Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/06/20 - Agenda Packetr,'~' • ,. ~ 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 PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS Dan Coleman 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 0430- 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 DEVELOPMENTREVIEW00-18- 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) 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) 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. C~ 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 79single-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) HAVEN VIEW ESTATES LLC. - A minor 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 noncontroversial. Typically, they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED LJ 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 I, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 15, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at~t~~ter prryte, Rancho Cucamonga. ~1~.LV~ ~. ~.-~ 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. Design 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 43 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 file 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 the 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: 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. 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 the 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. The file roofing shown on the elevation shall be mission file as opposed to concrete shake. 8. Increase size and number of decorative file 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). 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. ~J NI i I L i C I. i.._ . _: C :; - ~~ ~, ~:_ .. _. ~:a: _a ~_ ~~ ~~ ~v ~ ~ ~~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 5:30 p.m. Brent Le Count June 20, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND 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 adrive-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. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 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 minimize the 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 amovie-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. 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: 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. 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 • 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. • Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 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 the 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, corisistent 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. Eliminate or smooth out the awkward curve in main eas4west drive aisle between Farmer Boys and Union Bank to avoid potential head-on collisions. 2. Provide low screen wall to enhance screening of drivethru lane. See Carls Jr. at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive, orTexaco/Taco Bell at Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue. 3. Provide ports-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 drivethru 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 the 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. 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. 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: 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. .a ~ a ,_._, . ~'%~« 0 '`, v +~ N W ~ '~3 G 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 afour-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 diligentlywith staffto 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. 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 5foot 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. 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 modif cation 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, asecond-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 modificati~ 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. 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 oftine-of-sight, of the degree of visibility that the second-story addition will have from the parking lot behind Target from Haven Avenue. Use anoverlay to depictthesecond-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 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 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. • u ~.rh~bi~ ,- -.~ ~~ ~- % ~~ ~/Dr~ i- I I I I .. ,. , ,.. , . .. ,.~' p' . ~---~- r --- • • ~xh l~bi-~ ~ i :,~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~- O DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Debra Meier June 20, 2000 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. Desiqn 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: Desiqn 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 • conceptual plans for a temporary You land in the Medium Residential District, Street - APN: 201-221-08. - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH -Review of h Center, totaling 4,900 square feet, on 4.96 acres of located at the northwest comer of 19th Street and Beryl 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 atwo-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 79single-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. Same 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" the 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. C~ 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 afive-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. NORTON 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. • • l 1 / ~ J ~ U ~--/` _ ?Ih BTREET • W J 2 W a t O J m i u e u ~u L ~ ~Xf11,8/T s~" 4 • yQ , 3e;g.. E~©FQ` vo -voxosa-s~r~ ox~xvx Yb8i1®b N108HYM8 9HItl1BflONI NlddltlLl 9ry i, S ; i Y3 fiK 6 '~ ~e 6, "s3 ~' ~€ r ;i u y`g~g yi 9e °a ~", ~~,.;l., c~3 ,y Yr9 ~' e iP, e4 98 ~$e :~eee-i yy r Cg-3 e~.°I° i oy 4gr SE a1 ~'.. f ~} .i. %ii 4= ~ 6e 3~~ > :5 So { u ~R} r ~ HY 61 ~f. W qx ~~fe4~~111 t~~~%~t~~~ o ~ Y` Yt4 ~v(~` % $$ $ ~~ p j SSr r, E f~iEES a~.Y: gCg FSI~~YS SS~&ag ~5~9~n FPY ~ ~ F ~dnR ~Y II I~iYY .2~f:ea PS"i_e,~Y s'Yt~v YC~YY[Pr"L'~ics . _ 4.~.3> L s` ~' } x.. ..1 v~a< ~._ -{ ~= 65 1~a• 6~ 3 ~~e p~fi ••-- I~i}K. tl .. ~~ O f < < OWO J a ~_°¢ W LL < z J a ^i LL e O p SA • 1~ M ~~r8~r 8 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 40single-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. Desiqn 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 retain 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. 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 gradirg 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. Desiqn 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. Respecttully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary • • 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 Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR Dan Coleman John Mannerino 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. •e~> (Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS - The proposed development of fourtwo-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 athree-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. JRC AGENDA June 6, 2000 Page 2 lJ 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 carwash 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 asingle-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 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 1, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section54954.2at10500CivirDr' ,Rl~ucamonga. ~~ ~~ ~~- 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. f, J 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 neaRhe 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 a-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): 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 isno 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 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTANDcONDITIONAL USE PERMIT9953-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 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,`~0 square foot restaurant and athree-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: 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. 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: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view using an architecturallyintegrated 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. 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 I-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,D0 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 facade, 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 facade. 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: Major 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: 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). • 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 aPre-Application Review workshop on developing the site with a service station. The Commission had the following primary concerns: 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. 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 ofthe 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 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. Provide a sidewalk connection from Foothill Boulevard to building entrance. 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. 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 gees, 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 tE 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 Committe' 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. 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. • I-1 U Z W a L : p_'c 0~ k S v~i ~ W ~ `a ~ Z e b `L e ~ F i ' l I F a n [ I I • J I~ €~` ft 16 ~ ~ i ~ w ~ o~ ~ i pQO ;s~ ; r I I I I I I I I I I! I I j ~ ~ } tr (U ,~ f ~ j = aa~ s1; E,t ,<~aaa<q«««a ~ Ewe, ~ r I /!~ ~ i ~_ -- -I J I __- F c ~C = y F C - P ° 91 i I ' I i ~ti ~ m ~ _~_ F i ~~+ t t* ~ }, ¢ `o ~~ ~ g{ ~U d9e 6~e { t ~ ~ I{ iNa /~~~ 'N`3~ r3~ I11. ~~a~ f66 I I ~ o>~^O ~°/r~/ F QdJ-iF ~A6 I~~C}~~~ 61~ fw ~a e ~J i •E , O ~°. /- 3 ' a[ pa ~ - i i ~[ .I e^ u E r 6 !a 3 0 . !a 3 !~ o E ~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ O ei C i ~~ 0 i i i i P :` { ~ 3 p~ ~: 7 ii ~ f~ E 2 x i ~i s iE ^ ~ ~~r I 6 b t p F S : E t~ F~ ~t i ~; i- Y ~~ ~3 e ~¢ O B. PRE-APPLICATION k~VIEW 98-04 -GREG ROBERTS - A requ~to construct a 4,899 square foot Texaco service station, including fast food service, on 1.73 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-061-02. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process. Gil Ficke, Texaco Representative, presented Texaco's intent to construct a service station with fast food (Green Burrito, Cart's Junior, Baskin Robbins) on the site. He indicated that unlike other service station companies, Texaco chooses to be sensitive to the design requirements of the City and is open to suggestions. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, outlined items that would need to be revised to meet applicable development standards. He indicated that staff's primary concerns relate to the proposal for a temporary driveway on Foothill Boulevard given General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan access control policies limiting driveways on Foothill, the potential for unsafe traffic movements given closeness of the driveway to the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, and the undefined nature of just how temporarily the driveway would exist. He also pointed out chat the proposal calls for adrive-thru lane with a 25 foot setback from Etiwanda Avenue, while Planning Commission Drive-Thru Design Policy requires a 45 foot setback. He indicated that provision of heavily landscaped berms and architectural trellis features could adequately mitigate the presence of the drive-thru lane with as little as a 25 foot setback. He concluded with a suggestion that the design include elements akin to the Etiwanda area given the site's gateway function relative to Etiwanda. He thought this could be accomplished through creative use of fieldstone veneer, multi- pane windows, decorative paving, and creative canopy design. Mr. Buller reviewed the mechanics of master planning ultimate access through the parcel(s) to the east. He asked that the applicant clarify the design intent of the canopy over the diesel pumps. ~-' Mr. Ficke said that Texaco intends to serve small trucks, up to the size of bobtail trucks. Commissioner McNiel asked how many diesel pump stations are proposed and about whether or not big-rigs would use the pumps. Mr. Ficke responded that seven stations are proposed. He indicated that the distance between the pumps could accommodate big-rig sized trucks. Commissioner Macias indicated that the design of the berms and landscaping would have to be done properly to screen the drive-thru lane. He was very concerned about big-rig trucks using the diesel pumps and about the potential for on-site conflicts between trucks and cars. He was concerned that 150 feet of separation between the driveway and the intersection would not be sufficient to be safe. He agreed that the architectural design should incorporate features from Etiwanda. Mr. Buller asked the Commissioners to be very clear whether or not they are in favor of semi-truck use of the site. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he was not necessarily concerned with dual use of the operation by trucks and cars but is concerned about how the circulation movements are controlled. From what he could see, he did not feel the proposed site plan adequately provides for truck/car circulation and the avoidance of conflict. He stated that use of berms to screen the drive-thru lane is crucial, that cars in the drive-thru lane should not be visible at all from the streets. He was concemed whether the parking provided would adequately serve the fast food operations. He was concerned about the ultimate off site driveway; how the City would require it and be assured of its ~~~ _ implementation. He didn't care for the design of the wall signs and felt that architectural design should be left up to the Design Review Committee. \~ PC Adjourned Minutes -3- May 13, 1998 Commissioner McNiel was ~ concemed about the level of large trucactivity that would be using ' the diesel pumps. He liked the idea of using berms to screen the drive-thru lane but cautioned the applicant to be aware of the difference in elevation between the site and Foothill Boulevard. He stressed the entry statement is critical, that the architectural design should relate more to the ~' Etiwanda community though he was not sure how this would be accomplished. He was not as concemed with the temporary driveway on Foothill Boulevard since it would be in an area where cars are slowing down rather than accelerating. He wanted some form of guarantee that the temporary driveway would ultimately be replaced with a driveway located further east. Commissioner Bethel indicated chat he would want to see a significant upgrade to the landscaping because he felt what was shown on the site plan is quite sparse. He was concerned about potential conflicts between trucks and cars and said he would prefer that trucks not use the station. He felt that the driveway is proposed to be too close to the intersection and that there would likely be a stacking problem on Foothill Boulevard. He thought the architecture is too boxy, that it should incorporate more features from Etiwanda. He also suggested the use of multi-pane windows. Chairman Barker indicated that he takes issue with activity centers, that the buildings are allowed to be far too close to the street. Putting that concern aside, he said that the proposed design does not appear to provide a quality activity center and that the building should be designed to draw people into the Etiwanda community. He stressed that if river rock is used, it must be natural, real river rock instead of manufactured. He stated that cars in the drive-thru lane should be completely screened from view. He was concerned about the viability of master planning access with the parcel(s) to the east given separate ownership. He agreed with all comments made by other Commissioners and cautioned the applicant to design the building to be crime resistant. He concluded by stating that he is not opposed to development of the site with a service station so long as it is done right. Mr. Buller summarized the Commissioners concerns and comments. He said the service station ,- use is acceptable; the interim driveway on Foothill Boulevard is workable; there is a significant ~,~ concern about incorporating a diesel service that will encourage or allow fueling of large trucks; special attention needs to be paid to master planning ultimate access through the parcels to the east; the site functions as a gateway to Etiwanda and is in a unique location, a unique activity center; the drive-thru lane should not be visible from the streets; and architecture should incorporate more elements from Etiwanda. He indicated that no canopy design was provided but that staff would work with the applicant on the design of one. He told the Commissioners that the development of the parcels to the east would be conditioned to comply with the access master plan developed by the applicant. ' PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ..... ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, •~ _ Brad Buller _ Secretary - PC Adjourned Minutes -4- May 13, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 9:00 p.m. Debra Meier June 6, 2000 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. Desiqn 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 asingle-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. Maior 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 fillrequired 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. Desiqn 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. • 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, sr - d Buller Secretary •