The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001/07/31 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JULY 31, 2001 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 Nancy Fong 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 REVIEWDRC2001-00275 -A.G. ENGINEERING -A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route -APN: 209-021-32. 7:10 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • (DRCCU P99-63) - HALL AN D FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and two pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units peracre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. 7:20 p.m (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01- 01B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. 7:30 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16239-DIVERSIFIED- Arequest tosubdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose ofsingle-family home construction in the Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue -APN: 227-691-01. DRC AGENDA July 31, 2001 Page 2 • 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. 7:40 p.m. (Brent) CUP 99-63 (WAL MART), AND CUP 00-17 (CHEVRON) -Review of the Design Guidelines supplementforan approved Master Planned shopping center consisting of a proposed large retail store (Wal Mart), a Burger King fast food restaurant (approved under Conditional Use Permit 95-25), a proposed Chevron service station with drive- thru carwash, and five other pad buildings on 17.64 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) locate at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue-APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40 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 U CONSENT CALENDAR 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00275 - A.G. ENGINEERING - A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route - APN: 209-021-32. Revisions will be available at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee again directed the applicant to revise the plans as following: Provide medium sandblasted material to the three taller tilt-up panels. Provide a minimum of 3-inch reveal. n f, J CONSENT CALENDAR 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count July 31, 2001 • - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DRCCUP99-63) - HALL AND FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and two pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-05, O6, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The applicant requested that the item be pulled off the agenda to provide additional time for plan revisions. • • CONSENT CALENDAR 7:20 p.m. Doug Fenn July 31, 2001 C~ J ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES -A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. Revisions will be available at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Applicant made the revision per the Committee's direction. U CONSENT CALENDAR • • 7:30 p.m. Emily Wimer July 31, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16239- DIVERSIFIED -A request to subdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose of single-family homeconstruction inthe Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Revisions will be available at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The applicant has revised the plans that addressed all six comments from the July 17th Design Review Committee meeting. The Committee recommended approval of the project, subject to one new revision. Decorative return walls shall be block with a stucco overcoat and painted a complementary color to coincide with the stucco color of the homes. The color will be presented for approval at the Planning Commission hearing. C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count July 31, 2001 VJC rCRlVlll 7.7-OJ 1VVAL IVWRI J, MIVV VVIV VII IVIVAL VJC rCRlVlll VV-I/ IVnCVRVIVJ - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned shopping center consisting of a proposed large retail store (Wal Mart), a Burger King fastfood restaurant (approved under Conditional Use Permit 95-25), a proposed Chevron service station with drive-thru carwash, and five other pad buildings on 17.64 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) locate at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40 Background: The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 95-25 on May 14,1997, for a master planned shopping center. The adequacy of the design guidelines processed with the Conditional Use PermiUmaster plan was a key issue during the Planning Commission's deliberation. The Commission allowed the project to be approved without the guidelines but placed a condition on the approval requiring guidelines to be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I (the Burger King restaurant). In 1998, the applicant submitted a revised set of design guidelines that did not meet with approval by Design Review Committee or Planning Commission. The Commission then issued a condition modification to delay preparation of the design guidelines until prior to Phase II building permits. This would allow the applicant to seek approval of a building permit for the Burger King restaurant (which has not yet occurred) without having to develop an approvable set of design guidelines. The site is now under consideration for a new Wal Mart store and a Chevron service station, which • radically alters the Site Plan. The design guidelines are now intended to satisfy the original Conditional Use Permit 95-25 master plan requirement as well as provide a design framework for review of the Wal Mart and Chevron projects. Previous Design Review Comments: Past design guidelines were reviewed by the Design Review Committee in 1997 and 1998, some of the key Committee comments were: 1. The Design Guidelines should be comprehensive, particularly to include text explaihing how the various architectural styles and amenities relate to each other in the big picture. Page 8 of the guidelines refers to a mixture of Spanish Revival and Winery architectural styles. Beyond that, there is little text or methodology described in the guidelines that pulls the project together into one cohesive development. 2. A stronger sense of unity and greater explanation should be provided to explain how the accent elements will provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness, yet provide variation within the overall theme. The unifying theme should also apply to street furniture and light fixtures. The proposed unifying theme appears to be the mixture of Spanish Revival and Winery architectural styles with some sort of transition between the two. Missing is any significant explanation of how this unity will be achieved. 3. Pad buildings adjacent to the Klusman House should not compete with the scale and style of the building. These buildings should be single-story. The guidelines provide for Spanish Revival architectural style for the new building (Chevron) west of the Klusman House but there is no explanation for how this will be achieved without competing with Klusman. There • is reference to two-story buildings instead of a one-story height limitation. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ, CUP 99-63 WAL MART, CUP 00-17 -CHEVRON July 31, 2001 Page 2 • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: - Architecture -Page 8, "Architectural Design Elements" indicates that the Spanish Revival architectural style of the Klusman House and Winery style consistent with Rancho Cucamonga heritage and surrounding development shall be the architectural styles/themes for development of the site. This approach is consistent with the design intent for this site per the Development Code but the content of the pages 9 thru 14 fail to establish enforceable guidelines for pulling the architectural features together into a cohesive project. These pages contain little more than a compilation of photographs of architectural elements with minimal text or callouts. None of the images have a W inery theme except perhaps the Zendejas and Burger King elevations already approved; however, there is no text that describes why these represent the Winery style. The "Transition area from Wineryto Mediterranean Architecture" sketch on page 10 has no apparent relationship to any of the buildings shown on the Site Plan (Site Plan shows pad buildings, sketch on page 10 shows in-line retail) and there are no callouts describing how the transition occurs or at least noting building features representative of the iwo architectural styles. Similarly, the Zendejas and Burger King approved elevations on pages 10 and 11 have no callouts or accompanying text describing how and why these are expressions of the Winery style. Please note attached Exhibit "A," an excerpt from applicable Development Code design • provisions for development around the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. This information provides an excellent framework and model within which the proposed design guidelines should be compiled. 2. Wal Mart - The Wal Mart building and associated pad buildings are included on the Site Plan in the guidelines but there is no discussion of what design guidelines apply to these buildings or even how the evolving mission themed design currently under review by the Design Review Committee for Wal Mart fits into the context of the proposed guidelines. Likewise, none of the elevations for Wal Mart are included in the guidelines. There should be significant coordination between the Wal Mart design team and the applicant's design team to establish a useable set of cohesive guidelines for the overall project. 3. Landscaping -The landscape design information starting on page 23 does not reference the Spanish Revival or Winery architectural styles though both of these styles have associated landscape themes. Furthermore, there should be discussion of how landscaping will be used to enhance the transition from Spanish Revival to Winery architecture as noted on page 8. There are Palm trees shown on the Site Plan (typical of Spanish Revival theme) but Palms do not appear on the "Plant List" on page 27. The guidelines state that "at least 90 percent of the plants selected in non-turf areas shall be indigenous to the climate of the region;" however, the plant list on page 27 includes many non-native plants. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed guidelines be revised in light of the above comments and any further comments the Committee may have and brought back for further review. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ, CUP 99-63 WAL MART, CUP 00-17 -CHEVRON July 31, 2001 Page 3 • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-63 -WAL MART The applicant requested that the item be pulled off the agenda to provide additional time for plan revisions. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-63. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-17 - GIL RODRIGUEZ Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the Design Guidelines be revised in light of staffs comments with the following additional comments: It is not necessary to follow the Spanish Revival architectural style established by the Klusman House for development of the projects. The winery theme consistent with Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard zoning is appropriate for buildings along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. • 2. Various features from the approved design concept for Wal Mart shall be incorporated into the various pad buildings to achieve a level of visual continuity. 3. The Design Guidelines shall establish a palette of architectural and landscape design features for designers of the various pad buildings to choose from. The Guidelines shall also include design concepts/examples of how the architectural features palette could be expressed for a retail building, drive-thru, and Chevron. 4. The Committee is opposed to the use of red file roofing for buildings within the project. The applicant's representative, Joe Ramos, agreed to revised the Design Guidelines to be consistent with the Committee's direction. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • JULY 31, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING s~ TUESDAY JULY 31, 2001 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 Nancy Fong 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 REVIEWDRC2001-00275 - A.G. ENGINEERING - A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route -APN: 209-021-32. 7:10 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DRCCUP99-63) -HALL AND FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and two pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units peracre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. 7:20 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01- 01B. DRCDDA01-01. DRCDCA01-01. SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. 7:30 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16239-DIVERSIFIED- Arequest tosubdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose ofsingle-family • home construction in the Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue -APN: 227-691-01. • DRC AGENDA July 31, 2001 Page 2 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. 7:40 p.m. (Brent) DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 (RODRIGUEZ), CUP 99-63 (WAL MARTI. AND CUP 00-17 (CHEVRON) -Review of the Design Guidelines supplementforan approved Master Planned shopping centerconsisting of a proposed large retail store (Wal Mart), a Burger King fast food restaurant (approved under Conditional Use Permit 95-25), a proposed Chevron service station with drive- thru carwash, and five other pad buildings on 17.64 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) locate at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue-APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40 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 forthe City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 26, 2001, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Ci`vic~enter D ' Rancho Cucamonga. ~~` • CONSENT CALENDAR • • 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00275 - A.G. ENGINEERING - A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route - APN: 209-021-32. Revisions will be available at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • CONSENT CALENDAR • • 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count July 31, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT fDRCCUP99-63) - HALL AND FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and iwo pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. Desian Review Committee Action Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • CONSENT CALENDAR • • 7:20 p.m. Doug Fenn July 31, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. Revisions will be available at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn n U • • 7:30 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR Emily Wimer subdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose of single Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Revisions will be available at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Emily Wimer July 31, 2001 3-DIVERSIFIED -A request to family home construction in the Plan, located at the northeast n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count July 31, 2001 VJL rLl\IVIII DD-VJ ~YY/'1L IVII"1111 /, I'91YU Ii VIVlJI 11VIV/'YL VJG rGRlVlll VV-II lliflCVf\VIV/ - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned shopping center consisting of a proposed large retail store (Wal Mart), a Burger King fastfood restaurant (approved under Conditional Use Permit 95-25), a proposed Chevron service station with drive-thru carwash, and five other pad buildings on 17.64 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) locate at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40 Background: The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 95-25 on May 14,1997, for a master planned shopping center. The adequacy of the design guidelines processed with the Conditional Use Permit/master plan was a key issue during the Planning Commission's deliberation. The Commission allowed the project to be approved without the guidelines but placed a condition on the approval requiring guidelines to be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits for Phase (the Burger King restaurant). In 1998, the applicant submitted a revised set of design guidelines that did not meet with approval by Design Review Committee or Planning Commission. The Commission then issued a condition modification to delay preparation of the design guidelines until prior to Phase II building permits. This would allow the applicant to seek approval of a building permit for the Burger King restaurant (which has not yet occurred) without having to develop an approvable set of design guidelines. The site is now under consideration for a new Wal Mart store and a Chevron service station, which . radically alters the Site Plan. The design guidelines are now intended to satisfy the original Conditional Use Permit 95-25 master plan requirement as well as provide a design framework for review of the Wal Mart and Chevron projects. Previous Design Review Comments: Past design guidelines were reviewed by the Design Review Committee in 1997 and 1998, some of the key Committee comments were: 1. The Design Guidelines should be comprehensive, particularly to include text explaining how the various architectural styles and amenities relate to each other in the big picture. Page 8 of the guidelines refers to a mixture of Spanish Revival and Winery architectural styles. Beyond that, there is little text or methodology described in the guidelines that pulls the project together into one cohesive development. 2. A stronger sense of unity and greater explanation should be provided to explain how the accent elements will provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness, yet provide variation within the overall theme. The unifying theme should also apply to street furniture and light fixtures. The proposed unifying theme appears to be the mixture of Spanish Revival and Winery architectural styles with some sort of transition between the two. Missing is any significant explanation of how this unity will be achieved. 3. Pad buildings adjacent to the Klusman House should not compete with the scale and style of the building. These buildings should be single-story. The guidelines provide for Spanish Revival architectural style for the new building (Chevron) west of the Klusman House but there is no explanation for how this will be achieved without competing with Klusman. Then= • is reference to two-story buildings instead of a one-story height limitation. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ, CUP 99-63 WAL MART, CUP 00-17 -CHEVRON July 31, 2001 Page 2 • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Architecture -Page 8, "Architectural Design Elements" indicates that the Spanish Revival architectural style of the Klusman House and Winery style consistent with Rancho Cucamonga heritage and surrounding development shall be the architectural styles/themes for development of the site. This approach is consistent with the design intent for this site per the Development Code but the content of the pages 9 thru 14 fail to establish enforceable guidelines for pulling the architectural features together into a cohesive project. These pages contain little more than a compilation of photographs of architectural elements with minimal text or callouts. None of the images have a W inery theme except perhaps the Zendejas and Burger King elevations already approved; however, there is no text that describes why these represent the W inery style. The "Transition area from W inery to Mediterranean Architecture" sketch on page 10 has no apparent relationship to any of the buildings shown on the Site Plan (Site Plan shows pad buildings, sketch on page 10 shows in-line retail) and there are no callouts describing how the transition occurs or at least noting building features representative of the two architectural styles. Similarly, the Zendejas and Burger King approved elevations on pages 10 and 11 have no callouts or accompanying text describing how and why these are expressions of the Winery style. Please note attached Exhibit "A;' an excerpt from applicable Development Code design • provisions for development around the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. This information provides an excellent framework and model within which the proposed design guidelines should be compiled. 2. Wal Mart - The Wal Mart building and associated pad buildings are included on the Site Plan in the guidelines but there is no discussion of what design guidelines apply to these buildings or even how the evolving mission themed design currently under review by the Design Review Committee for Wal Mart fits into the context of the proposed guidelines. Likewise, none of the elevations for Wal Mart are included in the guidelines. There should be significant coordination between the Wal Mart design team and the applicant's design team to establish a useable set of cohesive guidelines for the overall project. 3. Landscaping -The landscape design information starting on page 23 does not reference the Spanish Revival or Winery architectural styles though both of these styles have associated landscape themes. Furthermore, there should be discussion of how landscaping will be used to enhance the transition from Spanish Revival to Winery architecture as noted on page 8. There are Palm trees shown on the Site Plan (typical of Spanish Revival theme) but Palms do not appear on the "Plant List" on page 27. The guidelines state that "at least 90 percent of the plants selected in non-turf areas shall be indigenous to the climate of the region;" however, the plant list on page 27 includes many non-native plants. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed guidelines be revised in light of the above comments and any further comments the Committee may have and brought back for further review. Attachment • Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count Rancho Cucamonga Development Code U Sections 17.31.080 B. Subarea 2. Background: Subarea 2 is the smallest subarea within the Foothill Boulevard District boundary. The Thomas Brothers Winery, which is located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, is one of the few historical structures in the corridor. Research into the regional history of the Cucamonga area has led to the estalilishment of a Rancho Cucamonga Heritage image which reflects the agricultural heritage of the entire region. The activity center in Subarea 2 is located at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The parcels located in this area are currently designated "CC", Community Commercial, and "SC", Specialty Commercial. The remainder of Subarea 2 is composed of relatively new development, completed under pre-Foothill Boulevard zoning. There is very little vacant land within this subarea. The small amount of vacant land which exists is in the activity center at Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. uwoewunuaD /rre ONODYI.TR.L[ wwL+[acTY11u oTU wa-u[[ uNU[nq ,TOO Y1MT Y[N,NL1/ 1CC[// IOIYT/ -. CON/OLIOIT[ i0 OY[ [NTwT. 'l 1 J ri TNOY1[ [wOTpw[ FIM[[V 11/TOIYCNL /wNCMT[CTYML LINOYM[ I{[[MO/CI[CI[.ATION IMRWO OOYIN1Ta{ /TN[[T . N[CO[ LwMD[C~ryNO 0\n~~t r.uwr Mu .L Nw<wTmTUwe• wl-O/[ IOTIYT,NLI IN[{Yq OOIYIIwT[[ [T[[[T [DO[ Y[1YO[wO1O [q(9[y[ ITO w[Y{INI uN[IDNnT owoswo/ ewe. uwe[C{rY[/ ue[s0 IY TNU Mu o to r---- ~ 4 ~ 11 r J, ~ I SUBAREA 2 -DESIGN ANALYSIS MAP 17.32-67 Ib~ ~~ ~ '~O-I~EW~'~ (.gee '~'~cc"~ l1CR/ 11w[NN1 LOT LAM[C1IINO s/ss C~ L/v b o~ ~ ~ o ' --~-' _ SUBAREA 2 -ACTIVITY CENTER MAP Building Siting: The concept for this activity center is to concentrate specialty commercial and community commercial uses at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Building setbacks along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue are to be 25 feet minimum from the ultimate curb line. All off-street parking is to be set back at least 50 feet from the ultimate curb line. Parking lots located between the front property line and major structures are strongly discouraged. In addition, building masses should not have large expanses of parking located between structures. The environment on each of these properties should be conducive to pedestrian movements from major parking areas to commercial establishments. Due to the depths of these properties it is impractical and wasteful to require all buildings to be located on the front setback line. However, all sites should have some building or portions of buildings located on the front (street) setback line; consistent with site development standards for these properties. • Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17.31.080 2. Activity Center Area: The Design Plan for the urban activity center located at Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard will relate to "CC" and "SC" land use designations. 17.32-68 6/99 San Bernardino Road ~J • u Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Comtemporary street light with Formal street tree banner olantina Signal Fountain/water container element Street seating FACADE ARTICULATION Sections 17.32.080 2 story building with planted terraces -retail at street 4. Architectural Imagery: As previously mentioned, the Thomas Brothers Winery is the style determinant in this subarea. The main buildings at the Thomas Brothers Winery do not portray "special" architectural features other than a grape arbor and multiple shed roofs. I nvestigations into the architectural heritage of winery buildings suggests that the structure is representative of the California Barn Style (see sketch). The simple, clean lines of the barn in profile provide an almost unlimited range of architectural expressions. The barn silhouette is universally recognized as a symbol ofthe winery culture and is uniquely suited to serve as the primary architectural protoype for this subarea. Repeated use of building materials, color, and basic architectural elements, can be expanded so that proposed buildings can be designed in harmony with the basic contextual "feel" of the winery. 17.32-69 Restaurant with comer access and awnings 6/99 r1 U Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17.32.080 Red Tile Roof dam Roof Shapes Multi•Planed Roof ~ ~~ ~EzposedRafterTails ' RobfOverHangs ' -~`' Simple SNLto Walls • 5. Landscaoe/Streetscaoe Imaaerv: The concept within the activity center area is to incorporate a formal, regularly spaced street tree planting system utilizing an informally shaped, colorful street tree palette. The trees are to be planed 30 feet on center and are to be placed between 2 to 5 feet inside the property line (see illustrations Section 17.32.050.D). 6. Community Desion Palette: a. Architectural Character Determinant. Thomas Brothers Winery Wall Materials: Textured stucco, smooth stucco Clapboard, board and batten siding Vertical wood siding Brick Cobblestone, river rock, fieldstone Roofs: Gable, hip, or shed roofs Pitch - 3:12 to 6:12 Wood shingle Slate Metal (colored earthtones) Accents: Vine arbors, covered walkways Roof overhangs over entries Multi-lighted windows Porches Exposed rafter tails • 17.32-70 6199 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17.31.080 ® Scale: One to two-story heights with towers, pergolas, campaniles. Colors': White to off-white Beige, sand, warm earth tones Pastels with primary color accents 'These color ranges are examples and only encourage to be utilized. b. Landscape Architectural. Crape Myrtle (primary urban activity node and median species) Honey Locust (secondary urban activity node and median species) London Plane Tree (primary suburban parkway and median species) Carolina Laurel Cherry (major median species) Flowering Plum (secondary suburban parkway and median accent tree) In order to prevent a barren wintertime street scene, street, parkway, and median trees have been selected to avoid a completely deciduous palette. Activity center trees planted in a regimental style shall be at a minimum of 30-inch box size in order to achieve a sufficient height. 7. Land Use Regulations -Subarea 2. a. Primary Function/Location. This subarea is located contiguous to the Foothill Boulevard Corridor between Vineyard and Archibald Avenues. It contains a variety of land use activities, including the Thomas Brothers Winery, which prevails as the Subarea Activity Center. In addition to the public hearing and notification requirements of Section 17.02.110 additional notification of all property owners within the Foothill Boulevard subarea in which the property under review is located is required. b. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses. Refer to Table 17.32.030. 8. Site Development Standards -Subarea 2. General Provisions: Site Development listed in Sections 8b and 8c below relate to land development within the activity center only. Site Development Standards relating to other land use districts within Subarea 2 shall conform to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and the standards listed in Sections 8d and Be below. b. Site Dimensions and Height Limitations: Activity Center Feature Minimum Developable Area Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width 17.32-71 Land Use SC' CC 1 acre 2 acres 1 acre 2 acres 200 feet 200 feet 6/99 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JULY 17, 2001 6:00 P.M. ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 6:10 p.m. • - (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP 00-48 - CRITCHFIELD DEVELOPMENT -The development of a recreational vehicle (RV) and self storage facility consisting of 166,784 square feet of building area on 12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located in the Southern California Edison power line corridor east of the I-15 Freeway, north of 4th Street - APN: 229-321-08 & 9. 6:40 p.m (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00275 - A.G. ENGINEERING - A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route -APN: 209-021-32. 7:10 p.m (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. • DRC AGENDA July 17, 2001 Page 2 7:45 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16239- DIVERSIFIED - A request to subdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. 8:00 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DRCCUP99-63) -HALL AND FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and two pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. 8:35 p.m (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTAND DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT- The detailed review of a master plan fora 2.45 million square foot open air mixed use mall development including retail, office, specialty commercial, restaurant, and entertainment uses as well as approximately 600 multi-family dwelling units on 175 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 227-161-33 and 36, 227-201-33, 35, and 36; 227-171-14; 227-211-7, 28, 30, 39, and 40. Related Files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01. General Plan Amendment 01-02. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Warren Morelion July 17, 2001 Environmental Assessmentand Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP 00-48-Critchfield Development- The development of a recreational vehicle (RV) and self storage facility consisting of 166,784 square feet of building area on 12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located in the Southern California Edison power line corridor east of the I-15 Freeway, north of 4th Street - APN: 229-321-08 & 9. Design Parameters: The 12-acre project site is located within a portion of a Southern California Edison corridor. The site contains three large utility transmission towers. The site is bordered on the west by vacant land and one industrial building. To the east of the site is the Day Creek Channel. Bordering the site to the north is another portion of the Edison corridor that extends north. To the south of the site is the City of Ontario. The applicant is proposing to build a R.V. and self-storage facility. The site will be developed in three phases. The first phase will front 4th Street and extend north approximately 840 linear feet. This phase will include 75,094 square feet of storage building area and a 954 square foot office/caretakers residence. Phase two will be constructed on the north side of Phase one, which will extend the project an additional 600 linear feet to the north. Phase two will include 68,930 square feet of storage building area. Phase three will also extend to the storage facility north. This Phase will include 22,784 square feet of storage building area. Upon completion, the facility will be 1,725 linear feet in length and total 165,830 square feet of storage area. Located in a General Industrial District, the proposed facility is designed to look like industrial • development. The building and screen walls have a smooth tilt-up appearance, though they are prefabricated polymer cement panels that are stuccoed. If approved, this project will be the first of its kind in the City with this type of construction material. The office/caretakers residence will include glass panels in its design. The glass panels will also be used on another building that front's 4th Street. The screen walls proposed will have to be revised so that they totally screen storage areas from 4th Street and the I-15 Freeway to the west. The site will be developed in accordance with Industrial District (Subarea 13) development standards. The project also falls under the 4th Street Beautification Master Plan and will be developed in accordance with its requirements. The utility lines that run along 4th Street are required to be undergrounded as a result of the proposed development. The project will have a one-foot landscape planter along the east property line. There will be also be 5 and 6 foot landscape planters along areas of the west side of the project. The project will have a 24-hour office/caretakers residence on-site. The residence will encompass the second floor of the office building and include atwo-car garage. 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. Although the project is designed with an industrial theme, it should be revised to be more consistent with the City's current Commercial/Industrial Design Guidelines, and it should be more complementary with surrounding industrial development. In particular, the • office/manager's residence is stark and boxy. For example, the Commercial/Industrial Guidelines requires that the project be designed with a minimum of two primary building materials, such as concrete, textured concrete, sand blasted concrete, brick, granite, or similar materials. Spandrel glass is not considered a primary material. The polymer cement material proposed for construction maybe used, provided the applicant show staff and the DRC COMMENTS CUP DRCCUP00-48 - CRITCHFIELD DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 2 Design Review Committee that the material can mimic the smooth look of industrial tilt-up development. However, as mentioned above, a minimum of one more second primary building material will still be needed to be added to the project's final design. The project should also avoid large expanses of blank walls, devoid of any architecture or embellishment by incorporating materials and architectural treatments similar to those used on the building being built to the project's east. The building to the east has, as part of its architectural design, a main entry and two building corners fronting 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue that have tower elements and walls that have a combination of sandblasting, spandrel glass, limestone accents, and different colored paint to give the building more articulation. The warehouse potion of the building is not as embellished with architectural treatments as the main entry and building corners; nevertheless, many of the same materials are used on it giving the project a 360-degree architectural design. Attached are a Site Plan and Elevations of the building to the east. 2. The screen wall along 4th Street, and extended back 200 feet from 4th Street, should be revised for a decorative appearance. A survey of other public storage facilities in town indicates use of enhanced materials, such as sandblasted concrete, split face and fluted block, and other decorative elements, such as pilasters, and metal trellis accents. 3. The screen wall along 4th Street will need to be extended in height to fully screen interior storage buildings from public view. The screen wall should be designed with berming along its base to limit its height to a maximum of 8 feet, as seen from 4th Street. The wall as seen • from inside the project can be above 8 feet. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: To create a more cohesive 4th Street landscape design between Santa Anita Avenue and the I-15 Freeway, the applicant should match the landscape design proposed forthe building currently being built to the project's east side. The landscape design should match both in design and material. See attached example of landscaping. 2. Add additional trees and plant material to the landscape planters along the west side of project 3. Depending on what will be parked in the outdoor storage parking stalls, the screen walls adjacent to them may have to be extended in height. Per City requirements, all vehicle storage areas shall be fully screened from public view. To extend the screen wall height above the maximum height allowed in the district of 8 feet, approval of a variance by the Planning Commission is necessary. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised subject to the above-mentioned conditions and brought back before the Committee for further review. • DRC COMMENTS CUP DRCCUP00-48-CRITCHFIELD DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, John Mannerino, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee reviewed the project and did not recommend approval. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to address the above-mentioned design issues. Specifically, the Committee asked that the applicant revise the project's architecture to be more consistent with the current industrial design standards. The Committee also asked thatthe project be designed around a theme. The Committee was open to construction material, type, provided the materials could meet all building and design standards. The applicant agreed to revise the project's architectural design. The Committee asked that the project come back for further review. C~ LJ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Doug Fenn July 17, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00275 - A.G. ENGINEERING - A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route - APN: 209-021-32. Desion Parameters: The site contains a vacant rectangular shaped parcel on 2.08 acres. There is no significant vegetation on the site and is currently vacant. The site slopes from northeast to southwest at approximately 1 percent. The site is generally surrounded by dated industrial type uses. The building incorporates two primary building materials; however, the proposed sandblasted concrete could be centrally located for better visibility. The office portion of the buildings are well articulated with strong vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane that are carried throughout and on all sides of the buildings. Additionally, the public patio area should be designed to be accessible as possible to the office entryway of the facilitywithout conflicting with on- site traffic maneuvering areas. The color variation of the building is medium stone gray and Baltic blue, and white Frazee, color scheme on a primarily concrete tilt-up facade. There are also panel elements, curvilinear metal seam element along with medium reflective colored glazing, and spandrel glass accents to help create contrast. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Additional sandblasted concrete should be added, preferable on the three concrete vertical tilt-up panels. 2. Landscaping along the north and south sides of the building should be provided (5-foot wide planter). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide pedestrian plaza screen wall minimum 3 feet high, around both outdoor employee- eating areas. 2. Decorative paving at the entrances of off Helms Avenue should be lengthened. 3. Outdoor employee eating area should be accessible to the primary entry area of the building. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: No exterior downspouts shall be visible from the adjacent right-of-ways. 2. Provide tables and chairs for outdoor eating area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommend above. DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2001-00275-A.G. ENGINEERING July 17, 2001 • Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee recommended approval of the project with the condition that the applicant address the two primary issues in the staff report and submit the revised plans for Design Review Committee review as a consent item. • i DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • • 7:10 p.m. Doug Fenn July 17, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. The applicant is working on the project's previous meeting of meeting of July 3, 2001 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The applicant has addressed most of the issues raised at the July 3, 2001 Design Review Committee meeting. The Committee reviewed the revised plans and directed the applicant to continue to work with staff in resolving the remainder issues naming the shortage of 11 parking spaces for the apartment project, the loss of open space at the main plaza in front of the mixed-use building, and several minor technical issues. The Committee asked that revised plans be brought back for their review under consent calendar. n L J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:45 p.m. Emily Wimer July 17, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16239- DIVERSIFIED -A request to subdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Design Parameters: The site is surrounded by residential development to the north and east. To the west is vacant land for a future park and to the south is a developed commercial center. In order to accomplish all aspects of the proposed project the Victoria Community Plan will be amended from Medium and Medium-High Residential to a Low Medium Residential District. This will allow the proposed single-family units at a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to develop 109 single-family lots with four architectural styles, including Spanish, Traditional. French. and Craftsman. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the existing development immediately adjacent to the site. All residential development surrounding the proposed project is zoned Low and Low Medium Residential. The north boundary is the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way, which transitions to Low Residential. Low Medium Residential, currently developed with single-family homes, is located to the east of the proposed project. To the south is a developed neighborhood commercial center, and to the east is vacant for a future park. 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. Substantial variation of front yard setbacks is required. Both Street "E" (on the north side) and Street "D" on both the north and south sides have almost every home plotted with a front yard setback of 20 feet. 2. Provide illustrations, which show upgraded features for corner lots such as wrapped stone, bellybands, and window mullions on all elevations facing public view. 3. Provide upgraded features also for rear elevations along Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide a bellyband trim on two plans on all four sides for further enhancement. 2. Window mullions on "key windows" shall include all the second story windows forfront and side elevations. 3. Stone and brick veneer "option" shall be considered "standard" on all plans. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be • incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Fieldstone veneer shall be natural river rock as opposed to a manufactured product. Other types of stone veneers may be manufactured. DRC COMMENTS TT 16239 -DIVERSIFIED July 17, 2001 . Page 2 All wall visible from or facing a street shall be decorative masonry on both sides. Maximum height of a retaining wall shall not exceed 6 feet high unless a variance is approved. Section 7 of the Conceptual Grading Plan shows a possible 7.5-foot retaining wall. 4. Slope banks 5 feet or greater in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area and 1-gallon shrub for 100 square feet, and appropriate ground cover. 5. Rearyard fencing visible from public streets (at top of slope) shall be decorative masonry on both sides. All porches shall be a minimum of 6 feet in depth. 7. Provide atwo-tone contrast on stucco trim on all elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the above comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee recommended approval of the project, subject to the revisions below: The project will be brought back to Design Review Committee as a consent calendar item. Decorative trim treatment shall be considered "standard" on 80 percent of all elevations. Two of the four plans are required to have a balcony on the rear elevations facing Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue. 3. Submit new layout for the setback variations on D and E Streets. 4. Wrap brick and stone a minimum of 5 feet on the side of the buildings or until the fencing of the property terminates. 5. Return walls (facing public view) are required to be decorative masonry. Illustrate a typical elevation. 6. Two of the four elevations shall incorporate a bellyband on all four sides. n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Brent Le Count July 17, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DRCCUP99-63) - HALL AND FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and two pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. Background: The project has been to several design review meetings to resolve site planning and architectural design issues. At the last meeting on June 19, 2001, the Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staffs comments with the additional comments listed below. The Committee also directed staff to work with the applicant to resolve design issues. The applicant agreed to restudy the design and has met with staff accordingly. 1. The Committee disagreed with staff that some of the architectural features on the building have merit. The overall design should be restudied instead of only making adjustments to features already shown. The goal is to provide high quality architecture that will enhance the community and responds to the visual prominence of the site. Avoid a boxy, "warehouse" like appearance. The revised design relies on enhancement of the exterior ornamentation. The "faux" colonnades previously shown along the west and south elevations have been revised to set approximately 3 feet away from the main building wall. Decorative the work is proposed to further enhance Flat areas on these elevations. The north elevation facing • Foothill Boulevard has a colonnade with curved parapet design above, wall decor, a long trellis, and landscaping. While Lowe's and other large retail buildings have been discussed as examples of high quality architectural design, it is not necessary to replicate the design of these buildings but instead to bring the overall architectural statement up to the same level of quality. The revised design relies heavily on inspiration from the Lowe's building. 3. Incorporate various architectural forms, shapes, and massing to achieve a cohesive sense of design quality rather than tack minor features on to a box-like building. The core of the building remains the same as it is based on Wal Mart's prototypical floor plan layout. The omamentation of the exterior including garden center, entry, and Foothill Boulevard elevation have been slightly upgraded to provide more visual interest. The south and west elevations include more omamentation and maybe of an acceptable level of quality. Staff remains concerned about the mid-portions of the north and east elevations facing Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, respectively. These areas have minimal visual interest other than tiled wall treatment and a trellis, and have a very long unbroken flat parapet roofline. Suggest provision of a Porte-cochere over the customer loading area on the east elevation and extending the colonnade westerly on the north elevation (similar to the colonnade on the south side of fhe main entry on the east side). The long freestanding trellis feature on the north side of the building could still be incorporated into the deep landscape area in front of the colonnade extension. Extension of the colonnade westery may necessitate restudy of the curved parapet feature above to ensure proportion. • 4. The Committee is not in favor of the use of split-face block, either as a wainscoting or any other form of accent material. Prefer use of more traditional materials such as file or fieldstone. Tile insets and wall medallions can be used to enhance elevations. Split-face block has been eliminated and replaced with decorative the work. DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN July 17, 2001 Page 2 5. Provide substantial tree planting to define the main driveway entrance off of Vineyard Avenue. This will likely require enlarging the planters on either side of the driveway. The planters on either side of the driveway are 8 to 10 feet wide and include Palm trees interspersed with ornamental Pear trees and freestanding trellis features. 6. Provide a pergola along the pedestrian pathway linking the bus stop on Vineyard Avenue with the main store entrance. The pathway has a trellis at the east and west ends similarto that used in the Terra Vista shopping center. Provide a focal element at the northeast corner of the building to enhance the entry experience on the Foothill Boulevard driveway. The architectural treatment at the northeast comer of the building has been upgraded. Suggest extending colonnade westerly along the entire north elevation and placing freestanding trellis in front. 8. The store given that the in-line shops shown here are planned to be developed at a later phase. The in-line shops are no longer proposed. The loading dock is proposed to be screened with a curved parapet feature on the front with a trellis covering the dock area and screen walls. The trellis members should be very heavy and substantial. 9. Parking and garden center lighting along the south side of the building will have to be sensitively designed to avoid casting glare on the residences to the south. This can be a • condition of approval. 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 aporte-cochere over the customer loading area on the east (Vineyard Avenue) elevation. The porte-cochere could accommodate a towerfeature above (eliminate/relocate tower shown next to garden center). See attached sketch Exhibit "A." 2. Extend the colonnade all the way along the north-building wall and provide freestanding trellis in front. See attached sketch Exhibit "A." It is unclear why there is a large clear paved area near the northwest corner of the building. This should be replaced with a pathway and landscaping underneath the colonnade. The colonnade covered pathway along the north side of the building will provide enhanced architecture relative to Foothill Boulevard as well as a pedestrian link for customers parking in the northern lot to the building. 3. Restudy the main entrance on the east elevation facing Vineyard Avenue. The wall- mounted vine treillage is less than inviting and poorly defines the entrance. Staff has provided a sketch of a possible revision with arched window and portals. See attached sketch Exhibit "A." Furthermore, extension of the roof westerly over the main part of the building would help integrate the entry feature with the overall building and avoid a tacked on appearance. Wrap corner enhancements fully around corners. • DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN • July 17, 2001 Page 3 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Eliminate faux balcony-like features with metal "xxxx" from colonnades on south and west elevations. 2. Provide intensive use of climbing vines (with appropriate irrigation) to cover unarticulated building walls and freestanding walls. 3. Provide enhanced landscaping and berms along the Vineyard Avenue frontage including specimen sized trees, shrubs, and boulders. 4. Incorporate landscaping and pedestrian amenities along the front (east side) and Foothill Boulevard side (north side) of the building. Limit areas where paving juts directly up against the building walls. This could be accomplished by adding tree wells in strategic locations, seating areas with overhead shade structures, and water features to emphasize architecture. Incorporate more hedge planting in between columns for the garden center colonnade and include vine planting so that shrubs and vines will grow to obscure the wrought iron and merchandise behind as much as possible. • 6. Provide large member trellises along the outside of the garden center to draw the eye away from the merchandise stored inside. Garden center wrought iron fencing should have semi- opaquescreen material attached to the inside face to block views of merchandise inside the center, especially at night when illuminated 7. Avoid having shade structures/fabric visible over the garden center walls from the parking fields or from Vineyard Avenue. This may require raising the height of the garden center walls. 8. Unless cart storage is to be handled inside the building, provide a cart corral along the front of the building with a decorative wall to completely conceal stored carts. 9. Extend the raised medial island in Vineyard Avenue near the southeast corner of the site southerly to preclude left turn movement of trucks into the southeast corner driveway (to prevent truck traffic along the south edge of the site near the residences to the south). 10. Parking lot light standards shall have an ornamental design akin to the Mission architectural style of the building instead of typical industrial/commercial type. 11. Incorporate creative use of landscape and architectural lighting (up lighting, etc.) to enhance the appearance of the overall project at night. 12. Provide color and/or material accents on building corners to add visual interest and detail. 13. Provide a minor entrance to the building/garden center from the parking area at the . southwest corner of the site. There are approximately 86 parking spaces in this area that is very remote (approximately 500 feet) from the main entrance. 14. Provide substantial landscaping including trees, shrubs, and boulders in the large landscaped area at the southwest corner of the site to provide a dense bufferfor residents to the south. This area shall not be used for container storage, even of a temporary duration. DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN • July 17, 2001 Page 4 15. Provide heavy members for all trellises, especially covering the loading dock. 16. Exposed trellis members shall have decorative profile (cash register or similar) instead of simply sawed off. 17. Surround the accents/wainscoting with substantial trim. 18. Provide mutli-colored the accents along the parapets to add visual interest. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All lighting, including parking lot light standards, wall-mounted lighting, garden center lighting, and any security lighting shall be designed to completely shield glare from surrounding residential development and public streets. This is particularly important relative to the condos and apartments south of the site and the Steven's home along Vineyard Avenue. 2. A bus shelter will be required as a condition of approval. The design guidelines that are now pending completion should include provisions for bus shelter design to be compatible with the adjacent buildings. • 3. No outdoor storage, including container storage, shall be permitted. 4. No outdoor display of merchandise shall be permitted. The garden center shall not be considered outdoor display so long as no merchandise is stacked above the height of the surrounding colonnade walls. 5. The letter height for the main wall signs shall not exceed 5 feet consistent with other large retail operations. 6. During the lifetime of the business operation, the operator/owner shall replace any dead or dying landscaping immediately. Parking lot light standards shall not exceed 15 feet overall (including pedestal). The elevations show very high light standards. 8. The perimeter block walls shall be decorative masonry with decorative cap 9. Development of the two pad buildings will be subject to new Development Review or Conditional Use Permit applications. 10. Elevations should be fully dimensioned with full color and material callouts. 11. Eliminate "I Hour Photo," "Pharmacy," "Optical," and "Always" wall sign copy, as these constitute ancillary advertising. It would be permissible to identify the garden center as "Garden Center." • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments, including provision of further detailed information, and brought back for further review. DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN • July 17, 2001 Page 5 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the revised plans and elevations and recommended approval subject to staffs comments with the following additional comments: Finish off rear sides of tower features to avoid a "Hollywood Set" appearance. 2. Provide some form of vertical movement or undulation along the east elevation parapet. 3. The roof the should have more of a brown or terra cotta color to it as opposed to the orange color shown on the colored elevations. 4. Return the curved roof covering the towers back over the main portion of the building to provide a more finished appearance. 5. Consider a gable styled roof/farsade for the entry tower on the east elevation. If the curved roof is to be used it shall project out beyond the walls to provide a substantial overhang. • Provide corbels under the roof to suggest exterior roof supports. 6. It is not necessary to provide a Porte-cochere on the east elevation. 7. For Planning Commission review, provide sighUview analysis for views from the south to assess view impacts upon the Orchard Meadows Condominiums and apartments. This should include 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year projections oftree/plant growth along the south side of the site. 8. The Committee wishes to review revised and more accurate plans for the case on the July 31.2001 Consent Calendar. Jim Puegh, President of the Orchard Meadows Condominiums Homeowners' Association, was in attendance and expressed concern about view impacts of the project relative to the condos. He feels that the mass of the proposed building may overpower the condos. There will be excessive traffic impacts on Vineyard Avenue as a result of change of use for the site from Residential to Commercial. The Stevens home site to remain on Vineyard Avenue will have an island like appearance. There will be sound and glare impacts from the project on the condos. Tim Baker, resident of the Orchard Meadows Condominiums expressed concern about the small size of the trees along the south side of the project. If these trees are to act as a buffer, they should be increased in size well above 24-inch box. They should be "specimen" sized trees. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:35 p.m. Brent Le Count July 17, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT-The detailed review of a master plan fora 2.45 million square foot open air mixed use mall development including retail, office, specialty commercial, restaurant, and entertainment uses as well as approximately 600 multi-family dwelling units on 175 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south -APN: 227-161-33 and 36, 227-201-33, 35, and 36; 227-171-14; 227-211-7, 28, 30, 39, and 40. Related Files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, General Plan Amendment 01-02. This Master Plan establishes development standards, design standards, development/design review process, phasing, and ultimate build out character for the mall. This meeting is intended to introduce the project to the Design Review Committee and begin preliminary design discussions. The Victoria Gardens Mall is intended to be a mixed-use center (retail, high density residential, civic, culture, open space, and office uses) within the heart of the "Victoria Arbors" community. It is designed as an open-air mall with an urban setting (zero front and side setbacks, parking on the street, outdoor dining, streets/corridors defined by building edges as opposed to rolling landscaped berms and large parking lots). The internal streets would all be private with reduced width. The development will be phased with Phase I including the majority of surrounding infrastructure serving the mall and a major portion of the mall gross leasable area. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Review Process: The development review process for the project is intended to be as fast as possible. To that end, it has been suggested that the City Planner eventually handle design review. A development proposal that does not meet design criteria of the Master Plan would be referred to the Design Review Committee for review and recommendation. The Committee may wish to discuss when, during the overall review process, a level of comfort might be reached to allow for an abbreviated process. See page 109. Tra nsgortation/Parki ng: A majority of the parking is remotely located along the periphery of the mall similar to Ontario Mills. Some form of shuttle system would help to bring customers into the central areas of the mall. A connection to the public transit system for the surrounding community would also be beneficial. 2. Angled parking spaces along the internal streets seem more user friendly and would not block traffic as much as parallel spaces. 3. A 10-foot wide sidewalk may not be sufficient, given shop doors opening onto sidewalk and provisions for outdoor dining. The Brea downtown mall has similar sidewalk dimensions and site visits indicate this to be relatively tight, especially when signage, street furniture, and • various outdoor displays are present. Outdoor dining areas should not encroach into the minimum sidewalk dimension. See street sections starting on page 78. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 2 Landscaping: The use of Palm trees, Eucalyptus trees, and Pepper trees make sense because they relate to the Rancho Cucamonga heritage and landscape vernacular. The Rancho heritage theme should be continued down to the street level, including trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Explore the use of shrubs or ground covers, or other plant types that have natural colors similar to the grape/wine types used for the street names that could further enhance streeUcommunity identity. See Landscape Plan, page 21. 2. Explore the use of specialized landscaping along the I-15 Freeway to screen large parking areas and act as visual "draw" to project. Landscaping can be designed to frame'Yuindows" into the mall as viewed from the I-15 Freeway accentuating key elements. Building Height: 1. The maximum building height is proposed to be as high as 70 feet. This would allow a five-story building. This height is also proposed to be allowed along Foothill Boulevard. Perhaps higher buildings/features should be located towards the center of the project to draw the distant view (such as from the I-15 Freeway or Foothill Boulevard) into the development. Otherwise, tall buildings on the periphery (where majors are proposed) will block views into the site. Perhaps building height limitations could be based upon building/lease type-office, major, department store, 15,000 square foot lease and smaller, • etc. Perhaps only towers and other architectural features should be allowed as high as 70 feet. Building height should be considered in relation to the grade difference of the site (approximately 65 feet of fall from north to south). See Development Standards, page 89. 2. Project ID signs, communication equipment, and two "signature" buildings are proposed to be as tall as 90 feet. Suggest limiting tall pylon type signs to one sign with freeway exposure, requiring all wireless communication facilities to be stealth type located on or within buildings or on pylon sign, and allowing a specific number of "signature" buildings to be 70 feet tall with the remainder much lower. Signs (see Signape, starting on page 45): Roof signs are a concern; they often appear tacked on as opposed to an integral building component as the Master Plan photo examples show. How will wind loads be handled? Suggest mounting signs to a bridge connecting second floors of buildings across the street from one another. This would achieve the grand elevated statement sought through roof- mounted signs. 2. Provide stronger definition of periphery/edge of mall site, including monumentation for corners of site and main entrances off public streets. Monumentation related to the mall should be provided at intersections of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, Day Creek Lane and Foothill Boulevard, and Foothill Boulevard and Shiraz Street. 3. Avoid exposed neon for large signs. The Sign Ordinance prohibits exposed neon; signs must have covering, such as clear Plexiglas. Visually exposed neon has traditionally been • discouraged in the community. The Committee may wish to discuss use of neon in limited areas for accent and when the sign can be well incorporated with the building design. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 3 4. Do not rely on "Sponsored Murals" to decorate large blank building walls. How will large blank walls be treated in the interim? Consider a graffiti wall or similar area for non- professional large-scale art. Anti-graffiti coatings may be necessary throughout the project to aid graffiti removal. 5. Suggest computerized information kiosks throughout the project to help patrons navigate the large area. The kiosks could also provide advertising and notification for upcoming special' events. General Design: The term "development grain" refers to the appearance of organic small lot development that occurred over time. Clarify how the small parcel "grain" appearance will be accomplished (per page 32-33), given that the project will be built at one time. • 2. Increase emphases on site-specific/Cucamonga-specific heritage and history, especially wine making. A good example is the Masi project historic wine walk. The development scheme should answer the question, "why is the project named Victoria Gardens?" 3. Provide water features; public art: statues; agricultural heritage features such as windmills, smudge pots, wagon wheels, etc; and cornerstones. Waterfalls could be designed following grade changes in the paseos. 4. Page 100 indicates that no two adjacent buildings shall have the same appearance, same color or material, but there is no discussion about how to blend one building with the next or develop overall project cohesiveness. NOT SURE THEY WANT TO "BLEND" Consider the use of common architectural features (awnings, wall-mounted lights, metal work, the work, cornices, colors, shapes) to tie the buildings together. Consistent use of street furniture - tables, chairs, benches, trash receptacles, streetlights, bollards, low-level lighting, etc., can also foster visual continuity. 5. Roof equipment screening should include discussion of specially designed architectural roof equipment, if possible. Residential buildings in the northern area could have steps down along the south side to accommodate grade and to have row house appearance. Climate Control should include ways to control wind (such as building orientation, screens, double door foyers, avoidance of Venturi effect, etc), heat (water misters and shade at key locations for rest and recuperation), cold (gas heaters), and rain. `I 8. Suggest use of traditional building materials such as wood, Spanish tile, fieldstone, and brick (maybe used brick). Use pedestrian friendly colors, materials, textures; shapes at street level/wainscoting (such as brick instead of split faced block, use of earth tone colors). 9. Provide sensitive transition from parking lots/structures to pedestrian aspects of mall and avoid conflicts with auto circulation. Provide enhanced entry "portals" linking tucked behind parking to Main Street. Avoid alley like appearance. 10. Treatment of alleys and loading areas should acknowledge 360-degree architecture. Avoid having loading and trash areas conflict with pedestrian/customer traffic. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 4 11. Provide for interim construction fencing. For instance, Fashion Island mall in Newport Beach has generic storefront looking construction fencing as opposed to plain chain link or plywood fencing. Similarly, suggest specialized treatment for vacant storefronts to block views into unfinished shops from the street. 12. Light fixtures shall integral with the architectural design as opposed to ordinary tacked on shoebax type. 13. Window size and location should be responsive to mountain views, especially second-story or higher windows. 14. Screen ground-mounted equipment with low walls. Best to congregate equipment, trash, etc., into service areas surrounded by decorative walls. 15. Suggest designating specific areas within the project for street kiosk type businesses to avoid the potential of having these businesses block main pedestrian walkways. 16. Include provisions for handling special events that require street closure. 17. Use string lights to emphasize unique building, structure, and landscape shapes. 18. Use decorative paving to define pedestrian circulation and parking spaces (textured/colored • paving for cross walks, parking spaces) 19. Provide a buffer (noise, light, night time activity) between retail, civic, parking and residential uses. Page 24 indicates, "Many living areas are within 100 feet of retail shops." Staff Recommendation: The Design Review Committee may wish to direct the applicant to incorporate the above comments into a revised Master Plan document for further, more detailed Design Review in mid-August. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count Staff introduced the project to the Committee and reviewed recommended items of discussion. The Committee had the following comments: Compact Parking: The Committee is opposed to the inclusion of compact parking spaces. It is felt that reduced parking space size will lead to difficulties for patrons of the mall including limited car door swing open area, overhang of vehicles into travel/fire lanes, and difficult pull-in/pull-out movements. Forest City agreed to provide sparking/traffic circulation analysis to demonstrate whether reduced parking numbers and space dimensions function in large, urban themed malls such as Victoria • Gardens. Internal pedestrian and vehicle circulation will also be addressed in response to Committee concerns that an overwhelming number of patrons will be drawn to internal streets for parking. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 5 Parkino: The Committee wishes to see as much angled parking along internal mall streets as possible as opposed to parallel parking spaces. While parallel spaces allow for reduced pavement widths and therefore more room for leasable building area, angled spaces are far easier to use and would cause fewer traffic blockages. The Committee asked why so much of the parking is located around the periphery of the mall. Forest City indicated that the intent is to foster a dense downtown feel so parking is pulled out of the core area as much as possible. Also, the large periphery parking fields serve the large anchor tenants. The project is designed so that there is parking within 400 feet of any given shop. Pedestrian Connections: The Committee wishes to see a strong pedestrian connection to the rest of the Victoria Arbors community, especially the Fillipi Winery to the north. Desion Review Process: The Committee recognizes the need for accelerated design review processing of buildings within the mall. It is difficult at this time to ascertain exactly when in the process the Committee will acquire enough comfort level to allow City Planner-only review of projects. Certainly Phase I of the mall should be reviewed by the Committee, further reviews beyond Phase I may be acceptable for City Planner-only review depending upon the track record established by Phase I. Landscaping: Explore the potential for involvement and cooperation with the Filipi Winery to • establish a strong sense of wine/grape growing heritage in the landscape. Consider including a demonstration garden where various plants and trees, etc., are labeled and their significance to the area outlined. Drive-thru Activities: The Committee is opposed to allowing drive-thru uses along Day Creek Boulevard. Day Creek Boulevard, functions as a gateway to the residential areas to the north. Drive-thrus would be inappropriate for the public view "window" into the rest of the mall from Day Creek Boulevard. Including drive-thrus along this stretch of Day Creek Boulevard could result in a "restaurant row" phenomenon thereby setting a precedent for development of drive-thrus on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard. The Foothill Boulevard frontage of the mall site is more appropriate for drive-thru uses given the existing drive-thrus on Foothill Boulevard, the "Route 66" drive-thru heritage theme, and proximity to the I-15 Freeway. Special criteria will be necessary for drive-thru uses to guarantee high quality development consistent with the new downtown theme of the mall. Roof Signs/Icons: The Committee is in favor of tall, well-designed icons that can be seen from the I-15 Freeway and surrounding streets. This includes tastefully designed roof-mounted signs such as the photograph of the "Ghirardelli" sign in the draft Master Plan document. The Committee is open to a variety of different types of signs so long as a festive environment is fostered and clutter minimized. The Committee encourages the developer and staff to "think outside the box" relative to sign design so long as dangerous precedents aren't set for the rest of the City. Architecture/Exterior Buildino Materials: There should be a significant variety of different building materials utilized in the project. The design of Ontario Mills mall is not what is hoped for with the • Victoria Gardens Mall. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 6 It is recognized that certain major tenants will seek "signature" architecture so it is critical that the Master Plan establish enforceable design guidelines to ensure high quality development consistent with the rest of the mall. Forest City indicated that they intend to select at least four architects in addition to Field Paoli to design the various buildings within the project to ensure the appearance of organic growth over time. Furthermore, Forest City will have it's own internal architectural review/screening process that projects will be subject to before being brought to the City for review. Plans may even have a stamp of approval from Forest City before submitted to the City. Residential/Commercial Interface: It is critical that the higher intensity commercial development activity be buffered relative to the multi-family development and single-family development to the north. The Committee expressed concern about the large major tenant building shown in the northeast corner of the master plan area. This building is located very close to residential to the west and north and seems out of place. Forest City agreed, indicating they have their own reservations about such a large building in this location. This will be further studied. Height Limits: The Committee is concerned that 70-foot to 90-foot high buildings may overwhelm the pedestrian friendly atmosphere intended for the mall. Such a high overall height limit may negate the affect of higher visual icons that would be visible from the I-15 Freeway and surrounding streets. The Committee requested that the Master Plan include criteria for sensitive areas where building heights would be limited. • Further review of the Master Plan by the Design Review Committee will be undertaken when staff determines necessity. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to resolve detailed design issues. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • JULY 17, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,. - Brad Buller Secretary i • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JULY 17. 2001 6:00 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 Nancy Fong 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. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public . testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 6:10 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP 00-48 - CRITCHFIELD DEVELOPMENT -The development of a recreational vehicle (RV) and self storage facility consisting of 166,784 square feet of building area on 12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located in the Southern California Edison power line corridor east of the I-15 Freeway, north of 4th Street - APN: 229-321-08 & 9. 6:40 p.m (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00275 - A.G. ENGINEERING - A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route -APN: 209-021-32. 7:10 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPAN IES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest • corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. • DRC AGENDA July 17, 2001 Page 2 7:45 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16239- DIVERSIFIED - A request to subdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. 8:00 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DRCCUP99-63) -HALL AND FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and two pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 207-211-05, 06,12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. 8:35 p.m. . (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTAND DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT -The detailed review of a master plan fora 2.45 million square foot open air mixed use mall development including retail, office, specialty commercial, restaurant, and entertainment uses as well as approximately 600 multi-family dwelling units on 175 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 227-161-33 and 36, 227-201-33, 35, and 36; 227-171-14; 227-211-7, 28, 30, 39, and 40. Related Files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01. General Plan Amendment 01-02. 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 July 12, 2001, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting perGovemment Code Section 54954.2 a-t~1,0.5^00 Civic enter e, Rancho Cucamonga. . r /_ Imo, DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Warren Morelion July 17, 2001 • o ivu ciuncmo~r+aacaan icrn anu vunwuciia~vx rcn nn v~wvvr vc~c-vnwnucwvcvc,vynicni- The development of a recreational vehicle (RV) and self storage facility consisting of 166,784 square feet of building area on 12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located in the Southern California Edison power line corridor east of the I-15 Freeway, north of 4th Street - APN: 229-321-08 & 9. Desion Parameters: The 12-acre project site is located within a portion of a Southern California Edison corridor. The site contains three large utility transmission towers. The site is bordered on the west by vacant land and one industrial building. To the east of the site is the Day Creek Channel. Bordering the site to the north is another portion of the Edison corridor that extends north. To the south of the site is the City of Ontario. The applicant is proposing to build a R.V. and self-storage facility. The site will be developed in three phases. The first phase will front 4th Street and extend north approximately 840 linear feet. This phase will include 75,094 square feet of storage building area and a 954 square foot office/caretakers residence. Phase two will be constructed on the north side of Phase one, which will extend the project an additional 600 linear feet to the north. Phase two will include 68,930 square feet of storage building area. Phase three will also extend to the storage facility north. This Phase will include 22,784 square feet of storage building area. Upon completion, the facility will be 1,725 linear feet in length and total 165,830 square feet of storage area. Located in a General Industrial District, the proposed facility is designed to look like industrial development. The building and screen walls have a smooth tilt-up appearance, though they are prefabricated polymer cement panels that are stuccoed. If approved, this project will be the first of its kind in the City with this type of construction material. The office/caretakers residence will include glass panels in its design. The glass panels will also be used on another building that front's 4th Street. The screen walls proposed will have to be revised so that they totally screen storage areas from 4th Street and the I-15 Freeway to the west. The site will be developed in accordance with Industrial District (Subarea 13) development standards. The project also falls under the 4th Street Beautification Master Plan and will be developed in accordance with its requirements. The utility lines that run along 4th Street are required to be undergrounded as a result of the proposed development. The project will have a one-foot landscape planter along the east property line. There will be also be 5 and 6 foot landscape planters along areas of the west side of the project. The project will have a 24-hour office/caretakers residence on-site. The residence will encompass the second floor of the office building and include atwo-car garage. 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. Although the project is designed with an industrial theme, it should be revised to be more consistent with the City's current Commercial/Industrial Design Guidelines, and it should be more complementary with surrounding industrial development. In particular, the • office/manager's residence is stark and boxy. For example, the Commercial/Industrial Guidelines requires that the project be designed with a minimum of two primary building materials, such as concrete, textured concrete, sand blasted concrete, brick, granite, or similar materials. Spandrel glass is not considered a primary material. The polymer cement material proposed for construction maybe used, provided the applicant show staff and the DRC COMMENTS CUP DRCCUP00-48-CRITCHFIELD DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 2 Design Review Committee that the material can mimic the smooth look of industrial tilt-up develdpment. However, as mentioned above, a minimum of one more second primary building material will still be needed to be added to the project's final design. The project should also avoid large expanses of blank walls, devoid of any architecture orembellishment by incorporating materials and architectural treatments similar to those used on the building being built to the project's east. The building to the east has, as part of its architectural design, a main entry and two building corners fronting 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue that have tower elements and walls that have a combination of sandblasting, spandrel glass, limestone accents, and different colored paint to give the building more articulation. The warehouse potion of the building is not as embellished with architectural treatments as the main entry and building corners; nevertheless, many of the same materials are used on it giving the project a 360-degree architectural design. Attached are a Site Plan and Elevations of the building to the east. 2. The screen wall along 4th Street, and extended back 200 feet from 4th Street, should be revised for a decorative appearance. A survey of other public storage facilities in town indicates use of enhanced materials, such as sandblasted concrete, split face and fluted block, and other decorative elements, such as pilasters, and metal trellis accents. 3. The screen wall along 4th Street will need to be extended in height to fully screen interior storage buildings from public view. The screen wall should be designed with berming along its base to limit its height to a maximum of 8 feet, as seen from 4th Street. The wall as seen • from inside the project can be above 8 feet. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: To create a more cohesive 4th Street landscape design between Santa Anita Avenue and the I-15 Freeway, the applicant should match the landscape design proposed forthe building currently being built to the project's east side. The landscape design should match both in design and material. See attached example of landscaping. 2. Add additional trees and plant material to the landscape planters along the west side of project 3. Depending on what will be parked in the outdoor storage parking stalls, the screen walls adjacent to them may have to be extended in height. Per City requirements, all vehicle storage areas shall be fully screened from public view. To extend the screen wall height above the maximum height allowed in the district of 8 feet, approval of a variance by the Planning Commission is necessary. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised subject to the above-mentioned conditions and brought back before the Committee for further review. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion n L LJ! ..-° -- _~. _ ~ ~ -3~`d VlINd `d1NdS •j r[ ~.~ N 3,fL,Y 400 {7i,.{{ IY.111 ~ _ YI ~ ~ ~ v 3M]S~j`~ i ~~ ~~ ~i i --~- ~- • . . ~~o --i __~_~--.--t -T- Vi I - I r----~-----~---- i yy ` _ ~_'~~ G~ Q au~i-~-~B -_ LL w H I~ ~ U' ~ °u u ei Q? mm ~ Wm~~i g~ ~ ~_~ m 3 I ~ --- Y ~ I I Y yiy, Ks i 1 3.O1,LLOON.S~ 60f ~~~yCFFIF~ it G" ~~~f-eY»S c~ R~ V ~~ a - E` J' 8 d. ~ o F- i ~ W~ O ~~ O ~ y ~~ ~ W w - `, _" I O~ 'I 1 w `]2 C~ a r--~ C~ r tla , ~ { i i ~ ( ~~ ~ i 1 !- it Q! W~i ~ ,I ... <.... :....unll l 1 ull _ _... 1 ~ . , , ~ ~ ~ d ~ O ~ tl ~ x~ atl6 Z < Q Q O w ..... ... . . I ~;~ w ~~/x y .~ , ~ w ~ ~ ' O I~g',~( ! Y ~ F- ~ '; f ' :YY //r // Y/ I ~ ;; ~ ~ O i ~ /~ ! ~~' I !1 11 L , "Y»~.' E< A 1 , . . ~ / ~. ~% r m f `: ~ ~ ' s : Wi, ~ liif vF ~ fil • ~ ~ ~/ . .. '• i ''f {. ~, ~ 1 r e o ~+ y y i J ~ i y g l ~ { `_ 's ..; E { i :.. s j~t t /~ ~. .,. s E 11 ,:.:, ,... ,. . . ~ .....~.. .. • 1 ,i E { lu ~ i , ' . • .~ .[..., i E .. ...~.... . x ...~ ~... h ~ '' :..,~ li .,. ~•' GG . , b „ . ;il ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 'v,. ai„ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ „ ' , ~ i .. f v.. ~h /. i [ ~ e. ~ .~; u" ~; .w ~. r ~y y„~ .,, f ' ii tl~ ~ C,rh~ ~- ~ L ~, ~ ~ 3 i ~ • F a ~~ ~ y, ~ i ~ ~ ` 1 ~ ~ I l 1 1 ; 1 • ~ ~ ii I ~~~ •~----'~--~ ~~-1111111 ! 1 I I f - ~ - ' ~' ~' - - e ~i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ,~i, roe ,~ i $ h .• z s z ~ O z O O / _ L r ~ 5 ~% f L r ~ I , ~ , / ~ Q 5 ~ \i ~ S / Q J W ~ ~ ~ W j , ,,, " ~ ,'', i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~" ~ ,, l ~ ~ ~~ l ? I z j z .,. ,. ,, ! I O ill : s~ . s .N < s ~ ! ~ s ~ ~ i i• A j f £ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ,~ ~ ~ _ ~~ i s :~ . ~ 3 £ I t ~ f ~~ 1 • R ~ i ~~ i 5 ~ ~ ~ % f 1 ~y £ % f ~ ~ £ Y~f• ~ ~ £ y ~ ~%% i ' 9 ~ I u q. , ( ~' S ' ~~!5 :"' $£ 5 \ 9 u I • ~ S 3 3 3 ^; v q~/~ ~~:. n t 1 ~ F i 5 5s 1 13 i y ~ ~i ' ~ • ~ ~ ? i i ' ~ 3 ° ... ~ ~' 'may ~ i% %; ~ ~ ~ . s ~~."~". ' ~ i i'~~ ~if{ ~ i } ~ ~ i ; 3 t a iui: ~ } 3 ' Q ~' ~ § a ". i ~ n :i „ / ' S~~ ~ _ :I f: e: : u i i ~~ ~: ~ yh % I L% / • ~ i , 1 1 {{ 1 I ~/ i ~ . I W L, ~~ ~` i L ~. . i, f I I I,I • • ~ i I iI}~ i. ~t I ~,' • Ilr ilt ~I ~-IRI r • ~ I L + ,I"li. ~ ~ C I• ~ STREET EES A NCE ~I I;, REFER T STR PROV • II'ti ~ ~ I FOR AC AL PL NT -- ~' I . ~ ~~ ~. ?' ~~. I• SIDEWALK 1 ~!' I i •11L I • i VJ B I'~ M I. C ,Tc~~ DRA:.`.' 'Af ~~ ,i FND 1~ IP W/PP J i ~ W ENTRY MDPAIMENT SIGN W B 4-N<iERO VALVE. - POLE FND 1' IP W/PP \-~ ~Jj MAIL BO'' 7EET \ ~'~ ~~CiL'?B ~_ ,. ~E,uE,: " ~,n~ jE~,~F_G, MH .AN _---- )RTH ° SCALE: 1°=20'~ c ~ -a~ l~A~~CSc,14Pu~. ~ft~'1~ ALE i i i D cE'riEP. .-~!Ah Y. VS ~ ~' 1ATION. ~ULATING BERM ;MFRS, VALVES. ETC., SHALL BE POND W/ PLAN ~ - IYICLL~IIVIIVC: 0,~7VV= Jl}l.r" I. TOTAL: 81,9601 SQ.FT. ,. OCCUPANCY F1-S1-B' ~ TYPE IIIN ,_ BIKE STALLS PROVIDED: 5 I ~ ,. PAR NKI G PROVIDED: 93-r_ I - ~ -- - I TYP. NIN. 2~ THICK t/2 PEPPER ROCK Y OUTDOOR EMPLOYEE ~ EATING AREA 4' CONCRETE 4TH STRE ~- - ET NOTE: ALA GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, INCLL SCREENED THROUGH EITHER SHRUBBERY I ' I ~ I i - ~ - _~ I I/ Pc~nFr =--' EXIT ONLY SIJDMG GATED COVERED W/ PERFORATED METAL TELEPHONE -~ M H v/` (^~ SEWEP. MH s DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:40 p.m. Doug Fenn Juty 17, 2001 ENGINEERING - A request to construct a 29,300 square foot industrial building on 2.086 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located east of Helms Avenue and north of Arrow Route - APN: 209-021-32. Design Parameters: The site contains a vacant rectangular shaped parcel on 2.08 acres. There is no significant vegetation on the site and is currently vacant. The site slopes from northeast to southwest at approximately 1 percent. The site is generally surrounded by dated industrial type uses. The building incorporates two primary building materials; however, the proposed sandblasted concrete could be centrally located for better visibility. The office portion of the buildings are well articulated with strong vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane that are carried throughout and on all sides of the buildings. Additionally, the public patio area should be designed to be accessible as possible to the office entryway of the facilitywithout conflicting with on- site traffic maneuvering areas. The color variation of the building is medium stone gray and Baltic blue, and white frazee, color scheme on a primarily concrete tilt-up facade. There are also panel elements, curvilinear metal seam element along with medium reflective colored glazing, and spandrel glass accents to help create contrast. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Additional sandblasted concrete should be added, preferable on the three concrete vertical tilt-up panels. 2. Landscaping along the north and south sides of the building should be provided (5-foot wide planter). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide pedestrian plaza screen wall minimum 3 feet high, around both outdoor employee- eating areas. 2. Decorative paving at the entrances of off Helms Avenue should be lengthened. 3. Outdoor employee eating area should be accessible to the primary entry area of the building. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: No exterior downspouts shall be visible from the adjacent right-of-ways. • 2. Provide tables and chairs for outdoor eating area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommend above. DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2001-00275 -A.G. ENGINEERING • July 17, 2001 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Doug Fenn July 17, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01. SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. The applicant is working on the project's previous meeting of meeting of July 3, 2001. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:45 p.m. Emily Wimer July 17, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16239- DIVERSIFIED -A requestto subdivide 20.15 acres of land into 109 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Design Parameters: The site is surrounded by residential development to the north and east. To the west is vacant land for a future park and to the south is a developed commercial center. In order to accomplish all aspects of the proposed project the Victoria Community Plan will be amended from Medium and Medium-High Residential to a Low Medium Residential District. This will allow the proposed single-family units at a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to develop 109 single-family lots with four architectural styles, including. Spanish, Traditional, French, and Craftsman. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the existing development immediately adjacent to the site. All residential development surrounding the proposed project is zoned Low and Low Medium Residential. The north boundary is the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way, which transitions to Low Residential. Low Medium Residential, currently developed with single-family homes, is located to the east of the proposed project. To the south is a developed neighborhood commercial center, and to the east is vacant for a future park. 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: Substantial variation of front yard setbacks is required. Both Street "E" (on the north side) and Street "D" on both the north and south sides have almost every home plotted with a front yard setback of 20 feet. 2. Provide illustrations, which show upgraded features for corner lots such as wrapped stone, bellybands, and window mullions on all elevations facing public view. 3. Provide upgraded features also for rear elevations along Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide a bellyband trim on two plans on all four sides for further enhancement. 2. Window mullions on "key windows" shall include all the second story windows for front and side elevations. Stone and brick veneer "option" shall be considered "standard" on all plans. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be • incorporated into the project design without discussion: Fieldstone veneer shall be natural river rock as opposed to a manufactured product. Other types of stone veneers may be manufactured. DRC COMMENTS TT 16239-DIVERSIFIED July 17, 2001 • Page 2 2. All wall visible from or facing a street shall be decorative masonry on both sides. 3. Maximum height of a retaining wall shall not exceed 6 feet high unless a variance is approved. Section 7 of the Conceptual Grading Plan shows a possible 7.5-foot retaining wall. 4. Slope banks 5 feet or greater in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area and 1-gallon shrub for 100 square feet, and appropriate ground cover. 5. Rear yard fencing visible from public streets (at top of slope) shall be decorative masonry on both sides. 6. All porches shall be a minimum of 6 feet in depth. 7. Provide atwo-tone contrast on stucco trim on all elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the above comments. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Staff Planner: Emily Wimer • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Brent Le Count July 17, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DRCCUP99-63) - HALL AND FOREMAN - A request to construct a 153,637 square foot retail store including a 17,756 square foot outdoor garden center and two pad buildings (Pad A 6,045 square feet and Pad B 5,360 square feet) on 17.64 acres of land and to modify the existing master plan for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to include these facilities in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 207-211-05, 06, 12-15, 36, 38, and 40. Related files: GPA 99-06, FBSPA 99-03, DDA 99-06, TPM 15427. Background: The project has been to several design review meetings to resolve site planning and architectural design issues. At the last meeting on June 19, 2001, the Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staffs comments with the additional comments listed below. The Committee also directed staff to work with the applicant to resolve design issues. The applicant agreed to restudy the design and has met with staff accordingly. 1. The Committee disagreed with staff that some of the architectural features on the building have merit. The overall design should be restudied instead of only making adjustments to features already shown. The goal is to provide high quality architecture thatwill enhance the community and responds to the visual prominence of the site. Avoid a boxy, "warehouse" like appearance. The revised design relies on enhancement of the exterioromamentation. The "faux" colonnades previously shown along the west and south elevations have been revised to set approximately 3 feet away from the main building wall. Decorative the work is proposed to further enhance flat areas on these elevations. The north elevation facing • Foothill Boulevard has a colonnade with curved parapet design above, wall decor, a long trellis, and landscaping. 2. While Lowe's and other large retail buildings have been discussed as examples of high quality architectural design, it is not necessary to replicate the design of these buildings but instead to bring the overall architectural statement up to the same level of quality. The revised design relies heavily on inspiration from the Lowe's building. Incorporate various architectural forms, shapes, and massing to achieve a cohesive sense of design quality rather than tack minor features on to a box-like building. The core of the building remains the same as it is based on Wal Mart's prototypical floor plan layout. The ornamentation of the exterior including garden center, entry, and Foothill Boulevard elevation have been slightly upgraded to provide more visual interest. The south and west elevations include more ornamentation and maybe of an acceptable level of quality. Staff remains concerned about the mid-portions of the north and east elevations facing Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, respectively. These areas have minimal visual interest other than tiled wall treatment and a trellis, and have a very long unbroken flat parapet roofline. Suggest provision of a Porte-cochere over the customerloading area on the east elevation and extending the colonnade westerly on the north elevation (similar to the colonnade on the south side of the main entry on the east side). The long freestanding trellis feature on the north side of the building could still be incorporated into the deep landscape area in front of the colonnade extension. Extension of the colonnade westerly may necessitate restudy of the curved parapet feature above to ensure proportion. • 4. The Committee is not in favor of the use of split-face block, either as a wainscoting or any other form of accent material. Prefer use of more traditional materials such as the or fieldstone. Tile insets and wall medallions can be used to enhance elevations. Split-face block has been eliminated and replaced with decorative the work. DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN • July 17, 2001 Page 2 5. Provide substantial tree planting to define the main driveway entrance off of Vineyard Avenue. This will likely require enlarging the planters on either side of the driveway. The planters on either side of the driveway are 8 to 10 feet wide and include Palm trees interspersed with ornamental Pear trees and freestanding trellis features. 6. Provide a pergola along the pedestrian pathway linking the bus stop on Vineyard Avenue with the main store entrance. The pathway has a trellis at the east and west ends similarto that used in the Terra Vista shopping center. 7. Provide a focal element at the northeast corner of the building to enhance the entry experience on the Foothill Boulevard driveway. The architectural treatment at the northeast corner of the building has been upgraded. Suggest extending colonnade westerly along the entire north elevation and placing freestanding trellis in front. 8. The store given that the in-line shops shown here are planned to be developed at a later phase. The in-line shops are no longer proposed. The loading dock is proposed to be screened with a curved parapet feature on the front with a trellis covering the dock area and screen walls. The trellis members should be very heavy and substantial. 9. Parking and garden center lighting along the south side of the building will have to be sensitively designed to avoid casting glare on the residences to the south. This can be a • condition of approval. 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 aporte-cochere over the customer loading area on the east (Vineyard Avenue) elevation. The porte-cochere could accommodate a towerfeature above (eliminate/relocate tower shown next to garden center). See attached sketch Exhibit "A." 2. Extend the colonnade all the way along the north-building wall and provide freestanding trellis in front. See attached sketch Exhibit "A." It is unclear why there is a large clear paved area near the northwest corner of the building. This should be replaced with a pathway and landscaping underneath the colonnade. The colonnade covered pathway along the north side of the building will provide enhanced architecture relative to Foothill Boulevard as well as a pedestrian link for customers parking in the northern lotto the building. Restudy the main entrance on the east elevation facing Vineyard Avenue. The wall- mounted vine treillage is less than inviting and poorly defines the entrance. Staff has provided a sketch of a possible revision with arched window and portals. See attached sketch Exhibit "A." Furthermore, extension of the roof westerly over the main part of the building would help integrate the entry feature with the overall building and avoid a tacked on appearance. Wrap corner enhancements fully around comers. • DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN • July 17, 2001 Page 3 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Eliminate faux balcony-like features with metal "xxxx" from colonnades on south and west elevations. 2. Provide intensive use of climbing vines (with appropriate irrigation) to cover unarticulated building walls and freestanding walls. 3. Provide enhanced landscaping and berms along the Vineyard Avenue frontage including specimen sized trees, shrubs, and boulders. 4. Incorporate landscaping and pedestrian amenities along the front (east side) and Foothill Boulevard side (north side) of the building. Limit areas where paving juts directly up against the building walls. This could be accomplished by adding tree wells in strategic locations, seating areas with overhead shade structures, and water features to emphasize architecture. 5. Incorporate more hedge planting in between columns for the garden center colonnade and include vine planting so that shrubs and vines will grow to obscure the wrought iron and merchandise behind as much as possible. • 6. Provide large member trellises along the outside of the garden center to draw the eye away from the merchandise stored inside. Garden center wrought iron fencing should have semi- opaquescreen material attached to the inside face to block views of merchandise inside the center, especially at night when illuminated 7. Avoid having shade structures/fabric visible over the garden center walls from the parking fields or from Vineyard Avenue. This may require raising the height of the garden center walls. 8. Unless cart storage is to be handled inside the building, provide a cart corral along the front of the building with a decorative wall to completely conceal stored carts. Extend the raised medial island in Vineyard Avenue near the southeast corner of the site southerly to preclude left turn movement of trucks into the southeast corner driveway (to prevent truck traffic along the south edge of the site near the residences to the south). 10. Parking lot light standards shall have an ornamental design akin to the Mission architectural style of the building instead of typical industrial/commercial type. 11. Incorporate creative use of landscape and architectural lighting (up lighting, etc.) to enhance the appearance of the overall project at night. 12. Provide color and/or material accents on building corners to add visual interest and detail. 13. Provide a minor entrance to the building/garden center from the parking area at the • southwest comer of the site. There are approximately 86 parking spaces in this area that is very remote (approximately 500 feet) from the main entrance. 14. Provide substantial landscaping including trees, shrubs, and boulders in the large landscaped area at the southwest corner of the site to provide a dense bufferfor residents to the south. This area shall not be used for container storage, even of a temporary duration. DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN July 17, 2001 Page 4 15. Provide heavy members for all trellises, especially covering the loading dock. 16. Exposed trellis members shall have decorative profile (cash register or similar) instead of simply sawed off. 17. Surround the accents/wainscoting with substantial trim. 18. Provide mutli-colored the accents along the parapets to add visual interest. Policy Issues: The fallowing items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All lighting, including parking lot light standards, wall-mounted lighting, garden center lighting, and any security lighting shall be designed to completely shield glare from surrounding residential development and public streets. This is particularly important relative to the condos and apartments south of the site and the Steven's home along Vineyard Avenue. 2. A bus shelter will be required as a condition of approval. The design guidelines that are now pending completion should include provisions for bus shelter design to be compatible with the adjacent buildings. • 3. No outdoor storage, including container storage, shall be permitted. 4. No outdoor display of merchandise shall be permitted. The garden center shall not be considered outdoor display so long as no merchandise is stacked above the height of the surrounding colonnade walls. 5. The letter height for the main wall signs shall not exceed 5 feet consistent with other large retail operations. During the lifetime of the business operation, the operator/owner shall replace any dead or dying landscaping immediately. 7. Parking lot light standards shall not exceed 15 feet overall (including pedestal). The elevations show very high light standards. 8. The perimeter block walls shall be decorative masonry with decorative cap. 9. Development of the two pad buildings will be subject to new Development Review or Conditional Use Permit applications. 10. Elevations should be fully dimensioned with full color and material callouts. 11. Eliminate "I Hour Photo," "Pharmacy," "Optical," and "Always" wall sign copy, as these constitute ancillary advertising. It would be permissible to identify the garden center as "Garden Center." • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments, including provision of further detailed information, and brought back for further review. Attachment DRC COMMENTS DRCCUP99-63 -HALL AND FOREMAN July 17 Page 5 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • C 1 • ~s f i1 L' r1 --_.._ ~ ~~~ v ~ ~ . 3t ~~ ~g C ~# a a~€ ~~ r e ~-~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:35 p.m. Brent Le Count July 17, 2001 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT -The detailed review of a master plan fora 2.45 million square foot open air mixed use mall development including retail, office, specialty commercial, restaurant, and entertainment uses as well as approximately 600 multi-family dwelling units on 175 acres of land located within the limits of the Victoria Community Plan generally bounded by the future Church Street to the north, the I-15 Freeway to the east, Day Creek Boulevard to the west, and Foothill Boulevard to the south - APN: 227-161-33 and 36, 227-201-33, 35, and 36; 227-171-14; 227-211-7, 28, 30, 39, and 40. Related Files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01, General Plan Amendment 01-02. This Master Plan establishes development standards, design standards, development/design review process, phasing, and ultimate build out character for the mall. This meeting is intended to introduce the project to the Design Review Committee and begin preliminary design discussions. The Victoria Gardens Mall is intended to be a mixed-use center (retail, high density residential, civic, culture, open space, and office uses) within the heart of the "Victoria Arbors" community. It is designed as an open-air mall with an urban setting (zero front and side setbacks, parking on the street, outdoor dining, streets/corridors defined by building edges as opposed to rolling landscaped berms and large parking lots). The internal streets would all be private with reduced width. The developmentwill be phased with Phase I including the majorityof surrounding infrastructure serving the mall and a major portion of the mall gross leasable area. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Review Process: The development review process for the project is intended to be as fast as possible. To that end, it has been suggested that the City Planner eventually handle design review. A development proposal that does not meet design criteria of the Master Plan would be referred to the Design Review Committee for review and recommendation. The Committee may wish to discuss when, during the overall review process, a level of comfort might be reached to allow for an abbreviated process. See page 109. Transportation/Parkino: A majority of the parking is remotely located along the periphery of the mall similar to Ontario Mills. Some form of shuttle system would help to bring customers into the central areas of the mall. A connection to the public transit system for the surrounding community would also be beneficial. 2. Angled parking spaces along the internal stre :s seem more user friendly and would not block traffic as much as parallel spaces. 3. A 10-foot wide sidewalk may not be sufficient, given shop doors opening onto sidewalk and provisions for outdoor dining. The Brea downtown mall has similar sidewalk dimensions and site visits indicate this to be relatively tight, especially when signage, street furniture, and • various outdoor displays are present. Outdoor dining areas should not encroach into the minimum sidewalk dimension. See street sections starting on page 78. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 2 Landscaping: The use of Palm trees, Eucalyptus trees, and Pepper trees make sense because they relate to the Rancho Cucamonga heritage and landscape vernacular. The Rancho heritage theme should be continued down to the street level, including trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Explore the use of shrubs or ground covers, or other plant types that have natural colors similar to the grape/wine types used for the street names that could further enhance street/communityldentity. See Landscape Plan, page 21. 2. Explore the use of specialized landscaping along the I-15 Freeway to screen large parking areas and act as visual "draw" to project. Landscaping can be designed to frame "windows" into the mall as viewed from the I-15 Freeway accentuating key elements. Building Height: 1. The maximum building height is proposed to be as high as 70 feet. This would allow a five-story building. This height is also proposed to be allowed along Foothill Boulevard. Perhaps higher buildings/features should be located towards the center of the project to draw the distant view (such as from the I-15 Freeway or Foothill Boulevard) into the development. Otherwise, tall buildings on the periphery (where majors are proposed) will block views into the site. Perhaps building height limitations could be based upon building/lease type-office, major, department store, 15,000 square foot lease and smaller, • etc. Perhaps only towers and other architectural features should be allowed as high as 70 feet. Building height should be considered in relation to the grade difference of the site (approximately 65 feet of fall from north to south). See Development Standards, page 89. 2. Project ID signs, communication equipment, and two "signature" buildings are proposed to be as tall as 90 feet. Suggest limiting tall pylon type signs to one sign with freeway exposure, requiring all wireless communication facilities to be stealth type located on or within buildings or on pylon sign, and allowing a specific number of "signature" buildings to be 70 feet tall with the remainder much lower. Signs (see Signage, starting on page 45): Roof signs are a concern; they often appear tacked on as opposed to an integral building component as the Master Plan photo examples show. How will wind loads be handled? Suggest mounting signs to a bridge connecting second floors of buildings across the street from one another. This would achieve the grand elevated statement sought through roof- mounted signs. 2. Provide stronger definition of periphery/edge of mall site, including monumentation for corners of site and main entrances off public streets. Monumentation related to the mall should be provided at intersections of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, Day Creek Lane and Foothill Boulevard, and Foothill Boulevard and Shiraz Street. 3. Avoid exposed neon for large signs. The Sign Ordinance prohibits exposed neon; signs must have covering, such as clear Plexiglas. Visually exposed neon has traditionally been discouraged in the community. The Committee may wish to discuss use of neon in limited areas for accent and when the sign can be well incorporated with the building design. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 3 4. Do not rely on "Sponsored Murals" to decorate large blank building walls. How will large blank walls be treated in the interim? Consider a graffiti wall or similar area for non- professional large-scale art. Anti-graffiti coatings may be necessary throughout the project to aid graffiti removal. 5. Suggest computerized information kiosks throughout the project to help patrons navigate the large area. The kiosks could also provide advertising and notification for upcoming special events. General Design 1. The term "development grain" refers to the appearance of organic small lot development that occurred over time. Clarify how the small parcel "grain" appearance will be accomplished (per page 32-33), given that the project will be built at one time. 2. Increase emphases on site-specifiGCucamonga-specific heritage and history, especially wine making. A good example is the Masi project historic wine walk. The development scheme should answer the question, "why is the project named Victoria Gardens?" 3. Provide waterfeatures; public art: statues; agricultural heritage features such as windmills, smudge pots, wagon wheels, etc; and cornerstones. Waterfalls could be designed following grade changes in the paseos. • 4. Page 100 indicates that no two adjacent buildings shall have the same appearance, same color or material, but there is no discussion about how to blend one building with the next or develop overall project cohesiveness. NOT SURE THEY WANTTO "BLEND" Consider the use of common architectural features (awnings, wall-mounted lights, metal work, the work, cornices, wlors, shapes) to tie the buildings together. Consistent use of street furniture - tables, chairs, benches, trash receptacles, streetlights, bollards, low-level lighting, etc., can also foster visual continuity. 5. Roof equipment screening should include discussion of specially designed architectural roof equipment, if possible. 6. Residential buildings in the northern area could have steps down along the south side to accommodate grade and to have row house appearance. 7. Climate Control should include ways to control wind (such as building orientation, screens, double door foyers, avoidance of Venturi effect, etc), heat (water misters and shade at key locations for rest and recuperation), cold (gas heaters), and rain. 8. Suggest use of traditional building materials such as wood, Spanish tile, fieldstone, and brick (maybe used brick). Use pedestrian friendly colors, materials, textures, shapes at street level/wainscoting (such as brick instead of split faced block, use of earth tone colors). 9. Provide sensitive transition from parking lots/structures to pedestrian aspects of mall and avoid conflicts with auto circulation. Provide enhanced entry "portals" linking tucked behind • parking to Main Street. Avoid alley like appearance. 10. Treatment of alleys and loading areas should acknowledge 360-degree architecture. Avoid having loading and trash areas conflict with pedestrian/customer traffic. DRC COMMENTS DR 01-01 -FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT July 17, 2001 • Page 4 11. Provide for interim construction fencing. For instance, Fashion Island mall in Newport Beach has generic storefront looking construction fencing as opposed to plain chain link or plywood fencing. Similarly, suggest specialized treatment for vacant storefronts to block views into unfinished shops from the street. 12. Light fixtures shall integral with the architectural design as opposed to ordinary tacked on shoebox type. 13. W indow size and location should be responsive to mountain views, especially second-story or higher windows. 14. Screen ground-mounted equipment with low walls. Best to congregate equipment, trash, etc., into service areas surrounded by decorative walls. 15. Suggest designating specific areas within the project for street kiosk type businesses to avoid the potential of having these businesses block main pedestrian walkways. 16. Include provisions for handling special events that require street closure. 17. Use string lights to emphasize unique building, structure, and landscape shapes. 18. Use decorative paving to define pedestrian circulation and parking spaces (textured/colored • paving for cross walks, parking spaces) 19. Provide a buffer (noise, light, night time activity) between retail, civic, parking and residential uses. Page 24 indicates, "Many living areas are within 100 feet of retail shops." Staff Recommendation: The Design Review Committee may wish to direct the applicant to incorporate the above comments into a revised Master Plan document for further, more detailed Design Review in mid-August. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES • TUESDAY JULY 3, 2001 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 Nancy Fong John Mannerino The fallowing items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. . • (Warren) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00160 - CRUMBAKER RESIDENCE - A request to construct a 4,343 square foot single-family home on .60 acres of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5051 Lomas Court-APN: 1061-821-09. 7:15 p.m (Kirt) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00203 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT - A request to construct a 3,186 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90, Related file: Conditional Use Permit 00-38 (Chipolte Grill). 7:35 p.m. (Doug) DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01- 016, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. DRC AGENDA July 3, 2001 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Warren Morelion July 3, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-001 60-CRUMBAKER RESIDENCE-Arequesttoconstruct a 4,343 square foot single-family home on .60 acres of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5051 Lomas Court-APN: 1061-821-09. The project site is part of Tract 11626, which is an 83-lot subdivision that was approved in 1983. To date, there are approximately 30 vacant lots left within the Tract, including six with homes being constructed at this time. The site is located at the south end of Lomas Court, a cul-de-sac at the east end of the subdivision. The site is rectangular in shape and slopes southeasterly at approximately 10 percent. A community trail exists at the west end of the property and a local trail exists along the south end. Toward the rear of the lot is the Cucamonga Fault Zone that shows a 50-foot building setback line. Because the lot naturally slopes from front to rear and to create a flat pad, the applicant has to import 3,283 cubic yards of soil that will result in as much as 9 vertical feet of fill. Because the fill exceeds 5 feet in height and 1,500 cubic yards of fill, this project requires Design Review Committee review and Planning Commission action, according to the Hillside Development Regulations. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. 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: Gradin :The primary issue is whether the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. The purpose of the Hillside Development Standards is to minimize grading and building mass. As proposed, the project does not entirely meet all requirements for hillside development. The major concerns are the amount of soil being imported onto the site and the mass being created as a result of up to 9 vertical feet of fill. There are, however, a number of design techniques outlined in the Hillside Development Standards, which would address these issues. For example, the applicant could reduce the amount of soil being imported onto the site by stepping the proposed home more closely with the natural slope. The applicant could also make use of the natural grade difference to create a floor instead of filling it with soil. The applicant could also incorporate stem walls and/or pole or stringer foundations in the project's design. By reducing the pad size, the building will be lowered, thereby addressing the building mass issue. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Reduce hard edges created by grading by varying slopes to create a more natural slope design. For examples a mix of 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 4 to 1 and 5 to 1 slopes. 2. Reduce retaining wall height on south end of garage so it is a maximum of 3.5 feet. 3. Add decorative pilasters to new 3-foot block wall in front setback. • 4. Provide mature landscaping to soften building mass. DRC COMMENTS DRC2001-00160 - CRUMBAKER RESIDENCE • July 3, 2001 Page 2 Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. If stone veneer used on building is rock, it must be real river rock. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to work with staff in addressing the above-identified design issues to meet the Hillside Ordinance. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee reviewed the project and did not recommend approval. The Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff to address the above-mentioned hillside grading conditions. The Committee felt that if all conditions could be addressed at staff level, the project would not have to come back to the Committee for further review. The applicant did not attend the meeting. C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Kirt Coury July 3, 2001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00203 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT - A request to construct a 3,186 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90, Related file: Conditional Use Permit 00-38 (Chipolte Grill). Background: The site 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. This master plan called for a single restaurant within the northeast corner of the site. On February 28, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a modification to this part of the master plan to include two restaurants, Chipolte Grill (already approved) and a fast food drive-thru. No specific design was provided for the fast food restaurant regarding architecture. The request now under consideration is the drive-thru fast food restaurant, Fazoli's. Note that the master plan modification approved by the Planning Commission on February 28, 2001, specified a 2,514.square foot fast food restaurant where Fazoli's is now proposing 3,186 square feet. The increased floor area (672 square foot increase) and Site Plan revision necessitate 13 parking spaces located on the south side of the east-west drive aisle. Design Parameters: The site has a frontage on Foothill Boulevard with existing curb and gutter improvements in-place. The frontage of the site is also landscaped. The site has been rough graded and slopes at approximately 3 to 4 percent from north to south. There is an existing • driveway spine running north/south and east/west on the overall master plan site and the Chipolte Grill building is being constructed at the northeast corner of the driveway spine intersection. The Happy Wok restaurant lies to the east and the Terra Vista Shopping Center to the north across Foothill Boulevard. 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. Site Plan -The proposed plan maybe overbuilding the site. The restaurant's 3,186 square foot floor area is substantially larger than a typical drive-thru restaurant. The proposed scheme is dependent upon 13 parking spaces being located on the hotel site across the east-west spine (with no sidewalk connection for patrons). Further, the large building is forcing several awkward Site Plan features, including an inaccessible trash enclosure and difficult drive-thru entry maneuver. 2. Revise to provide a smoother drive-thru entry. The entry requires an awkward 90-degree turn. 3. Site Plan -Provide sidewalk connection to Foothill Boulevard (may be via south side of Chipotle Grill). Also provide sidewalk connection to hotel site without sacrificing landscaping. . 4. Raise the cornice element to fit proportionally on building, as well as add vertical variation to the proposed roofline and assist in screening rooftop equipment. 5. Building pop-outs, representing horizontal variation, should pop-out a minimum of 3 feet off of main building for shadowing and relief. Pop-out treatments should be reflected on the building footprint of the proposed Site Plan. DRC COMMENTS CUPDRC2001-00203 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT July 3, 2001 • Page 2 6. The proposed wood trellis structures should extend over the drive-thru lane and include columns to match the proposed building (brick veneer wainscot and textured plaster). In addition, a wood trellis structure with columns should be added along the east elevation. Incorporate the use of real copper roofing and awning materials on the building. The tower element represented on the west elevation should be scaled down (narrowed) at the top for visual variation. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Continue brick veneer wainscot at base of north elevation where natural concrete is proposed. 2. Add natural concrete frame representation around proposed ceramic file accents. Further, add ceramic file accents with framing at north end of west elevation on opposite sides of proposed trellis structure. 3. Eliminate sign elements proposed on north and west elevations. They do not suit the proposed architecture. Staff would prefer individual letters as opposed to the oval area on a rectangle background and building. Further, any proposed signage is conceptual only and . not-a-part of this approval process. 4. Increase reveal expansion on building face to a minimum of 2 inches. 5. Site Plan -the trash enclosure location is inaccessible during business hours because trash bins can only be rolled out into a parking space. Explore combining with Chipotle Grill's trash enclosure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: I Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back forfurther review subject to staffs comments and the following additional comments. The Committee did note that they liked the content of the proposed architecture. However, they expressed major concern with the "overbuilding" of the site and the need for excess parking being located on the adjacent hotel site. The applicant was directed to explore and implement the design revisions accordingly. The Committee also recommended: 1. The entrance "pop-out" element be increased out approximately 5 to 6 feet for more • character and definition to the front entrance. 2. The cornice element be raised to fit proportionally on the building to add vertical variation and to assist in screening rooftop equipment. DRC COMMENTS CUPDRC2001-00203 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT • July 3, 2001 Page 3 If the applicant wishes to replace or substitute materials for the proposed real copper roof, those materials should be brought in as large illustrations and samples. It was noted that "real" materials survive and last longer against the natural elements and weather conditions (i.e. strong seasonal winds). • n L I DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:35 p.m. Doug Fenn July 3, 2001 COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-016, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. Site and Surrounding Land Use Parameters: The site is level with a slight grade to the south and with an old vineyard that is still under viticulture production, occupying the vast majority of the properties. A single vineyard house with accompanying agricultural storage building is located on the north boundary, next to Foothill Boulevard. No unique physical characteristics are evident on the site. The subject site is bordered on the west by the Deer Creek flood control channel. Just north of the site, across Foothill Avenue, is the mixed use Virginia Dare W finery Business Centre and a GTE switching facility. To the northeast of the site lies the Terra Vista Town Center, a large retail center. The Barton Plaza office Complex, San Bernardino County Justice Center, and Rancho Cucamonga City Hall are located to the east, directly across Haven Avenue. The areas directly south of the site include an area of vacant land and the Mountain Vista and Monterey Village Apartment complexes. Background: The Planning Commission conducted aPre-Application Review meeting on May 10, 2000. The design issues and direction from the Planning Commissioners who were at the meeting is • as fol lows: 1. Provide a 45-foot average landscape setback along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 2. Provide adequate setbacks for buildings and parking from public rights-of-ways. 3. Buildings to front along public rights-of-ways. 4. Concept of a "town square" must be designed. 5. Additional open space for apartment units is needed. 6. Enhance the architectural style of the proposed buildings. 7. Project to be developed in asingle-phase. 8. Project must be designed as a showcase project. 9. Vineyards and/or vineyard theme must be incorporated as part of the project. Update: Since the Pre-application meeting, staff has worked closely with the applicant. Most recently staff and the applicants' representatives have reached an agreement that enhances and revises the Site Plan, and elevations of some of the buildings. These recent modifications should be available for the Design Review Committee by July 3, 2001, but are not ready at this time (the applicant has posted a clarifier on the cover of the master plan and stickers on the plans that what is submitted does not reflect revisions). However, there is presently enough information to demonstrate overall design intent. Design Parameter Overview and Issues: The project integrates professional uses with retail, service commercial, and community-oriented uses. In addition, there will be a gated apartment complex with 354 freestanding apartment units, 24 apartments lofts, that will be built over retail uses, and a work/live building(s) with 13 combined live/work units and 20 traditional-style apartment units (due to the recent revision the number of units may change). • DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES • July 3, 2001 Page 2 Desi n The apartment portion contains roughly 11 freestanding C-shaped pods and also include a club house that are primarily located at the southwest section of the site and front along Civic Center Drive and the interior "A"street spine. This private street spine bisects the apartment uses from the retail and profession office uses. There is a transition area, which contains mixed uses in a couple buildings (number of buildings yet to be determined). These mixed-use buildings consist of the work live buildings, lofts over retail (roughly 17,000 square feet) that are north and northeast of the freestanding C-shaped apartment pods. A specialty market building, four freestanding retail buildings and two restaurant buildings (all are single-story) total 51,700 square feet and five-story professional office building (125,000 square feet). These buildings front along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The four retail buildings are located at the northeast corner of the project and flank amulti-purpose parking lot, pedestrian plaza area. Staff and the applicant have agreed to relocate the Town Square and fountain at the southern terminus of the plaza area. The IofUretail building will be located just south of the square and should create an anchor affect to the square and plaza area. Throughout the site there are large amounts of richly landscaped open space areas (includes a vineyard theme), which contain water features, public art (vineyard theme), arbors, trellises, and are designed to be pedestrian pleasing and accessible. There are open space areas that are required for the apartments that will not be accessible to the retail customers who will patronize the retail portion of the project. However, the apartment users will have direct access ways to the open space . areas of the retail uses (see illustrative Site Plan Figure 6, page 2-3 of the master plan or the attached Exhibit "A". Remember that this Site Plan does not reflect the pending revisions). Phasing As referenced earlier, the proposed project is a phased project. Staff is aware that some of the Commissioner's expressed that they wanted the project to be developed in one phase. The applicant has proposed amulti-phased project to the Design Review Committee, subject to certain uses being included in Phase One. The following is an explanation of what the developer intends: 1. Phase One of the project will consist of all the apartment units (including lofts and live/work units) and the four retail buildings that flank the active plaza area at the northeast corner of the project. Phase one also includes street improvements and landscaping along Haven Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and the interior spine of "A" Street. 2. Phase Two of the project contains the specialty/market and associated parking along Foothill Boulevard. 3. Phase Three contains the restaurant building and associated parking, which will front along Haven Avenue. 4. Phase Four contains the five-story professional office building and a specialty restaurant along with related parking. These two buildings front along Haven Avenue (see Conceptual Phasing Plan Figure No. 39, page 5-2 or the attached Exhibit "B"). • `The applicant depicts an elevated crosswalkjust south of the only access off of Foothill Boulevard. The applicant has indicated to staff that this crosswalk would be developed pending financial funding from the Redevelopment Agency. Per a conversation with Redevelopment Agency, they indicated that funding would most likely not be available. So it is dubious whether the elevated crosswalk will be developed. DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES • July 3, 2001 Page 3 Shared Parking Analysis Because of the recent changes the applicant is still fine-tuning their shared parking analysis report. Staff has enough general information to explain what the applicant intends. The entire site as it is currently planned, will require approximately 1,681 parking spaces. The entire project does have 1,681 parking spaces, however the accessibility of those parking spaces to some of the buildings is not ideal and thus the parking study is required and proposed. The project area is broken up into three sub-areas. Sub-area "A"will contain the professional office area four-retail buildings (which flank the plaza area), restaurant and specialty restaurant with 738 parking spaces. Sub-area "B" will contain the specialty market area with 143 parking spaces, and area "C" contains the apartments, and mixed use residential and retail with 800 parking spaces. According to the study, sub-areas "B"and "C"are parked per code and actually have excess spaces (this could change because of the Site Plan revisions). In sub-area "A" there is shortfall of 22 spaces. However, not all of land uses within the proposed project will experience the number of required parking spaces to be reduced due to the fact that individual parking facilities, located with 300 feet of each other, may be shared between different land uses which experience peak parking demand at different times. When shared parking is taken into account the study claims that sub- area "A" will provide enough to cover the shortfall. The City Planner has expressed concern about the previous versions of the parking studies (previously the short-fall was over a 100 parking spaces). The most recent study which has not been completed, now anticipates a much slighter short-fall of only 22 spaces (see Figure 2 parking sub areas, Exhibit "C," a completed shared parking study should be available by the Design Review meeting) Architecture The building designs all have various textures, (stack stone, stucco, smooth blocked finished veneer, various earth toned color scheme, and the roofs). Architectural elements include tower features, arches, reveals, recesses, pop-outs, trelliswork, arches, and balconies, and faux balconies. Additional features and elements that were recommended by staff include, stronger enhanced amounts of textures, colonnades facades, and tower elements. The revised and new buildings will reflect these elements and details. The five-story professional office building is included in the plan to depict only the size, mass, and scale of the building. The architecture style will be revised once that portion of the project is ready for development and will be under a separate Development Review purview. The applicant will and must provide 360-degree architecture for all buildings, including clubhouse, live/work buildings, carport and pedestrian access ways between buildings and the apartment court areas. Attached is an earth toned color material board sample of what the applicant intends for the project (Exhibit "D"). 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. Provide 360-degree architecture for all buildings related and part of Phase One of the project, including the club house, parking structure, pedestrian access ways between the buildings, interior court area perspective of the freestanding apartments, and the live/work buildings must reflect colonnade facades. DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES • July 3, 2001 Page 4 2. The City Planner prefers that the site be parked per code standards and that provided parking spaces be accessible to all buildings. The City Plannerwouldappreciate in-put from the Design Review Committee regarding parking analysis. Once an accepted shared parking analysis is completed and reviewed by the Committee, the City Planner and City Attorney will prepare mutual agreement between the City and applicant. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Per the recent agreement, the town square and fountain and related adjacent open areas must be located at the south terminus of the plaza area. 2. Fountain is to be enlarged and architecturally deigned to reflect the approved architecture of the project. 3. Provide stronger landscaped pedestrian pathways between all uses 4. The proposed Phase One must contain the four retail buildings, loft/retail building, work/live units, apartments, associated landscaping (town square fountain and amenities), street improvement, and landscaping along Haven Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and the "A" street spine. Ideally, the less Phases the better. For example, Phase One and Two could be merged together. This outcome will provide a more direct access to the apartment unit's • vehicular access at the northwest corner of the project. This mergerwould also create more a finished look of the project as seen from Foothill Boulevard. 5. Project intersection at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard must be designed with the approved concept of the Foothill Boulevard -Historic Route 66 concept as approved by the city (see draft concept plant Exhibit "E"). 6. Provide consistent dimensioned Plans of the Grading, Landscaping, and Site Plan must be submitted. The locations and samples of the public art must be provided and a reflect vineyard theme. 8. Additional vineyard theme must be provided in the open space areas of the apartment complex. 9. Provide enhanced textured entryways throughout the project. 10. Provide a more architecturally enhanced wainscoting around the building similar to other shopping centers/large retail buildings in the community. At a minimum, this should include a curb at the base of the building wall, stack stone wainscoting, and a bull nose or other trim element along the top of the tile. 11. Provide intensive use of climbing vines (with appropriate irrigation) to cover unarticulated building walls and freestanding walls. • 12. Provide enhanced landscaping and berms along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard including specimen sized trees, shrubs, and boulders. DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES • July 3, 2001 Page 5 13. Incorporate landscaping and pedestrian amenities along buildings throughout the entire project. Limit areas where paving juts directly up against the building walls. This could be accomplished by adding tree wells in strategic locations, seating areas with overhead shade structures, and even water features to emphasize architecture. 14. Provide large member shade trellises around the town square and throughout the entire project: Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All lighting, including parking lot light standards, wall-mounted lighting, and any security lighting shall be designed to completely shield glare from surrounding residential development and public streets. 2. A bus shelterwill be required as a condition of approval. The design guidelines that are now pending completion should include provisions for bus shelter design to be compatible with approved architecture and material (i.e. use of stack stone). 3. No outdoor storage, including container storage, shall be permitted. 4. No outdoor display of merchandise shall be permitted. • 5. The letter height for the main wall sign shall not exceed 5 feet as shown on the proposed elevations. 6. Provide a double door foyer design for the retail entryways to mitigate seasonal high winds. 7. During the lifetime of the operation, the operator/owner(s) shall replace any dead or dying landscaping immediately. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Staff reviewed the report and the primary and secondary issues with the Committee. The Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staffs comments listed in the staff report. The Committee also directed staff to work with the applicant to resolve design issues such as: 1. Provide stronger elements and enhance the details of the major mixed-use building and live/work building and retail buildings. • 2. The garage doors of the live/work building must incorporate other stylized design to create variety. 3. The apartment must be designed with additional faux balconies, rafter tails or other elements to enhance the apartment elevations. DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES July 3, 2001 Page 6 4. The applicant must provide sufficient on-site parking for the apartment units. Applicant indicated that they could add an additional 10 spaces to the rear of the mixed-use building. 5. A portion of Phase Two must be incorporated with Phase One so that more direct traffic access may be provided for the apartment units at the northwest area of the project. 6. Applicant is to provide historic art work that will be able to withstand the weather and vandalism and work this out with the Senior Planner. 7. Applicant is to provide mature trees around the portions of the project that are designed for the restaurants, office building, and specialty market, during the first Phase ofdevelopment of the project. • n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • JULY 3, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary U DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JULY 3, 2001 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 Nancy Fong 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. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Warren) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00160 - CRUMBAKER RESIDENCE - A request to construct a 4,343 square foot single-family home on .60 acres of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5051 Lomas Court -APN: 1061-821-09. 7:15 p.m (Kirt) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00203 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT - A request to construct a 3,186 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90, Related file: Conditional Use Permit 00-38 (Chipolte Grill). 7:35 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01- 016, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01, SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. • DRC AGENDA July 3, 2001 Page 2 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 28, 2001, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center rive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~~ il"~csti_ ro~~~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Warren Morelion July 3, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00160-CRUMBAKER RESIDENCE-A requestto construct a 4,343 square foot single-family home on .60 acres of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units peracre), located at 5051 Lomas Court-APN: 1061-821-09. The project site is part of Tract 11626, which is an 83-lot subdivision that was approved in 1983. To date, there are approximately 30 vacant lots left within the Tract, including six with homes being constructed at this time. The site is located at the south end of Lomas Court, a cul-de-sac at the east end of the subdivision. The site is rectangular in shape and slopes southeasterly at approximately 10 percent. A community trail exists at the west end of the property and a local trail exists along the south end. Toward the rear of the lot is the Cucamonga Fault Zone that shows a 50-foot building setback line. Because the lot naturally slopes from front to rear and to create a flat pad, the applicant has to import 3,283 cubic yards of soil that will result in as much as 9 vertical feet of fill. Because the fill exceeds 5 feet in height and 1,500 cubic yards of fill, this project requires Design Review Committee review and Planning Commission action, according to the Hillside Development Regulations. The .~ . purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. 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: Grading: The primary issue is whether the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. The purpose of the Hillside Development Standards is to minimize grading and building mass. As proposed, the project does not entirely meet all requirements for hillside development. The major concerns are the amount of soil being imported onto the site and the mass being created as a result of up to 9 vertical feet of fill. There are, however, a number of design techniques outlined in the Hillside Development Standards, which would address these issues. For example, the applicant could reduce the amount of soil being imported onto the site by stepping the proposed home more closely with the natural slope. The applicant could also make use of the natural grade difference to create a floor instead of filling it with soil. The applicant could also incorporate stem walls and/or pole or stringer foundations in the project's design. By reducing the pad size, the building will be lowered, thereby addressing the building mass issue. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Reduce hard edges created by grading by varying slopes to create a more natural slope design. For examples a mix of 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 4 to 1 and 5 to 1 slopes. 2. Reduce retaining wall height on south end of garage so it is a maximum of 3.5 feet. 3. Add decorative pilasters to new 3-foot block wall in front setback. • 4. Provide mature landscaping to soften building mass. DRC COMMENTS DRC2001-00160 - CRUMBAKER RESIDENCE July 3, 2001 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. If stone veneer used on building is rock, it must be real river rock. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to work with staff in addressing the above-identified design issues to meet the Hillside Ordinance. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:15 p.m. Kirt Coury July 3, 2001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00203 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT - A request to construct a 3,186 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru on 1.3 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90, Related fle: Conditional Use Permit 00-38 (Chipolte Grill). Background: The site 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. This master plan called for a single restaurant within the northeast corner of the site. On February 28, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a modification to this part of the master plan to include two restaurants, Chipolte Grill (already approved) and a fast food drive-thru. No specific design was provided for the fast food restaurant regarding architecture. The request now under consideration is the drive-thru fast food restaurant, Fazoli's. Note that the master plan modification approved by the Planning Commission on February 28, 2001, specified a 2,514 square foot fast food restaurant where Fazoli's is now proposing 3,186 square feet. The increased floor area (672 square foot increase) and Site Plan revision necessitate 13 parking spaces located on the south side of the east-west drive aisle. Design Parameters: The site has a frontage on Foothill Boulevard with existing curb and gutter improvements in-place. The frontage of the site is also landscaped. The site has been rough graded and slopes at approximately 3 to 4 percent from north to south. There is an existing • driveway spine running north/south and east/west on the overall master plan site and the Chipolte Grill building is being constructed at the northeast corner of the driveway spine intersection. The Happy Wok restaurant lies to the east and the Terra Vista Shopping Center to the north across Foothill Boulevard. 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. Site Plan -The proposed plan maybe overbuilding the site. The restaurant's 3,186 square foot floor area is substantially larger than a typical drive-thru restaurant. The proposed scheme is dependent upon 13 parking spaces being located on the hotel site across the east-west spine (with no sidewalk connection for patrons). Further, the large building is forcing several awkward Site Plan features, including an inaccessible trash enclosure and difficult drive-thru entry maneuver. 2. Revise to provide a smoother drive-thru entry. The entry requires an awkward 90-degree turn. 3. Site Plan -Provide sidewalk connection to Foothill Boulevard (may be via south side of Chipotle Grill). Also provide sidewalk connection to hotel site without sacrificing landscaping. 4. Raise the cornice element to fit proportionally on building, as well as add vertical variation to • the proposed roofline and assist in screening rooftop equipment. 5. Building pop-outs, representing horizontal variation, should pop-out a minimum of 3 feet off of main building for shadowing and relief. Pop-out treatments should be reflected on the building footprint of the proposed Site Plan. DRC COMMENTS CUPDRC2001-00203 - FAZOLI'S RESTAURANT July 3, 2001 • Page 2 6. The proposed wood trellis structures should extend over the drive-thru lane and include columns to match the proposed building (brick veneer wainscot and textured plaster). In addition, a wood trellis structure with columns should be added along the east elevation. Incorporate the use of real copper roofing and awning materials on the building. 8. The tower element represented on the west elevation should be scaled down (narrowed) at the top for visual variation. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Continue brick veneer wainscot at base of north elevation where natural concrete is proposed. 2. Add natural concrete frame representation around proposed ceramic file accents. Further, add ceramic file accents with framing at north end of west elevation on opposite sides of proposed trellis structure. 3. Eliminate sign elements proposed on north and west elevations. They do not suit the proposed architecture. Staff would prefer individual letters as opposed to the oval area on a rectangle background and building. Further, any proposed signage is conceptual only and • not-a-part of this approval process. 4. Increase reveal expansion on building face to a minimum of 2 inches. 5. Site Plan -the trash enclosure location is inaccessible during business hours because trash bins can only be rolled out into a parking space. Explore combining with Chipotle Grill's trash enclosure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Kirt Coury DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • • 7:35 p.m. Doug Fenn July 3, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan" which will consist of a mixed use project of approximately 400 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office uses, on approximately 31.5 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 208-331-01, 24, 25 and 26. Related files: DRCGPA01-01 B, DRCDDA01-01, DRCDCA01-01. SUBTT16179 and PAR 00-07. Site and Surrounding Land Use Parameters: The site is level with a slight grade to the south and with an old vineyard that is still under viticulture production, occupying the vast majority of the properties. A single vineyard house with accompanying agricultural storage building is located on the north boundary, next to Foothill Boulevard. No unique physical characteristics are evident on the site. The subject site is bordered on the west by the Deer Creek flood control channel. Just north of the site, across Foothill Avenue, is the mixed use Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre and a GTE switching facility. To the northeast of the site lies the Terra Vista Town Center, a large retail center. The Barton Plaza office Complex, San Bernardino County Justice Center, and Rancho Cucamonga City Hall are located to the east, directly across Haven Avenue. The areas directly south of the site include an area of vacant land and the Mountain Vista and Monterey Village Apartment complexes. Background: The Planning Commission conducted aPre-Application Review meeting on May 10, 2000. The design issues and direction from the Planning Commissioners who were at the meeting is as follows: 1. Provide a 45-foot average landscape setback along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 2. Provide adequate setbacks for buildings and parking from public rights-of-ways. 3. Buildings to front along public rights-of-ways. 4. Concept of a "town square" must be designed. 5. Additional open space for apartment units is needed. 6. Enhance the architectural style of the proposed buildings. 7. Project to be developed in asingle-phase. 8. Project must be designed as a showcase project. 9. Vineyards and/or vineyard theme must be incorporated as part of the project. Update: Since the Pre-application meeting, staff has worked closely with the applicant. Most recently staff and the applicants' representatives have reached an agreement that enhances and revises the Site Plan, and elevations of some of the buildings. These recent modifications should be available for the Design Review Committee by July 3, 2001, but are not ready at this time (the applicant has posted a clarifier on the cover of the master plan and stickers on the plans thatwhat is submitted does not reflect revisions). However, there is presently enough information to demonstrate overall design intent. Design Parameter Overview and Issues: The project integrates professional uses with retail, service commercial, and community-oriented uses. In addition, there will be a gated apartment complex with 354 freestanding apartment units, 24 apartments lofts, that will be built over retail uses, and a work/live building(s) with 13 combined live/work units and 20 traditional-style apartment units (due to the recent revision the number of units may change). • DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES July 3, 2001 • Page 2 'Design The apartment portion contains roughly 11 freestanding C-shaped pods and also include a club house that are primarily located at the southwest section of the site and front along Civic Center Drive and the interior "A"street spine. This private street spine bisects the apartment uses from the retail and profession office uses. There is a transition area, which contains mixed uses in a couple buildings (number of buildings yet to be determined). These mixed-use buildings consist of the work/live buildings, lofts over retail (roughly 17,000 square feet) that are north and northeast of the freestanding C-shaped apartment pods. A specialty market building, four freestanding retail buildings and two restaurant buildings (all are single-story) total 51,700 square feet and five-story professional office building (125,000 square feet). These buildings front along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The four retail buildings are located at the northeast corner of the project and flank amulti-purpose parking lot, pedestrian plaza area. Staff and the applicant have agreed to relocate the Town Square and fountain at the southern terminus of the plaza area. The loft/retail building will be located just south of the square and should create an anchor affect to the square and plaza area. Throughout the site there are large amounts of richly landscaped open space areas (includes a vineyard theme), which contain water features, public art (vineyard theme), arbors, trellises, and are designed to be pedestrian pleasing and accessible. There are open space areas that are required for the apartments that will not be accessible to the retail customers who will patronize the retail portion of the project. However, the apartment users will have direct access ways to the open space • areas of the retail uses (see illustrative Site Plan Figure 6, page 2-3 of the master plan or the attached Exhibit "A". Remember that this Site Plan does not reflect the pending revisions). Phasing As referenced earlier, the proposed project is a phased project. Staff is aware that some of the Commissioner's expressed that they wanted the project to be developed in one phase. The applicant has proposed amulti-phased project to the Design Review Committee, subject to certain uses being included in Phase One. The following is an explanation of what the developer intends: Phase One of the project will consist of all the apartment units (including lofts and live/work units) and the four retail buildings that flank the active plaza area at the northeast corner of the project. Phase one also includes street improvements and landscaping along Haven Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and the interior spine of "A" Street. Phase Two of the project contains the specialty/market and associated parking along Foothill Boulevard. Phase Three contains the restaurant building and associated parking, which will front along Haven Avenue. Phase Four contains the five-story professional office building and a specialty restaurant along with related parking. These two buildings front along Haven Avenue (see Conceptual Phasing Plan Figure No. 39, page 5-2 or the attached Exhibit "B"). ' The applicantdepictsan elevated crosswalkluslsouth of the onlyaccess off of Foothill8oulevard. The applicanthas indicated to staff • that this crosswalk would be developed pending financial funding from the Redevelopment Agency. Per a conversation with Redevelopment Agency, they indicated that funding would most likely not be available. So it is dubious whether the elevated crosswalk will be developed. DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES July 3, 2001 • Page 3 Shared Parking Analysis Because of the recent changes the applicant is still fine-tuning their shared parking analysis report. Staff has enough general information to explain what the applicant intends. The entire site as it is currently planned, will require approximately 1,681 parking spaces. The entire project does have 1,681 parking spaces, however the accessibility of those parking spaces to some of the buildings is not ideal and thus the parking study is required and proposed. The project area is broken up into three sub-areas. Sub-area "A"will contain the professional office area four-retail buildings (which flank the plaza area), restaurant and specialty restaurant with 738 parking spaces. Sub-area "B" will contain the specialty market area with 143 parking spaces, and area "C" contains the apartments, and mixed use residential and retail with 800 parking spaces. According to the study, sub-areas "B"and "C"are parked per code and actually have excess spaces (this could change because of the Site Plan revisions). In sub-area "A" there is shortfall of 22 spaces. However, not all of land uses within the proposed project will experience the number of required parking spaces to be reduced due to the fact that individual parking facilities, located with 300 feet of each other, maybe shared between different land uses which experience peak parking demand at different times. When shared parking is taken into account the study claims that sub- area "A" will provide enough to cover the shortfall. The City Planner has expressed concern about the previous versions of the parking studies (previously the short-fall was over a 100 parking spaces). The most recent study which has not • been completed, now anticipates a much slighter short-fall of only 22 spaces (see Figure 2 parking sub areas, Exhibit "C," a completed shared parking study should be available by the Design Review meeting) Architecture The building designs all have various textures, (stack stone, stucco, smooth blocked finished veneer, various earth toned color scheme, and file roofs). Architectural elements include tower features, arches, reveals, recesses, pop-outs, trelliswork, arches, and balconies, and faux balconies. Additional features and elements that were recommended by staff include, stronger enhanced amounts of textures, colonnades facades, and tower elements. The revised and new buildings will reflect these elements and details. The five-story professional office building is included in the plan to depict only the size, mass, and scale of the building. The architecture style will be revised once that portion of the project is ready for development and will be under a separate Development Review purview. The applicant will and must provide 360-degree architecture for all buildings, including clubhouse, live/work buildings, carport and pedestrian access ways between buildings and the apartment court areas. Attached is an earth toned color material board sample of what the applicant intends for the project (Exhibit "D"). 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. Provide 360-degree architecture for all buildings related and part of Phase One of the • project, including the club house, parking structure, pedestrian access ways between the buildings, interior court area perspective of the freestanding apartments, and the live/work buildings must reflect colonnade facades. DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES July 3, 2001 Page 4 2. The City Planner prefers that the site be parked per code standards and that provided parking spaces be accessible to all buildings. The City Plannerwouldappreciate in-put from the Design Review Committee regarding parking analysis. Once an accepted shared parking analysis is completed and reviewed by the Committee, the City Planner and City Attorney will prepare mutual agreement between the City and applicant. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Per the recent agreement, the town square and fountain and related adjacent open areas must be located at the south terminus of the plaza area. 2. Fountain is to be enlarged and architecturally deigned to reflect the approved architecture of the project. 3. Provide stronger landscaped pedestrian pathways between all uses. 4. The proposed Phase One must contain the four retail buildings, IofUretail building, work live units, apartments, associated landscaping (town square fountain and amenities), street improvement, and landscaping along Haven Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and the "A" street spine. Ideally, the less Phases the better. For example, Phase One and Two could be merged together. This outcome will provide a more direct access to the apartment unit's • vehicular access at the northwest corner of the project. This mergerwould also create more a finished look of the project as seen from Foothill Boulevard. 5. Project intersection at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard must be designed with the approved concept of the Foothill Boulevard -Historic Route 66 concept as approved by the city (see draft concept plant Exhibit "E"). Provide consistent dimensioned Plans of the Grading, Landscaping, and Site Plan must be submitted. The locations and samples of the public art must be provided and a reflect vineyard theme. Additional vineyard theme must be provided in the open space areas of the apartment complex. Provide enhanced textured entryways throughout the project. 10. Provide a more architecturally enhanced wainscoting around the building similar to other shopping centers/large retail buildings in the community. At a minimum, this should include a curb at the base of the building wall, stack stone wainscoting, and a bull nose or other trim element along the top of the tile. 11. Provide intensive use of climbing vines (with appropriate irrigation) to cover unarticulated building walls and freestanding walls. • 12. Provide enhanced landscaping and berms along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard including specimen sized trees, shrubs, and boulders. DRC COMMENTS DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT COMPANIES July 3, 2001 • Page 5 13. Incorporate landscaping and pedestrian amenities along buildings throughout the entire project. Limit areas where paving juts directly up against the building walls. This could be accomplished by adding tree wells in strategic locations, seating areas with overhead shade structures, and even water features to emphasize architecture. 14. Provide large member shade trellises around the town square and throughout the entire project: Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All lighting, including parking lot light standards, wall-mounted lighting, and any security lighting shall be designed to completely shield glare from surrounding residential development and public streets. 2. A bus shelter will be required as a condition of approval. The design guidelines that are now pending completion should include provisions for bus shelter design to be compatible with approved architecture and material (i.e. use of stack stone). 3. No outdoor storage, including container storage, shall be permitted. 4. No outdoor display of merchandise shall be permitted. • 5. The letter height for the main wall sign shall not exceed 5 feet as shown on the proposed elevations. 6. Provide a double door foyer design for the retail entryways to mitigate seasonal high winds. During the lifetime of the operation, the operator/owner(s) shall replace any dead or dying landscaping immediately. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • i~• i i i~ i~ ~ i I~ ~ ~ 1®I ~ ~ ~ i® ~ •~ i n' N ~' o m = . k~~~ ''~ ~ .~ ' Q na m D ~ ;i a~~' ~M~ sAi +a Ode ici ;2~:a~"`3 " F' e'r' caY~'r ~'"t \ J .. (~ '~{~ ~1"~ r r 'C VI D /mom~ VI mT V rT D '° z" m z n a > > ~ s . ' v ? _ o . c n o e O n 3 C ~ m °1 g3 3m ymi°DN m m ~ 'o 'm _n ~. s o m ,o8~~m c O H z N ° 3 ~ m ~ ° N ~_ ° W y ° N ~ ~ N ~ ~ } !^ ° 3 m ,p m ~ y ~ N n ~ m ~ 4 ~ nN m W (~ . D N N j Q ~ 10 n= v° -° ~~ m -u N m 'm a m S n~ m n a °m w ~?~ m' b p m y w o ~ u m m n . G _ __ ., - ~ c A S a a 3 ~ ~ m o v_ ~ ° _ = b ~ ° = ° :~ c O m L o c °< o m o m =~ n r m m m ~ ~ m n Y m ~p D m C d ~ N A O w D ~ C ~ ° W J, m ti 'n A '° ~ o O m m J u D r -a. ~ + O O O O O~ m m 4 N A A (O 10 tm A W N In A O m m m m w o + '~N°~ N W Imo + I I I ~ 1 N p g f A A N~ Q ~ O m ~T tO 0 O O m t I = m m ~ o m a c¢ y n v~ o a 3 N 6 O m W J N O N N p + N O ~ ~ 0 p T c 0 o 0 0 0 $ o m o o o O w .~ Q u Z m _ m n m Q . o l '~ ~/ J Rancho Cucamonga ~otivn Square ~ ~ _.. ---~ -- ------~ n I' ~ _ __ _ __ • FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ,~ i ~' ~~ ~ ~ Ir -, ~ ~ , ~~ c i s l~ ~-- ~i - ~ ~ ~/,-' ~~ - __ d i ~~~ ~v >` _ ~~ l_ Q. ~'~ t ,~ v ~i ___- ____ ~ _ ~'1 _~ i ~ ~... as qf~'III ArJ~ ~: ___~ .,_ -'___'J ~ ~\~'~_~-_~ Q ~~ ,,-~,-4~ ~ u ~ ~ _ r ~.~ .~ i V ~~ _~ __- __.~ ~~ i ~ i ,___, ~~ ~ 4/ i~ ~ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~ ' u Vi '. ,ry~~ l ~7 ~ '~~ ~~f~~11 2~ ~ t ~ t __~~ rYLLY j f/ I -J i i' C L i i n i o ~~ ~- _ +u;;'" Z r ~ - i~l ~ ~ h~ _- ~, ~ _ ~ ' ~~ ~---- ~ .~'-{ ~ _ I~q ; l n n m i 77~j ui ~ ~ Q • '~ ~~ ~_~ , , - -- -~' ~ __~_ ~~ ~ o ~ '~ ~__ ~~ r _.._;. ""-'i !~ r, i ~~ iii __ ~ ~i______ _ _ _ _______ __.a ~.___ - __~ i ~ i ~ .~. _ i CC IhIh ~~' f r i' '-~_ ~ r _ ~~ ;; i ~, i, ~ ~ i i ~~11`nrl ~-I -__-_r 1TIlTf1 ~r !~ ~_~ _- ~-~ u ~; o- cj i ~, ~' J -h ~ c5 ~r~-- '- ~ c - I ~ _CIVIC CENTER DRIVE ~ NOTE: EACH PHASE WILL BE DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR. SOURCE: BURNETT COMPANIES • O DEVELOPMENT PHASE «l,a so~l~l I Figure No. 39 CONCEPTUAL PHASING PLAN ~~({~I~(r ugll C LEGEND PARKING SUNd~."~A SUB AREA A 738 SUB AREA B 143 SUB AREA C :900 TOTAL 1681 C~ Darn211 ~ :ssociA~s, arc. DD7106CR-2A i-5-01 DL DRAFT FIGURE 2 PARKING - SUB AREAS E1 ~ ~~ 11C./ // ' =--, a `FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ~ ~~ -_ Q 53..' m ~~"'Z Z > ,,, z ~ Q U O oc Q J O J O ~ W N ~ ~ W J_ O ~• :. - .1 i -_ - , . U - _- Z .. _ ~ ~ _ __ a O ~ Z Q -: - _ - :; ~ N Z W U V Q } Z Q J Q w W O O V H z V Q 0 0 V U Z_ m ~ Z° Q v Z O V Z 0 Q U U V Z Q Z W O J W w O W Z m Q a' C ~ C'1 m or ~ rc ° C ~p ~ io ~x-,• 7 - ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ w r.. ~ w ~ ~ n '7'I !D fD ~ G r ~ 'w _; D O ~~'~ ~ z +~ r ~' ~ ~m ~`, 4 v\i ~' 1 y ~ ~ r~ aC '~ ~, t D O m~ < .. x^ ~' w m m ~y ~ti ~ Q ag' ~ ~• w ~ o ~ zm gtii ;, > ' ~,~„ n u~ kt w ~ t ,^ X0:3 ,., m ! i G r a4~ qyN ~.5~ + "_ ~, :a,+~ae,+. . ;,,„ a+ v - ;~ 4 ~ .. ~ ~x~g wM1 d~ K.x Mai Yd he°~:r 9r ~3~rnh'xcta+n"` + ~ NY-,«~§ ~ ~~ xt)ay; Y a ~+,~,,d~~Xj'X`'~T~ ~r#" ~ ~ Q' ~ n ~ &tr kT~g s 4~ `~ r yg~,~r /~~ §x'N~ ; d" x ~~ .„ ! S~, 7 ~ ;,~~ ~ ~ R'1~~+nt ' ~~ty'A''d4.,y,~" ~~,ry~~ ~ F~x.~~b~,~14 ~. ~ .., f r }}6 -J .! V - .)d'$Ki%s 'iii M t~"Y' ^~t dY..4 A C _ ~ d C t .r~r ! .~ ~ 1 a t y r u 2 •:,, B~ yy~ ,~. C..;'~t. '~r .~ ti s aJyq 3 +tu* } .r SS ,v at f xq,w ~~-* vffF ~`~~*+`*~=u~"':sr `%" e ~3'f` s~+kw` 3~~"k, z,- y >.'~ _ I ! `u~`~ 'abhfe . es 'y ~ ~ a ~ :;:. *` ,~*~J ~3~ri~ Y~ s~+,,.'1, ~ ~ d ~ ~ ls~de ~ ^L ~ , a, 3 5~~,.. VENAVENUE ~ ~ 5; ~ HAVEN AVENUES ~~°r'~ ~~t; r~ ~ ~ +,'~ ~ 7 ~u~ "' ~ r ' t a s ado ~ ~ i =:4~{ s x W,p' x ~ .2 ~ ~;' ~~ r ! *'r ''~i $N ~F~`~f~i,~+;~-S~d, ~ t ~~kr ~~k~~~5r~3 r'`,:2 M ek4p ~t. ~* ,k. sk .din ~, ,'~~r ^,9 r va.k.. ~.. ", r'3 rf 7 l i wn r~y y~ ~~1~ ~~ ^ z r ~1~~ i~~,~~r~~r~l~, : ~~~ ry~r >tir r 't1.e! ~+.,~' ~§ rii lk VU {~~i I'! m -:y 7~,,,a, flit ~~ _- f ~ > ~V ~^ r ~ 4 r ma. ~ ~ I r 1 y~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~^ ~ ~~ . 1 ~R.C ° 6 ~ ~~:m b ~^i x "^s~ xr ~'„ }® ~ ~ '''v D ~ ~ ~ '~' ,mss ~ , x„ ~ "° ~ _ inn. Q ~~ ~ ~ '. W ~~ s n p rn d' #r~ u ~i~un - N ~ n S r x ~" X ~a• ~ _ Y ,~~ $ ~ 4 .~ N Q ~~ :n' ~ ~r l: r;c, `L+x:1a_~ ~*',,~C' ~~ ;., ~C ~ n p .n ~~~r c; ~ Z ° ~~~ ~ ~ D _~ ~ ~, o ° n ~, no »:a° o ° ~~Ao x yy C~ oo •"a u a ~* ~ ';~ r ~ Z D 1 N r ~ r ~'~m 7 ~' W ~'~ hQ, v ~' C~ 07 f') O a '<'i ° '.n W : - v, ~' O N... ~" ~N, Z vim-, Z r~ o ~ c 3 "'' • ~ ~ ~ C1 ~_ ~~ W ~ ~ ~,~n ~~ T ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ _ . . . . . . • y • • • • m c_n O C C C co m °0 = o D o 2 A Q a °<~ ~ 3• n p cri X m 8 ~ ~ r. ~, ~ r. w rP ~ o c Z ~ p c Q Q ° C m •~ ~ on -~'I N C (~ ~. N: ~ n c 'o Q O v, ~ -p ~ C1 ~ d ~ ~ N Z y Z ~ m w w m °~- ~ s~ ro n °~ ro c o o "• D y m C1 -° Q r. < .~ p j o ~ s N ~ ~ ° O vii O ,~» ~ ~ r. m w '^ y 3 -.: Z wx.w c°o '_' .. n ~ ~ o ~ w'n ? o ~ m a ~.~.Z ~•C 1 ' = w T ~ .-. O r. p1 S~ r- 7 c in R1 S N D ~~.c ~~ Tn ° °'a-2fD ~•~D ~ SZ n q co f7 ~ w ,w< ~ N T w o w e D w~ n° ,~ Nf ~ m C7 ~ p, ~. O O ~ j a r ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 6' . ~ rt ° w O n~ c SQ-o_wao ~ o'r~0 ~° N ~ n m cn D ° w rc ~ • ~ s w =^. m ~ ° ~ ~ W ~ ~ • °