proposed, is not permitted.
The applicant considers the proposed sign to be a directory sign and should be permitted to list
the tenants because in the same section of the Sign Ordinance (Exhibit C) it states that the
"sign shall list only the address and names of the onsite activities" and "shall be located either
adjacent to the parking area or the main entrance to the development." The applicant has
provided a letter explaining their request (Exhibit D).
Staff has elected to forward the proposal to the Design Review Committee to discuss whether
the proposed sign is a monument sign or a directory sign.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial.
Design Review Committee Action: The Committee agreed with Staff that the proposed sign is
not a directory sign. However, they indicated that the applicant could place a directory sign at
the interior terminus of the drive aisle, adjacent to the building, with Maaco (the tenant that was
to be adding to the monument sign) having the topmost position and largest sign area on it
within the limits permitted by the Sign Ordinance. They also indicated that adding addresses to
the existing monument sign would be acceptable.
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
Members Present: Stewart, Munoz, and Nicholson
14.20.080
cos i
'Dim 8
Ch w
=m �m � mYEN Imo yE m a� c � E CIO
me tm 0 E _mE E € O
E o E� COD - oL a C:E 9 ° m H aim m " 0 U m cc=
O—N V 7 C C N m N m C .1 L > 0 O m m C V
N K .O m p m V-0 C i.m K U L C ° G m CL G y r
2Zmma ac %M- mmE •00a.�°_wgo _9 oW o= `° m
c m E c e ° >9 m m m o�z N y�= c �, mr' ce)
me c- > m;m >.� N9cmc cock E` �G
oaoaoiEy Smnm moo ea om_occLi E= Ea.r�9 � m m
mom Ec mop `m�� c4rm ED o`0 °smcO > � U*) c�
» mw i=`nmo maci3, �cm� E E Eon-°c
E.0 FEZ c m c c --°t'oo o o °.2 CL a� c ►.
CD 3 ° CD 9-5'9 cmm 'i�5 mE m � �.. mo N O
m m m G m N O)L m N.� m C C Cmi m C �' •O O
a � `m c m m��a c �� m�LL E E "D 1=7032 Cc m co
H a0=° m. 0 0 mm mm= - ca;m ,, q �� v. n 0)
b,L
o o�7 O m N m m E ° o_o E m m=m m s m .0 O O m a U
W
N O m N N N O E m L. N Y ° � � 'm x m cm
go � y0om &C coc gO
-
E> =m mm � 0 w 0 s E
_o = m y U �
o� �
(D tL of a e3 ci.a d m m .6 ci = p c
N
_ N-0 E �
m m ca c O
o m> E gE cm o N
m ° m
> O. ° N CO
- d H U* N O)
0 m m m m m m .� .2 m� p m
T
CL E �__ m ego y M 0 ui
CD O r 0.••- n=.`O -a L 9 G CO)
L- 0o p Q m co aD m tp m
_ e °
CL�ZZ� m? Z�`o n a cm- m m cC
v m > cam E E .
-Q cm cm m-1 as' E O
CF) o m..: V m .J G N
CA =� m o M
E.a mw m m 0.92 m V m C) E r cm O om�c � �o � m E E m� �o cj
xr-o alNM ° 01N m Q C LL ` 0 E t0�
m OV4O7N ^Ft� r m a7 m •.0. ..0.. �� 8 c
�W r�r IE m �'
co N O-mm .5 CD 0)
E� o
C c m m o� o CL `o CD E=
N c,m. com gs c m c. m- - ma p
CD coM cogi a Eby 6M cis-0
10 ? m �m omm s mmxa mma°c > crts - ` � mNOCO io
=$ cb 5 o c m m nm� CL CD m O- .. m �o CD
E L yN L as > aoO..O.... m8Q� 50 m cq c � O�
Z m CCD > c c c c_ .r
m m.0.0 m O) m 0.0 m m m o m r% r• m °-+ m O C� t0 ° Q C CO
.a m E o n ` nm nc nC nQ G �' d am C V m m nl-6. nm`N� *"
= X E m m,m m C 0 0(D m� nC. �O m
m o c 0 c con . c c c c m cE m m c E c m m� 3
T CD �ZO�NOe OWN Om O� �NO�emNO mmw= r-
�l
OIm E >
a N E m o •fl
_ m m� ai m ENm
'a o mZ m >� E m� 0 ;�ENC O
o am
�_ 0 o a3
o m o_
'- o mm� cm m cE � o � m E 0c.0 CD:5 0)
NFL m E ca m E.•-o o w e ct.0 m
a y =ca , m
_ � EwE `m co
Cc
W V.
O 0 W -mom 6 - N E a, E r.
N y N E m m m D aC D >. c^
r ..... N v N....� f0 0 ;�F-1-- N Q)
L N y O V 0=0 2•.2 O E m Lq CO
CNI a7 m 0
~ 1)mvo m0c 2 E ymQrCVG7 ,fir
T °
` Ln
N Z• ; uj
EXHIBIT C
T O D D T R A V I S.....,..__._._ .. I ►'-._
s G R O u P
29 August 2007
Design Review Committee
City of Ranch Cucamonga
Civic Center Plaza
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: Letter of Justification, Arrow Business Park
Dear Committee Member,
The project submitted here, for your consideration, is a design for a "Business Directory" type
monument sign to be located at the main entrance of the Arrow Business Park. The project is
located .in the 9000 block of Arrow Route, in the industrial zone. Our project has some history
of visits to the Planning Department counter, which I will briefly discuss. However, the:,.....
primary question is whether our submitted design meets the definition of a "Business
Directory" as described in the City's Sign Code. While the code is somewhat vague with regard
to this sign type, we believe that our proposed design conforms, by the following reasoning:
The code lists three basic categories of business signs for multi-tenant projects in the
industrial zone; wall signs, site directories, and a sub-category, which includes the "Business
Directories" and Monument Signs. The Business Directory and Monument Sign types are
treated almost identically, in the code, as it pertains to placement on the property and scale
of the sign. The only tangible difference between the two is that one sign has tenant names
and the other doesn't. Since the code dictates that only one of these sign types may be used
per property, we infer that the "Business Directory" is intended to function, in part, as the
project monument sign, when used in lieu of one. Furthermore, the Business Directory is
actually allowed to be larger than a Monument Sign, with 36 square feet compared to 24
square feet, to accommodate the additional tenant information. Upon review of the code, you
will find very few restrictions on the design of Business Directories, with no definition as to the
number of businesses displayed, how the information is to be displayed or whether the project
name may be included. Clearly, if we approached the city with a sign design including space
for all the property tenants and a placement location at the front entrance, as allowed by
code, our sign would be approved as a Business Directory. And, if the park only had two
tenants and we submitted same design, our sign would qualify as a Business Directory. So, in
the end, since we are only displaying two tenants on our proposed sign and the code does not
prohibit a partial listing of tenants, we are really discussing the number of tenants that will be
allowed on the sign. We submit that our request for a Business Directory including the project
name and listing space for the two' major anchor tenants is within the reading and intent of
the code.
We believe that our interpretation of this code section is, and has been in the past, shared by
at least some of the planning staff. Before this project ever got off the ground, the agent for
the property, Jennifer Corso, approached the planning counter to discuss the feasibility of the
change to the existing monument sign. She was shown the existing Sign Program for the
property and the city code. She was told that such a sign was allowed and was specifically
directed to the section regarding "Business Directories" and given the information for
submitting. This was a critical factor for a proposed tenant on the project, Maaco Auto
EXHIBIT
Collision. She wanted to make sure that a. sign change was possible, as a lease agreement
was contingent on street visibility. We then proceeded to prepare a preliminary drawing to
show the planning department, just to be safe. When Jennifer brought the drawing to the
planning counter, she was again told that the sign conformed with code, and that it met the
requirements for a Business Directory. In fact, the planning staff member handed her an
application form and hand wrote "Business Directory" right on the application itself.
It.has been four to five. months since our earliest contact with the planning department. A lot
of work has been done and money spent by the tenant in negotiating a lease agreement. It
has been unfortunate, to say the least, that the planning department has recently reversed
it's interpretation of the code and support for our project.
Another incident may also illustrate this same difference of interpretation by planning staff. In
2004, the city approved a sign program for a project located only about 500 feet down the
street from our project, the Meineke Center. They requested and were granted a sign very
similar to our proposed sign, which included three tenant names. This could have been just a
mistake by the planning staff, but I submit that it is likely that the staff member applied the
same interpretation of the code section regarding business directories to approve that sign.
There appears to be some history, with the planning department, of this code interpretation.
Our intent is to re-vitalize the Arrow Business Center, and thereby attracting new businesses
to the city. Part of that process is attracting larger anchor tenants. Our project includes two
larger single tenant buildings, which are located in the rear of the project with no visibility to
the street. Without a visual identity at the street, these tenants are at a severe disadvantage
to other businesses in the area. We believe that our proposed sign is well designed and
provides an aesthetically pleasing solution to this issue. We furthermore believe, based on our
discussion above, that our sign meets the requirements and intent of the code. We
respectfully request your approval of our project. If approved, we will subsequently apply for
a modification to the existing sign program for the project. We appreciate your time to review
our submittal and we would like to provide any additional information that you deem
necessary for the consideration of this submittal.
Sincerely,
Todd Travis