Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/06/18 - Agenda Packet• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AND MINUTES TUESDAY JUNE 18. 2002 6:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Committee Members: Pam Stewart John Mannerino Nancy Fong 7:00 p.m. Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong 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. 6:00 p.m. • (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16116- KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. - A request to subdivide 37.4 acres of land into 48 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street -APN: 225-181-04, 06, 07, 08, and 43. 6:20 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00153 -GRANITE HOMES -The design review of building elevation and detailed site plan for three previously approved tentative tract maps consisting of 102 single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and W ilson Avenue -APN: 225-071-59. Related files: Tract(s) 14496 and 14496-1. 6:40 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001- 00638 - PRP INVESTORS -The proposed development of a 57,451 square foot grocery supermarket and 25,000 square feet of retail shops on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, and a 3,522 square foot fast food restaurant and site plan approval fora 3,600 square foot gasoline service station including a convenience market store and adrive-thru car wash on the northwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard on 12.59 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan -APN: 1089-021-09 and • 10. Related file: SUBTPM15781 and Preliminary Review DRC2001-00364. • DRC AGENDA June 18, 2002 Page 2 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2001-00589 - WAYNE CAREY - A request to construct two 6,992 square foot industrial buildings on 1.06 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the west side of Maple Place, approximately 700 feet north of Arrow Route -APN: 208-352-45 and 46. Related file: DRC2001-00350. 7:10 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00306-GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-The development of • a 10,368 square foot single-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue -APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. 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. 7:20 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00018- PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT -The development of an integrated commercial center consisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. (Warren) VARIANCE DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-A requesttoallow up to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, • located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive - APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. u • DRC AGENDA June 18, 2002 Page 3 8:05 p.m. (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16157 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - A proposed subdivision of 10 numbered lots and one lettered lot on 60.17 acres in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway -APN: 227-151-30. Related file: DRC2001-00791. (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2001-00791 - LEW IS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES -The Design Review of 677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of Tentative Tract 16157) in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway -APN: 227-151-30. Related file: SUBTT16157. 8:25 p.m. (Alan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001- 00572 - HOGLE-IRELAND, INC. - A request to demolish and rebuild a fast food restaurant, with drive-thru facilities and indoor play area, totaling 4,751 square feet, located at 9649 Foothill Boulevard in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 3, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.32.030E.1.a. -APN: 208-261-053. 8:45 p.m. Cathy J. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTRND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM 15699 -A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 248.63 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS; SUBTT16226- A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 92.78 ACRES INTO 265 LOTS; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16227 - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 144.94 ACRES INTO 367 LOTS- BCADEVELOPMENT-A request for a parcel map and two tentative tract maps to subdivide 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of Wilson, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 225-171-47, 48, 50, and 51, and APN: 25-181- 09, 11, 14, 15. ADJOURNMENT • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:00 p.m. Kirt Coury June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16116 - KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. -A request to subdivide 37.4 acres of land into 48 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 225-181-04, 06, 07, 08, and 43. Design Parameters: The site has a slight slope from north to southeast and surrounds one single- family dwelling (identified as not-a-part parcel) located on East Avenue. The subject property is within the Equestrian Overlay District. The site is bounded by Banyan Street to the north, East Avenue to the east, and surrounded bysingle-family residences in all directions. The project will align East Avenue intersection across Banyan Street. The project will also construct a striped Class II Bike Lane on the shoulder, and Community Trail within the parkway, of East Avenue, as well. The proposed trail layout includes a Local Feeder Trail to the rear of each residential lot, as well as public Community Trails along the northern, northwestern, and southern project boundaries, as well as through the south central portion of the site. The average lot size is 25,929 square feet and is large enough for horse keeping. No home product is proposed at this time. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which are remnant windrows. The Etiwanda • Specific Plan requires windrows along Banyan Street to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that many of the trees on- site are not worthy of preservation. The project proposes to remove all or some of the trees and replace with new windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently to resolve major design issues presented by staff. There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: The Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All walls and fences shall be of decorative material. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Banyan Street shall be preserved or replaced per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual diseased or damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minimum spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with 5- gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500. • Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above comments. DRC COMMENTS SUBTT16116 - KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SOUTHERN CA, INC. • June 18, 2002 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The Committee recommended approval of the proposed project subject to the Secondary and Policy Issues. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:20 p.m. Doug Fenn June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00153-GRANITE HOMES -The design review of building elevation and detailed site plan for three previously approved tentative tract maps consisting of 102 single-family Tots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-59. Related files: Tract(s) 14496 and 14496-1. Design Parameters: The site falls within the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development (previously University/Crest Project), a 1,238 residential unit development approved by the County in May 1991 and recently annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site consists of two tracts, which have been graded and retaining walls have been developed. The applicant is proposing a single-phased development. The site is bordered by vacant land to the north and west and W ilson Avenue and MBK residential development is to the south, and across Day Creek Boulevard to the east is vacant land. Main access to the tracts is from Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue. The applicant is proposing to develop 102 single-family homes on two tracts approved under the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development Agreement (Tract 14496 and 14496-1 ). The homes will include 12 Floor Plans and 4 architectural styles. The square footage of the homes varies in size from 2,738 to 4,638 square feet. The architectural styles of the project include Ranch, Country, Bungalow, and San Juan. The homes will also include porches on corner lots, side on garages, and additional enhanced architecture on elevations, which back and side on Day Creek Boulevard and • Wilson Avenue. The project is not a multiple phased development. 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: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve major design issues. Staff is pleased with the 360-degree architecture on all elevations. The applicant responded to staffs recommendations and added architectural detail such as: surrounds, sash windows, dormers, siding, shutters, cultured stone and other elements which adds richness to all sides of the residences. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows. When a retaining wall exists in the rear of the property to assist with the 15-foot useable areas, steps should be provided to allow access to maintain the slope. 3. The pilasters used for the Bungalow style architecture should widen at the bottom for a more rural and traditional look. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00153 -GRANITE HOMES June 18, 2002 . Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides. 2. All interior private yard slopes required to be landscaped should receive ground cover, shrubs, and one tree for every 150 square feet of area. A ratio of fifty percent 5-gallon and fifty percent 15-gallon shall be provided for trees. 3. All cultured stone or similar like rock or stone should be a natural material, and not a pre-manufactured veneer siding. 4. Plot one tree in each front yard area on Landscape Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the above-mentioned conditions. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • There were no major issues to discuss and the applicant agreed to the Secondary and Policy Issues. The Committee recommended approval to the Planning Commission. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:40 p.m. Doug Fenn June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00638 - PRP INVESTORS -The proposed development of a 57,451 square foot grocery supermarket and 25,000 square feet of retail shops on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, and a 3,522 square foot fast food restaurant and site plan approval fora 3,600 square foot gasoline service station including a convenience market store and adrive-thru carwash on the northwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard on 12.59 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 1089-021-09 and 10. Related file: SUBTPM15781 and Preliminary Review DRC2001-00364. Site and Surrounding Land Use Parameters: The project site is situated immediately south of the eastbound off-ramps for the I-210 freeway, on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard. Highland Avenue bisects the project site creating separate north and south segments of the project. Single-family development has occurred east of Day Creek Boulevard, and immediately south of the project site. West of the project site is a Southern California Edison transmission power line, the Day Creek Flood Control Channel, and the Lower Day Creek Flood Control Basin. The project site has been completely mass-graded due to the construction of the existing subdivision to the south and the I-210 freeway ramps and realignment of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. Extensive fill dirt has been added to the site, south of Highland Avenue, over the past five years. The site is approximately 25 feet above grade at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The remainder of the site slopes gradually toward the south at • approximately 3 percent grade. The existing single-family homes along the south boundary are set approximately 16 feet lower in elevation than the proposed project. An existing 6-foot masonry wall at the top of slope forms the south boundary of the project site. Design Parameters: The project is located within the Victoria Community Plan area. The Victoria Community Plan contains no architectural guidelines for commercial development. The Mediterranean architectural style, which is compatible with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, features stacked stone, stucco veneer, various earth toned color scheme, and file roofs). Architectural elements include tower features, arches, reveals, recesses, pop-outs, trelliswork, arches, and awnings (in some cases these elements need to be strengthened). The entire project has been designed with pedestrian pathways and an enhanced plaza area between the two retail freestanding buildings. The project has also been richly landscaped at entryways and at the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue (in general conformance with the Regional City Gateways) to beautify and soften the project. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: Since the last Design Review meeting in February, the applicant has addressed most of the major and secondary issues. However, there are some remaining issues that still need to be addressed and will be the focus of Committee's discussion regarding this project: Ralphs -Staff is generally pleased with the most recent elevation modification to the Ralph's grocery store; however, more ceramic file accents with the custom finish trim should be added along the rear and north elevations. • 1. Gateway Treatment at southwest corner Day Creek Boulevard -Staff believes there is a unique opportunity to incorporate a water element afforded by the 25-foot grade differential between the site and the Day Creek Boulevard/Highland Avenue intersection. The water element could cascade in a man-made river rock creek down the slope. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2001-00638 - PRP INVESTORS June 18, 2002 • Page 2 Shops 2 and 3 -The water feature (fountain) within the plaza area between Shops 2 and 3 is minimal considering the size and scope of the project. A larger water feature is needed within the plaza area. . Gas Station - Provide a detailed element at the primary entryway of the building, additionally wall in the glazing contiguous to the entryway. Provide elevation plans of the canopy. Previous comment for the last canopy elevation was that support shroud for the canopy will look better with stacked stone, instead of a stucco finish. Provide a decorative screen wall along freeway off-ramp (similar to what Mc Donald's has done for their drive thru lane). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide climbing vines (with appropriate irrigation) to soften unarticulated building walls and freestanding walls. Incorporate as much landscaping as possible around the buildings. 3. Freeway Oriented Signs/Uniform Sign Program -Although no freeway signs are shown on plans, staff has received inquiries about freestanding signs along the new freeway. The Sign Ordinance prohibits freeway-oriented signs except within regional shopping centers whereas; this is a neighborhood shopping center. The applicant has been informed that • Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Ciry Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. All on-site signs shall comply with the Sigh Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division, prior to installation of any signs. Policy 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. No outdoor storage, including container storage, shall be permitted. 3. No outdoor display of merchandise shall be permitted, except as may be approved through a Temporary Use Permit. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return to Design Review Committee for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Manner, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn . The applicant provided revised plans at the meeting, which depicted compliance with the Major Issues with the exception of the following: 1. The tower element at the primary entryway of the Arco gas station needed to be projected over the sidewalk. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2001-00638 - PRP INVESTORS June 18, 2002 • Page 3 2. The canopy needed to have the Arco paint scheme deleted and the architecture of the canopy must reflect the architecture of the gas station and center. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the condition that the outstanding gas station issues be resolved at staff level, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Warren Morelion June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00589- WAYNE CAREY - A request to construct two 6,992 square foot industrial buildings on 1.06 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the west side of Maple Place, approximately 700 feet north of Arrow Route - APN: 208-352-45 and 46. Related file: DRC2001-00350. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING Desinn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner Warren Morelion The item was approved by the Committee with the condition that all columns be sand blasted with a medium finish. • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Warren Morelion June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00306 - GLENW OOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-The development of a 10,368 square foot single-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee reviewed the project with the stacked stone treatment and thought it created a better look than what was previously proposed. In addition, the Committee agreed with the applicant that it would be better to put open wrought iron fencing along the west, north, and east boundaries of the children's play area; however, the Committee stated they would not overturn the environmental mitigation requirement to construct solid walls. To change the fencing material, the applicantwould have to show that the new material would reduce noise levels to meet City standards. The Committee recommended the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Warren Morelion June 18, 2002 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00018 - PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-The developmentof an integrated commercial centerconsisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. VARIANCE DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-A requestto allow up to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. Background: On June 4, 2002, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project and recommended the applicant make revisions and come back to the June 18, 2002, Committee meeting. Because of short notice, the applicant will bring revised plans to the meeting. The following are issues that should be addressed at the meeting: 1. In response to the identified major site issue, the applicant indicated that because of Caltrans requirements to keep the existing drainage easement in place, Option "B" would not be feasible. The applicant also indicated to the Committee that Option "A" has been • studied and that they disagreed with it. The Committee stated that they still have concerns with the circulation conflicts at the middle of the site. The Committee commented that the site is "maxed out" as far as development, and that a better solution to circulation conflicts could be achieved. The Committee asked the applicant to restudy the site to create a better site design. The applicant agreed to do it. 2. The applicant agreed with all the identified secondary and policy issues with the exception of the following: the decorative paving connecting the 7-11 to the Jack in the Box stays in the same general location as proposed; and not having file wainscot where they proposed steel tubulartrellis frame works on building walls. The Committee accepted the decorative paving connection between 7-11 and Jack-in-the-Box but required file wainscot regardless whether there are tubular trellises or not. The Committee stated that the addition of metal trellis frame works and planters to blank building walls is acceptable but believed it is the minimum. The Committee felt that the applicant should redesign the architecture of the buildings to eliminate large expanses of blank walls by adding design features and detailing such as arches, arcades, medallions, etc. 3. Provide wrought iron fencing on top of proposed retaining wall on the south side of the project boundary to provide a barrier between proposed project and the 210 Freeway. The wrought iron fencing with dense landscaping maybe acceptable in screen Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru lane. Provide an illustrative cross-section to show it. 4. Change wall-pak light fixture to sconce lights (upright light and down light) because they produce glare. Because the site is across from residential development the lights on the canopy appear too bright. Reduce the light wattages and recess the lights so they are at least 6 inches for above the lowest edge of the canopy • 5. Revise hip roof design on the 7-11 building and the multi-tenant building so they match the hip roof design of the Jack-in-the-Box. • DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00018 &VAR DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT June 18, 2002 Page 2 Provide examples/pictures of signs proposed for the project to review at the next Committee meeting. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the project and make a recommendation of whether to approve the project or come back as a regular or consent item. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner Warren Morelion The applicant and representatives presented revised plans that addressed the above-mentioned issues, including: 1. Revised Site Plan showing a wider main drive aisle and defined main on-site intersection for better vehicle circulation through the use of larger landscape planters, traffic calming signs, and addition of decorative concrete paving. 2. Revised Elevations of all three buildings incorporating arches, decorative medallions, trellises over drive-thru lanes, additional decorative wainscot file treatment, and a uniform roof design. 3. Cross-sections showing screening of Jack in the Box drive-thru lane from Haven Avenue and the 210 Freeway. 4. Pictures showing proposed 7-Elevan back lit sign designs. The Committee was happy with the applicant's revisions with the following additional comments: Because of the 7-Eleven's location and lack of architectural detail on the elevations facing Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive, the Committee asked the applicant to add a foam stucco detail along the radius of the building's arches to make them stand out. To enhance the 7-Eleven's appearance, the Committee indicated to the applicant that they would like the building to have an additional down lit lighting treatment under the arches like the other buildings in the Center. The applicant and representatives agreed with the Committee's comments. The representative of Jack in the Box and the Multi-tenant Building stated that he would incorporate the foam stucco detail along the radius of the building's arches to make the Center uniform in design. The Committee recommended the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. lJ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:05 p.m. Debra Meier June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16157 -LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - A proposed subdivision of 10 numbered lots and one lettered lot on 60.17 acres in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-30. Related file DRC2001-00791. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00791 -LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITI ES -The Design Review of 677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of Tentative Tract 16157) in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-30. Related file: SUBTT16157. Design Parameters: Tentative Tract 16157 is the single largest remaining piece of undeveloped property within the Terra Vista Planned Community. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Community Plan, at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway, with the East Greenway Trail forming the north boundary of the site. The related DevelopmenUDesign Review file (DRC2001-00791) pertains to only a 39.6-cre portion of the overall site. The applicant has designed a Ste Pan focused on a formal semi-circular route radiating away from the central recreation facility. A grid pattern of common open space provides connections from • recreational amenities within the project, to recreational opportunities on the perimeter of the site, including Milliken Park, Mountain View Park and the East Greenway Trail system. The site will be gated, with entry on both Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway. The focus of the project is the 14,000 square foot multi-use recreation building and central private open space site that also includes a Kids Club (for after-school activities), tot lot, wading pool, pool/spa, tennis court, and entertainment patio. Other appropriate amenities are distributed in key locations throughout the project. The parcel is presently designated High Density Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Density Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), of the Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP); a calculation of project density is summarized below: 36.26 acres at Medium Density 12.79 acres at Medium-High Density 11.06 acres at High Density 14 X 36.26 = 507 dwelling units 24 X 12.79 = 307 dwelling units 30 X 11.06 = 330 dwelling units 60.00 acres total Total 1,144 dwelling units Average Density of the complete project site is 19.0 dwelling units per acre. The current application (DRC2001-00791) includes 39.62 acres, which is 66 percent of the area included in the Tentative Tract Map (Lots 1-9). The greatest portion of the current project is included in the Medium Density portion of the site. The current project density is 17 dwelling units per acre, which includes 59 percent of the total number of dwelling units. • The standards of the associated with the various dwelling unit types will apply accordingly in the proposed development. For example, the townhome structures comply with the Medium Density standards, while the more standard apartment style structures comply with the Medium-High and High Density standards. DRC COMMENTS TT16157 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES June 18, 2002 • Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Ooen Space: The proposed project must meet a Code requirement for Common Open Space of 35 percent of the site area, and Useable Open Space (private + common) of 40 percent. The applicant has provided 16.6 acres or 42 percent of the site as Common Open Space. In addition, the applicant is required to meet private open space square footage standards for each dwelling: Medium Density - 255 square feet for a ground floor unit or 150 square feet for an upper level unit; High or Medium-High Density - 150 square feet for a ground floor unit or 100 square feet for an upper level unit. The minimum dimension of any porch, patio or balcony shall be 6 feet. Although these are technical Code requirements, the question that we would like to pose for Committee discussion is: If the total required Usable Open Space is adequately provided on the site, can the applicant have flexibility in the provision of private open space, particularly on ground floor units where they are using the enlarged porch to provide private open space. In essence, they are moving the porch limit within a defined open space zone in an effort to balance the private open space and the common open space as best define the needs of this project. • For example, most of the Building Types (4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) have less than the necessary square footage of the standard requirement for porches and/or balconies. Building Types 4 and 7 are townhome style dwellings with only the porch used to define private open space, where the limit of the porch defines the boundary between private and common open space. The applicant would like to maximize the useable open space (common + private) while minimizing the private open space component along the primary circulation segments of the site, to the benefit of the project has they see it. Typically staff requires that a project meet the private open space requirements, regardless of the degree of common open space (or usable open space) provided on the site. 2. Terra Vista Community Plan Trail Alignment: The Terra Vista Community Plan depicts a trail type D traversing this property between Church Street on the south and the East Greenway Trail on the north. Due to the gated nature of the proposed project, the applicant is submitting an amendment to the Community Plan to request a realignment of the trail around the project, along Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway. Trails along the street are referred to as Trail Type E in the Community Plan, which typically require a 6-foot sidewalk, and a minimum increase in the street right-of-way of 6 feet, resulting in a setback of 38 feet average and 33 feet minimum along both Church and Terra Vista Parkway. As proposed, the project currently has a 46-foot minimum and up to 57-feet maximum, building setback along the street frontage. Providing ample opportunityto create a trail-like environment along the streetscape. • The trail will be realigned around the site to the signalized trail crossing on Terra Vista Parkway on the east; and to the intersection of Church Street and Milliken Avenue, where segments of a Trail Type E have been constructed both north and south of the intersection. Internal open space corridors will allow residents of the project to have direct access to East Greenway Trail and eventually to Milliken Park (future phase). DRC COMMENTS TT16157 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES June 18, 2002 • Page 3 3. Building Elevations: Building Types 2-3 and 5-6: These building types are townhomes with a private rear yard space separating the dwelling from the garage; the Building Types 3 or 5, feature the apartment style flats over the garages. This Building Type 2-3 and 5-6 combination features one architectural style that is used 13 times throughout the project, with asingle-story element used on the ends of some buildings. The overall architectural style/theme of the Building Types 2-3 combination is acceptable; however, the applicant has not provided elevations of the walls facing the rear yard patios. Staff has previously discussed these elevations with the applicant, stressing the need to develop elevations that do not result in unwanted and unusable outdoor space by virtue of the stark, potentially light-less ambience created in this space with is flanked by two-story structures. Building Types 4 and 7: Building Types 4 and 7 are the traditional townhome with an attached garage. All private open space is provided by the front porch (see discussion above). The smaller Building Type 4 is used twice in the project, and Building Type 7 is used 21 times. The architectural style/theme is very boxy in nature, without features or elements that establish a unique character. Individual town home units should reflect some level of • individuality. The porch elements carry the overall appearance of an attached shed roof and could be used as a stronger element of the design. It is primarily Building Type 7 that is used along the perimeter streets facing Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway. Building Types 8, 9, and 10: These building types reflect a traditional apartment style building; some units have access directly to either a one or two car garage. Building Type 8 occurs 32 times, Type 9 occurs 32 times, and Type 10 occurs 10 times throughout the project; therefore, these are the most dominantly used Building Types in the project. The exterior of the buildings are all very similar, with units within the buildings varying in size and layout. Again the style and theme of these Building Types are not distinctive. Optional Elevations B and C offer some variation in materials, such as adding the use of wood siding, however, the options are otherwise not discernibly different from the one another. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee discuss the noted items with the applicant and suggest modifications for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Debra Meier The applicant provided a presentation of the site planning and architectural theme of the project, and addressed the issue of private versus common open space. The Committee recommended that • the applicant revise their plans to address the following issues and submit them for further review: DRC COMMENTS TT16157 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES June 18, 2002 • Page 4 The Committee was pleased with the variety of colors and materials used to articulate the different building styles. However, the Committee suggested that the applicant review the use of more articulation and varied pattern of garage doors, and to avoid the use of the white garage doors with the dark building colors. The Committee requested additional detailing of the building walls on either side of the private yard in Buildings Z3 and 5/6. 2. The Committee discussed the definition of private open space with the applicant and stated that they are not in support of any variance to the Code requirements for private open space. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to appropriately define the private open space. 3. The Committee also identified other issues that will be further reviewed in the Technical Review Committee, including the appropriate distribution of visitor parking, and the appropriate widths of all drive aisles, especially drive aisles with curbside parking. u • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:25 p.m. Alan Warren June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00572-HOGLE- IRELAND, INC. - A request to demolish and rebuild a fast food restaurant, with drive-thru facilities and indoor play area, totaling 4,751 square feet, located at 9649 Foothill Boulevard in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 3, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.32.030E.i.a. - APN: 208-261-053. Design Parameters: The site is located on Foothill Boulevard for which the City Council adopted a Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. The property is a few hundred feet west of Archibald Avenue on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. The area has a mixture of recent projects (on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Avenue) and older, pre-city developments of varying size, character, and use. Directly across the street sits an old Route 66 era gas station structure. Within this context, McDonald's has proposed to rebuild a fast food restaurant, replacing one that was built around 1977. Also, the proposal is calling for expanded operations with an indoor play area and two drive-thru lanes to be opened 24 hours. At the March 19, 2002 meeting, the Design Review Committee advised the applicant of the importance of presenting a strong thematic architectural statement for the Archibald/Foothill Activity Center and that the proposal did not quite achieve such a statement. They stated that the individual elements of the architecture had merit, but that they did not "come together" to produce a strong statement for the area. "Route 66"/winery architectural styles were encouraged. The Committee suggested that the applicant work with staff to enhance the architectural style, prior to coming back • to the Committee with revisions. Also, in response to the noise environmental issue, the Committee advised that the noise issue should be worked out, prior to going to the Planning Commission. The Committee gave accounts of similar situations in the community where noise problems caused the implementation of extensive mitigation processes for the City. Staff will update the Committee on the noise study. 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: Architecture: The building's style has been significantly improved with a "Route 66" flavor similar to the 1930's gas station canopy directly across Foothill Boulevard. Staff is generally in favor of this architectural presentation. Staff recommends; however, that the following changes be made to the design: a. The roof file color should be changed from the proposed "Arresting Red" to a more subdued mission file color. b. The wainscot color should also be changed to a more subdued mission file color (Canyon Red from previous color board) or replace with more natural river rock veneer (refer to Policy No. 2 below). • DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2001-00572 - HOGLE-IRELAND, INC. • June 18, 2002 Page 2 2. Si nin A monument sign is proposed in front of the building, inside the property line. In this area, the decorative activity center paving crosses from the public right-of-way on to the private property forming a continuous walkway in front of the building. Staff questions the need for the monument sign because the building is close to the street and has wall signs that will be more visible due to their height. Also, the sign, as proposed, blocks a substantial part of the decorative sidewalk, which will cause pedestrians to divert along the curb. From a policy standpoint, this would be the first monument sign allowed within the Activity Center streetscape; therefore, would establish a precedent. If the Committee supports monument signs within the Activity Center streetscape, then staff recommends that it be limited to 4Ys feet in height, reduced in width by half, and that the sign's background (what ever color) be opaque to light transmission, with only the lettering being internally illuminated. Also, the proposal shows the intent to have one monument sign and three wall signs. The development must conform to the Sign Ordinance provisions and, as a result, the site will be limited to one monument sign and two wall signs. Finally, the "PLAY PLACE" signs do not comply with the Sign Ordinance's definition of business identification and therefore will not be allowed (extraneous signing). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Create a strong entry statement with textured pavement at project entrances. The textured . pavement should extend from beginning of the walkways on each site of the play place area to the main entries on each side of the restaurant portion. This would include enhanced pavement continuing all the way to the entry under the tower element on the west side. 2. New Zealand flax is to be used in mass on each side of the main building frontage. Staff recommends that these planting areas be provided with a massing ground cover and that the flax be limited to texture/foliage accents. 3. To reduce potential congestion situation due to the convergence of vehicle traffic at the east driveway entrance, the applicant has added stripping to the drive-thru lane to direct the motorists more easterly before turning north to exit the site from the east driveway. Staff believes this should provide the necessary on-site direction. 4. The parking area drive aisle is 24 feet wide. This width complies with minimum Development Code standards, but should be increased to 26 feet for emergency fire apparatus, if required by the Fire District. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide buffer where site adjoins residential development; with dense landscaping. 2. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. 3. Screen parking areas from public view with landscaping, and building orientation. • 4. Integrate screening for roof-mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) rather than have a "tacked-on" appearance. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2001-00572 - HOGLE-IRELAND, INC. June 18, 2002 • Page 3 5. Consider site amenities, such as walls, hardscape, street furniture, trash enclosures, lighting, and monument signs as part of the total architectural package for the project. 6. Maintain adequate sight lines for motorists at intersections and driveways. 7. Integrate signs into the architectural scheme. Indeed, the building itself can serve as a large and impressive sign. To achieve this effect, however, the individual signs on the facade must reinforce the character of the building, not obscure it or detract from it. 8. Size of signs must be proportional to the scale of the building and the surface they are affixed to. 9. Visually balance the sign area with the building mass and height rather than designing to the maximum standard. 10. Use individual letters rather than canister type signs. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission subject to incorporation of the items listed above and.a satisfactory resolution of the environmental processing regarding the noise issues. Design Review Committee Action: . Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the staff comments and amended as follows: 1. At the applicant's request, the proposed monument sign is removed from the request and will be replaced by three wall signs as permitted by the Sign Ordinance. 2. The applicant will forward a revised color sample board that will "tone-down" the bright red the roof and wainscot colors to a shade between the "Crimson !Arresting Red" and the "Canyon Red" colors. The awning color, "Red Supreme", may remain as a bright red accent. Samples of the revised colors will be forwarded to the Design Review Committee, prior to review by the Planning Commission. 3. The use of the "PLAYPLACE" sign is acceptable as one of the wall signs provided that only one color is used for the individual letters. The signs must also conform to all other Sign Ordinance requirements (size, number, locations, etc.). Any on-site directional signs must not contain any business/corporation trademark logos. 4. ~ The use of fieldstone/river rock veneer, in keeping with the "Route 66" period architecture, is required. The Design Review Committee stated that the fieldstone veneer must be made of natural stone, as opposed to any manufactured stone veneer. • 5. Any outstanding environmental issues are satisfactorily addressed within the appropriate review procedures DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:45 p.m. Cathy J. June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTYPE 15699 - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 248.63 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS; SUBTT16226 -A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 92.78 ACRES INTO 265 LOTS; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16227 - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 144.94 ACRES INTO367 LOTS- BCADEVELOPMENT-A requestfor a parcel map and two tentative tract maps to subdivide 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of W ilson, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 225-171-47, 48, 50, and 51, and APN: 25-181-09, 11, 14, 15. Design Parameters: The project site is located at the northern terminus of Etiwanda Avenue, which forms the eastern boundary of the property. Along the northern edge of the property, the project site abuts the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and the Southern California (SCE) utility corridors. Adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the project site are SCE Utility corridors. The Rancho Etiwanda project borders the project site on the south and single-family residences are under construction. A Development Agreement No. 01-01 was recorded for the project site, which approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates as a private gated community including a Homeowners' Association, which will own and be responsible for maintenance of common area streets, drainage facilities, interim detention basin, utility easements, landscaping and walls with the project area. • The project will construct Day Creek Boulevard from the northerly boundary of the Rancho Etiwanda project to Etiwanda Avenue and construct Etiwanda Avenue from the southeastern boundary of the project site to Day Creek Boulevard. The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. The average lot size is 12,468 square feet in Tentative Tract 16226 and 11,045 square feet in Tentative Tract 16227. No home product is proposed at this time. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Major design issues have been addressed through the Development Agreement and discussions with staff. There are no issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Cathy Johnson Staff presented an overview of the proposed project. It was noted that because there is a Development Agreement in place for the project, most of the major issues have been addressed. Commissioner McNiel expressed concern that the project is in a high fire hazard area, and combustible materials should be eliminated wherever possible. The Design Review Committee recommended that the project be approved subject to the prohibition of wooden fences on the site, specifically, interior lot property lines. The applicant agreed to this requirement. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • JUNE 18, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respecttully submitted, r' - Brad Secretary • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JUNE 18, 2002 6:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Committee Members: Pam Stewart John Mannerino Nancy Fong 7:00 p.m. Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong 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. 6:00 p.m. • (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16116- KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. - A request to subdivide 37.4_acres. of land into 48 lots for the purpose of single-family home constructiori in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest cornerof East Avenue and Banyan Street -APN: 225-181-04, 06, 07, 08, and 43. 6:20 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2001-00153 -GRANITE HOMES -The design review of building elevation and detailed site plan for three previously approved tentative tract maps consisting of 102 single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located atthe northwest cornerof Day Creek Boulevard and W ilsonAvenue -APN: 225-071-59. Related files: Tract(s) 14496 and 14496-1. 6:40 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001- 00638 - PRP INVESTORS -The proposed development of a 57,451 square foot grocery supermarket and 25,000 square feet of retail shops on the southwest cornerof Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, and a 3,522 square foot fast food restaurant and site plan approval fora 3,600 square foot gasoline service station including a convenience market store and adrive-thru car wash on the northwest cornerof Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard on 12.59 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan -APN: 1089-021-09 and 10. Related file: SUBTPM15781 and Preliminary Review DRC2001-00364. • DRC AGENDA June 18, 2002 Page 2 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2001-00589 - WAYNE CAREY - A request to construct two 6,992 square foot industrial buildings on 1.06 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the west side of Maple Place, approximately 700 feet north of Arrow Route -APN: 208-352-45 and 46. Related file: DRC2001-00350. 7:10 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL ,USE PERMIT DRC2002-00306-GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENTCOMPANY-The development of • a 10,368 square foot single-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue -APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. 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. 7:20 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00018 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT -The development of an integrated commercial center consisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. (Warren) VARIANCE DRC2002-00246-PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-Arequesttoallowup to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, • located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive - APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. • n U DRC AGENDA June 18, 2002 Page 3 8:05 p.m. (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16157 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - A proposed subdivision of 10 numbered lots and one lettered lot on 60.17 acres in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway -APN: 227-151-30. Related file: DRC2001-00791. (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWDRC2001-00791 - LEW IS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES -The Design Review of 677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of Tentative Tract 16157) in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway -APN: 227-151-30. Related file: SUBTT16157. 8:25 p.m. (Alan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001- 00572 - HOGLE-IRELAND, INC. - A request to demolish and rebuild a fast food restaurant, with drive-thru facilities and indoor play area, totaling 4,751 square feet, located at 9649 Foothill Boulevard in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 3, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.32.030E.1.a. -APN: 208-261-053. 8:45 p.m. Cathy J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM 15699 - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 248.63 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS; SUBTT16226- A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 92.78 ACRES INTO 265 LOTS; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16227 - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 144.94 ACRES INTO 367 LOTS- BCADEVELOPMENT- A request for a parcel map and two tentative tract maps to subdivide 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of 25th Street, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 225-171-47, 48, 50, and 51, and APN: 25-181-09, 11, 14, 15. 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 13, 2002, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting perGovernment Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic CenterDri ,Rancho Cucamonga. ~.~~! • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:00 p.m. Kirt Coury June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16116 - KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. -A request to subdivide 37.4 acres of land into 48 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 225-181-04, 06, 07, 08, and 43. Design Parameters: The site has a slight slope from north to southeast and surrounds one single- family dwelling (identified as not-a-part parcel) located on East Avenue. The subject property is within the Equestrian Overlay District. The site is bounded by Banyan Street to the north, East Avenue to the east, and surrounded bysingle-family residences in all directions. The project will align East Avenue intersection across Banyan Street. The project will also construct a striped Class II Bike Lane on the shoulder, and Community Trail within the parkway, of East Avenue, as well. The-proposed trail layout includes a Local Feeder Trail to the rear of each'' residential lot, as well as public Community Trails along the northern, northwestern, and southern project boundaries, as well as through the south central portion of the site. The average lot size is 25,929 square feet and is large enough for horse keeping. No home product is proposed at this time. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which are remnant windrows. The Etiwanda • Specific Plan requires windrows along Banyan Street to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that many of the trees on- site are not worthy of preservation. The project proposes to remove all or some of the trees and replace with new windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. ~' Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently to resolve major design issues presented by staff. There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: The Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All walls and fences shall be of decorative material. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Banyan Street shall be preserved or replaced per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual diseased or damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minimum spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with 5- gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500. • Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above comments. DRC COMMENTS SUBTT16116 - KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SOUTHERN CA, INC. June 18, 2002 • Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Kirt Coury • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:20 p.m. Doug Fenn June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-001 53 -GRANITE HOMES -The design review of building elevation and detailed site plan for three previously approved tentative tract maps consisting of 102 single-family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and W ilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-59. Related files: Tract(s) 14496 and 14496-1. Design Parameters: The site falls within the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development (previously University/Crest Project), a 1,238 residential unit development approved by the County in May 1991 and recently annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site consists of two tracts, which have been graded and retaining walls have been developed. The applicant is proposing a single-phased development. The site is bordered by vacant land to the north and west and W ilson Avenue and MBK residential development is to the south, and across Day Creek Boulevard to the east is vacant land. Main access to the tracts is from Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue. The applicant is proposing to develop 102 single-family homes on two tracts approved under the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development Agreement (Tract 14496 and 14496-1 ). The homes will include 12 Floor Plans and 4 architectural styles. The square footage of the homes varies in size from 2,738 to 4,638 square feet. The architectural styles of the project include Ranch, Country, Bungalow, and San Juan. The homes will also include porches on corner lots, side on garages, and additional enhanced architecture on elevations, which back and side on Day Creek Boulevard and • Wilson Avenue. The project is not a multiple phased development. 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: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve major design issues. Staff is pleased with the 360-degree architecture on all elevations. The applicant responded to staffs recommendations and added architectural detail such as: surrounds, sash windows, dormers, siding, shutters, cultured stone and other elements which adds richness to all sides of the residences. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Fifty percent of finished product should have garage doors with windows. 2. W hen a retaining wall exists in the rear of the property to assist with the 15-foot useable areas, steps should be provided to allow access to maintain the slope. 3. The pilasters used for the Bungalow style architecture should widen at the bottom for a more rural and traditional look. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00153 -GRANITE HOMES June 18, 2002 • 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. All walls visible from or facing a street should be decorative masonry on both sides. 2. All interior private yard slopes required to be landscaped should receive ground cover, shrubs, and one tree for every 150 square feet of area. A ratio of fifty percent 5-gallon and fifty percent 15-gallon shall be provided for trees. 3. All cultured stone or similar like rock or stone should be a natural material, and not a pre-manufactured veneer siding. 4. Plot one tree in each front yard area on Landscape Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the above-mentioned conditions. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn r, LJ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS . 6:40 p.m. Doug Fenn June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00638 - PRP INVESTORS -The proposed development of a 57,451 square foot grocery supermarket and 25,000 square feet of retail shops on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, and a 3,522 square foot fast food restaurant and site plan approval fora 3,600 square foot gasoline service station including a convenience market store and adrive-thru carwash on the northwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard on 12.59 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan - APN: 1089-021-09 and 10. Related file: SUBTPM15781 and Preliminary Review DRC2001-00364. Site and Surrounding Land Use Parameters: ,The project site is situated immediately south of the eastbound off-ramps for the I-210 freeway, on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard. Highland Avenue bisects the project site creating separate north and south segments of the project. Single-family development has occurred east of Day Creek Boulevard, and immediately south of the project site. West of the project site is a Southern California Edison transmission power line, the Day Creek Flood Control Channel, and the Lower Day Creek Flood Control Basin. The project site has been completely mass-graded due to the construction of the existing subdivision to the south and the I-210 freeway ramps and realignment of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. Extensive fill dirt has been added to the site, south of Highland Avenue, over the past five years. The site is approximately 25 feet above grade at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The remainder of the site slopes gradually toward the south at • approximately 3 percent grade. The existing single-family homes along the south boundary are set approximately 16 feet lower in elevation than the proposed project. An existing 6-foot masonry wall at the top of slope forms the south boundary of the project site. Design Parameters: The project is located within the Victoria Community Plan area. The Victoria Community Plan contains no architectural guidelines for commercial development. The Mediterranean architectural style, which is compatible with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, features stacked stone, stucco veneer, various earth toned color scheme, and file roofs). Architectural elements include tower features, arches, reveals, recesses, pop-outs, trelliswork, arches, and awnings (in some cases these elements need to be strengthened). The entire project has been designed with pedestrian pathways and an enhanced plaza area between the iwo retail freestanding buildings. The project has also been richly landscaped at entryways and at the intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue (in general conformance with the Regional City Gateways) to beautify and soften the project. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: Since the last Design Review meeting in February, the applicant has addressed most of the major and secondary issues. However, there are some remaining issues that still need to be addressed and will be the focus of Committee's discussion regarding this project: Ralphs -Staff is generally pleased with the most recent elevation modification to the Ralph's grocery store; however, more ceramic file accents with the custom finish trim should be added along the rear and north elevations. • 1. Gateway Treatment at southwest corner Day Creek Boulevard -Staff believes there is a unique opportunity to incorporate a water element afforded by the 25-foot grade differential between the site and the Day Creek Boulevard/Highland Avenue intersection. The water element could cascade in a man-made river rock creek down the slope. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2001-00638 - PRP INVESTORS June 18,2002 • Page 2 Shops 2 and 3 -The water feature (fountain) within the plaza area between Shops 2 and 3 is minimal considering the size and scope of the project. A larger water feature is needed within the plaza area. . 3. Gas Station - Provide a detailed element at the primary entryway of the building, additionally wall in the glazing contiguous to the entryway. Provide elevation plans of the canopy. Previous comment for the last canopy elevation was that support shroud for the canopy will look better with stacked stone, instead of a stucco finish. Provide a decorative screen wall along freeway off-ramp (similar to what Mc Donald's has done for their drive thru lane). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide climbing vines (with appropriate irrigation) to soften unarticulated building walls and freestanding walls. 2. Incorporate as much landscaping as possible around the buildings 3. Freeway Oriented Signs/Uniform Sign Program -Although no freeway signs are shown on plans, staff has received inquiries about freestanding signs along the new freeway. The Sign Ordinance prohibits freeway-oriented signs except within regional shopping centers whereas; this is a neighborhood shopping center. The applicant has been informed that • Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. All on-site signs shall comply with the Sigh Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division, prior to installation of any signs. Policy 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. No outdoor storage, including container storage, shall be permitted. 3. No outdoor display of merchandise shall be permitted, except as may be approved through a Temporary Use Permit. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return to Design Review Committee for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn C~ CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. ' Warren Morelion June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00589 - WAYNE CAREY - A request to construct two 6,992 square foot industrial buildings on 1.06 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the west side of Maple Place, approximately 700 feet north of Arrow Route - APN: 208-352-45 and 46. Related file: DRC2001-00350. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner Warren Morelion • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:10 p.m. Warren Morelion June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00306 - GLENWOODDEVELOPMENT COMPANY -The development of a 10,368 square foot single-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Warren Morelion June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00018 - PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-The development of an integrated commercial centerconsisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive-APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. VARIANCE DRC2002-00246- PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-A requestto allow up to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. Background: On June 4, 2002, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project and recommended the applicant make revisions and come back to the June 18, 2002, Committee meeting. Because of short notice, the applicant will bring revised plans to the meeting. The following are issues that should be addressed at the meeting: 1. In response to the identified major site issue, the applicant indicated that because of Caltrans requirements to keep the existing drainage easement in place, Option "B" would not be feasible. The applicant also indicated to the Committee that Option "A" has been studied and that they disagreed with it. The Committee stated that they still have concerns with the circulation conflicts at the middle of the site. The Committee commented that the site is "maxed out" as far as development, and that a better solution to circulation conflicts could be achieved. The Committee asked the applicant to restudy the site to create a better site design. The applicant agreed to do it. 2. The applicant agreed with all the identified secondary and policy issues with the exception of the following: the decorative paving connecting the 7-1 1 to the Jack in the Box stays in the same general location as proposed; and not having file wainscot where they proposed steel tubular trellis frame works on building walls. The Committee accepted the decorative paving connection between 7-11 and Jack-in-the-Box but required file wainscot regardless whether there are tubular trellises or not. The Committee stated that the addition of metal trellis frame works and planters to blank building walls is acceptable but believed it is the minimum. The Committee felt that the applicant should redesign the architecture of the buildings to eliminate large expanses of blank walls by adding design features and detailing such as arches, arcades, medallions, etc. 3. Provide wrought iron fencing on top of proposed retaining wall on the south side of the project boundary to provide a barrier between proposed project and the210 Freeway. The wrought iron fencing with dense landscaping maybe acceptable in screen Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru lane. Provide an illustrative cross-section to show it. 4. Change wall-pak light fixture to sconce lights (upright light and down light) because they produce glare. Because the site is across from residential development the lights on the canopy appear too bright. Reduce the light wattages and recess the lights so they are at least 6 inches for above the lowest edge of the canopy • 5. Revise hip roof design on the 7-11 building and the multi-tenant building so they match the hip roof design of the Jack-in-the-Box. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00018 &VAR DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT June 18, 2002 • Page 2 6. Provide examples/pictures of signs proposed for the project to review at the next Committee meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the project and make a recommendation of whether to approve the project or come back as a regular or consent item. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner Warren Morelion • U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:05 p.m. Debra Meier June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16157 -LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - A proposed subdivision of 10 numbered lots and one lettered lot on 60.17 acres in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN:. 227-151-30. Related file DRC2001-00791. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00791 -LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES -The Design Review of 677 dwelling units on 39.6 acres (Lots 1-9 of Tentative Tract 16157) in the Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) Residential Densities of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-30. Related file: SUBTT16157. Design Parameters: Tentative Tract 16157 is the single largest remaining piece of undeveloped property within the Terra Vista Planned Community. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Community Plan, at the northwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway, with the East Greenway Trail forming the north boundary of the site. The related Development/Design Review file (DRC2001-00791) pertains to only a 39.6-cre portion of the overall site. The applicant has designed a Ste Pan focused on a formal semi-circular route radiating away from • the central recreation facility. A grid pattern of common open space provides connections from recreational amenities within the project, to recreational opportunities on the perimeter of the site, including Milliken Park, Mountain View Park and the East Greenway Trail system. The site will be gated, with entry on both Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway. The focus of the project is the 14,000 square foot multi-use recreation building and central private open space site that also includes a Kids Club (for after-school activities), tot lot, wading pool, pool/spa, tennis court, and entertainment patio. Other appropriate amenities are distributed in key locations throughout the project. The parcel is presently designated High Density Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Density Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), of the Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP); a calculation of project density is summarized below: 36.26 acres at Medium Density 14 X 36.26 = 507 dwelling units 12.79 acres at Medium-High Density 24 X 12.79 = 307 dwelling units 11.06 acres at High Density 30 X 11.06 = 330 dwelling units 60.00 acres total Total 1,144 dwelling units Average Density of the complete project site is 19.0 dwelling units per acre. The current application (DRC2001-00791) includes 39.62 acres, which is 66 percent of the area included in the Tentative Tract Map (Lots 1-9). The greatest portion of the current project is included in the Medium Density portion of the site. The current project density is 17 dwelling units per acre, which includes 59 percent of the total number of dwelling units. • The standards of the associated with the various dwelling unit types will apply accordingly in the proposed development. For example, the townhome structures comply with the Medium Density standards, while the more standard apartment style structures comply with the Medium-High and High Density standards. DRC COMMENTS TT16157 - LEW IS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES June 18, 2002 • Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Open Space: The proposed project must meet a Code requirement for Common Open Space of 35 percent of the site area, and Useable Open Space (private + common) of 40 percent. The applicant has provided 16.6 acres or 42 percent of the site as Common Open Space. In addition, the applicant is required to meet private open space square footage standards for each dwelling: Medium Density - 255 square feet for a ground floor unit or 150 square feet for an upper level unit; High or Medium-High Density - 150 square feet for a ground floor unit or 100 square feet for an upper level unit. The minimum dimension of any porch, patio or balcony shall be 6 feet. Although these are technical Code requirements, the question that we would like to pose for Committee discussion is: If the total required Usable Open Space is adequately provided on the site, can the applicant have flexibility in the provision of private open space, particularly on ground floor units where they are using the enlarged porch to provide private open space. In essence, they are moving the porch limit within a defined open space zone in an effortto balance the private open space and the common open space as best define the needs of this project. • For example, most of the Building Types (4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) have less than the necessary square footage of the standard requirement for porches and/or balconies. Building Types 4 and 7 are townhome style dwellings with only the porch used to define private open space, where the limit of the porch defines the boundary between private and common open space. The applicant would like to maximize the useable open space (common + private) while minimizing the private open space component along the primary circulation segments of the site, to the benefit of the project has they see it. Typically staff requires that a project meet the private open space requirements, regardless of the degree of common open space (or usable open space) provided on the site. 2. Terra Vista Community Plan Trail Alignment: The Terra Vista Community Plan depicts a trail type D traversing this property between Church Street on the south and the East Greenway Trail on the north. Due to the gated nature of the proposed project, the applicant is submitting an amendment to the Community Plan to request a realignment of the trail around the project, along Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway. Trails along the street are referred to as Trail Type E in the Community Plan, which typically require a 6-foot sidewalk, and a minimum increase in the street right-of-way of 6 feet, resulting in a setback of 38 feet average and 33 feet minimum along both Church and Terra Vista Parkway. As proposed, the project currently has a 46-foot minimum and up to 57-feet maximum, building setback along the street frontage. Providing ample opportunityto create a trail-like environment along the streetscape. • The trail will be realigned around the site to the signalized trail crossing on Terra Vista Parkway on the east; and to the intersection of Church Street and Milliken Avenue, where segments of a Trail Type E have been constructed both north and south of the intersection. Internal open space corridors will allow residents of the project to have direct access to East Greenway Trail and eventually to Milliken Park (future phase). DRC COMMENTS TT16157 - LEW IS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES June 18, 2002 • Page 3 Building Elevations: Building Types 2-3 and 5-(i: These building types are townhomes with a private rear yard space separating the dwelling from the garage; the Building Types 3 or 5, feature the apartment style flats over the garages. This Building Type 2-3 and 5-6 combination features one architectural style that is used 13 times throughout the project, with asingle-story element used on the ends of some buildings. The overall architectural style/theme of the Building Types 2-3 combination is acceptable; however, the applicant has not provided elevations of the walls facing the rear yard patios. Staff has previously discussed these elevations with the applicant, stressing the need to develop elevations that do not result in unwanted and unusable outdoor space by virtue of the stark, potentially light-less ambience created in this space with is flanked by two-story structures. Building Types 4 and 7: Building Types 4 and 7 are the traditional townhome with an attached garage. All private open space is provided by the front porch (see discussion above). The smaller Building Type 4 is used twice in the project, and Building Type 7 is used 21 times. The architectural style/theme is very boxy in nature, without features or elements that establish a unique character. Individual town home units should reflect some level of • individuality. The porch elements carry the overall appearance of an attached shed roof and could be used as a stronger element of the design. It is primarily Building Type 7 that is used along the perimeter streets facing Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway. Building Types 8. 9, and 10: These building types reflect a traditional apartment style building; some units have access directly to either a one or two car garage. Building Type 8 occurs 32 times, Type 9 occurs 32 times, and Type 10 occurs 10 times throughout the project; therefore, these are the most dominantly used Building Types in the project. The exterior of the buildings are all very similar, with units within the buildings varying in size and layout. Again the style and theme of these Building Types are not distinctive. Optional Elevations B and C offer some variation in materials, such as adding the use of wood siding, however, the options are otherwise not discernibly different from the one another. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee discuss the noted items with the applicant and suggest modifications for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present Staff Planner: Debra Meier C, J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:25 p.m. Alan Warren June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00572-HOGLE- IRELAND, INC. -A request to demolish and rebuild a fast food restaurant, with drive-thru facilities and indoor play area, totaling 4,751 square feet, located at 9649 Foothill Boulevard in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 3, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.32.030E.1.a. '- APN: 208-261-053. Design Parameters: The site is located on Foothill Boulevard for which the City Council adopted a Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. The property is a few hundred feet west of Archibald Avenue on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. The area has a mixture of recent projects (on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Avenue) and older, pre-city developments of varying size, character, and use. Directly across the street sits an old Route 66 era gas station structure. Within this context, McDonald's has proposed to rebuild a fast food restaurant, replacing one that was built around 1977. Also, the proposal is calling for expanded operations with an indoor play area and two drive-thru lanes to be opened 24 hours. At the March 19, 2002 meeting, the Design Review Committee advised the applicant of the importance of presenting a strong thematic architectural statement for the Archibald/Foothill Activity Center and that the proposal did not quite achieve such a statement. They stated that the individual elements of the architecture had merit, but that they did not "come together" to produce a strong statement for the area. "Route 66"/winery architectural styles were encouraged. The Committee suggested that the applicant work with staff to enhance the architectural style, prior to coming back • to the Committee with revisions. Also, in response to the noise environmental issue, the Committee advised that the noise issue should be worked out, prior to going to the Planning Commission. The Committee gave accounts of similar situations in the community where noise problems caused the implementation of extensive mitigation processes for the City. Staff will update the Committee on the noise study. 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: Architecture: The building's style has been significantly improved with a "Route 66" flavor similar to the 1930's gas station canopy directly across Foothill Boulevard. Staff is generally in favor of this architectural presentation. Staff recommends; however, that the following changes be made to the design: a. The roof file color should be changed from the proposed "Arresting. Red" to a more subdued mission file color. b. The wainscot color should also be changed to a more subdued mission file color (Canyon Red from previous color board) or replace with more natural river rock veneer (refer to Policy No. 2 below). DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2001-00572 - HOGLE-IRELAND, INC. June 18, 2002 • Page 2 Signing: A monument sign is proposed in front of the building, inside the property line. In this area, the decorative activity center paving crosses from the public right-of-way on to the private property forming a continuous walkway in front of the building. Staff questions the need for the monument sign because the building is close to the street and has wall signs that will be more visible due to their height. Also, the sign, as proposed, blocks a substantial part of the decorative sidewalk, which will cause pedestrians to divert along the curb. From a policy standpoint, this would be the first monument sign allowed within the Activity Center streetscape; therefore, would establish a precedent. If the Committee supports monument signs within the Activity Center streetscape, then staff recommends that it be limited to 4Yz feet in height, reduced in width by half, and that the sign's background (what ever color) be opaque to light transmission, with only the lettering being internally illuminated. Also, the proposal shows the intent to have one monument sign and three wall signs. The development must conform to the Sign Ordinance provisions and, as a result, the site will be limited to one monument sign and two wall signs. Finally, the "PLAY PLACE" signs do not comply with the Sign Ordinance's definition of business identification and therefore will not be allowed (extraneous signing). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Create a strong entry statement with textured pavement at project entrances. The textured pavement should extend from beginning of the walkways on each site of the play place area to the main entries on each side of the restaurant portion. This would include enhanced pavement continuing all the way to the entry under the tower element on the west side. 2. New Zealand flax is to be used in mass on each side of the main building frontage. Staff recommends that these planting areas be provided with a massing ground cover and that the flax be limited to texture/foliage accents. 3. To reduce potential congestion situation due to the convergence of vehicle traffic at the east driveway entrance, the applicant has added stripping to the drive-thru lane to direct the motorists more easterly before turning north to exit the site from the east driveway. Staff believes this should provide the necessary on-site direction. 4. The parking area drive aisle is 24 feet wide. This width complies with minimum Development Code standards, but should be increased to 26 feet for emergency fire apparatus, if required by the Fire District. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide buffer where site adjoins residential development; with dense landscaping. 2. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. 3. Screen parking areas from public view with landscaping, and building orientation. • 4. Integrate screening for roof-mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) rather than have a "tacked-on" appearance. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2001-00572 - HOGLE-IRELAND, INC. June 18, 2002 • Page 3 5. Consider site amenities, such as walls, hardscape, street furniture, trash enclosures, lighting, and monument signs as part of the total architectural package for the project. 6. Maintain adequate sight lines for motorists at intersections and driveways. 7. Integrate signs into the architectural scheme. Indeed, the building itself can serve as a large and impressive sign. To achieve this effect, however, the individual signs on the facade must reinforce the character of the building, not obscure it or detract from it. 8. Size of signs must be proportional to the scale of the building and the surface they are affixed to. 9. Visually balance the sign area with the building mass and height ratherthan designing to the maximum standard. 10. Use individual letters rather than canister type signs. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission subject to incorporation of the items listed above and a satisfactory resolution of the environmental processing regarding the noise issues. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Staff Planner: Alan Warren C~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:45 p.m. Cathy J. June 18, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTYPE 15699 - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 248.63 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS; SUBTT16226 -A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 92.78 ACRES INTO 265 LOTS; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16227 - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 144.94 ACRES INTO 367 LOTS- BCADEVELOPMENT-A request for a parcel map and two tentative tract maps to subdivide 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of 25th Street, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN:225-171-47, 48, 50, and 51,and APN: 25-181-09, 11, 14, 15. Design Parameters: The project site is located at the northern terminus of Etiwanda Avenue, which forms the eastern boundary of the property. Along the northern edge of the property, the project site abuts the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and the Southern California (SCE) utility corridors. Adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the project site are SCE Utility corridors. The Rancho Etiwanda project borders the project site on the south and single-family residences are under construction. A Development Agreement No. 01-01 was recorded for the project site, which approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates as a private gated community including a Homeowners' Association, which will own and be responsible for maintenance of common area streets, drainage facilities, interim detention basin, utility easements, landscaping and walls with the project area. • The project will construct Day Creek Boulevard from the northerly boundary of the Rancho Etiwanda project to Etiwanda Avenue and construct Etiwanda Avenue from the southeastern boundary of the project site to Day Creek Boulevard. The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. The average lot size is 12,468 square feet in Tentative Tract 16226 and 11,045 square feet in Tentative Tract 16227. No home product is proposed at this time. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Major design issues have been addressed through the Development Agreement and discussions with staff. There are no issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Cathy Johnson • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JUNE 4, 2002 6:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Committee Members: Pam Stewart John Mannerino Nancy Fong 7:00 p.m. Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong 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. 6:00 p.m. (Donald) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00725 -JOHN GOSTOMSKI - A request to construct a 4,345 square foot single-family home on 1.01 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, on Skyline Road, north of Almond Street-APN: 200-441-67. 6:15 p.m (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16347 - FORECAST GROUP = A request to subdivide 6.2 acres of land into one lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overland District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00340, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00340 -FORECAST GROUP - A request to construct 80 apartments on 6.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling'units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District with the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16347 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. 6:40 p.m. (Emily) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00308 - G & L COMMERCIAL -The development of four commercial/office buildings totaling 19,265 square feetwithin the Master Planning Virginia Date Business Center on .6 acres of land in the General • Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Parcel No. 9 -APN: 1077-661-18. DRC AGENDA JUNE 4, 2002 Page 2 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Brent) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00260 -ISLANDS RESTAURANT - A request to construct 15,431 square foot restaurant with baron 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast cornerof Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-011-25. 7:10 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16332 - STONEBRIDGEDEVELOPMENT -The development of 20single-family lots on 14.98 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located generally on the northwest corner of Hillside Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1074-241-03 and 01. 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. 7:20 p.m (Kirt) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00133- REALTY BANCORP EQUITIES- Thedevelopment of a 4,000 square foot building for retail and coffee/food service use with drive-thru (Starbucks) and (Voice Stream) on 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90. Related files: Conditional Use Permits 00-38 (Chipotle Grill), and DRC2001-00203 (Fazolis Restaurant). 7:40 p.m (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00187 - PARAGON -The development of a 102,516 square foot industrial building on 4.9 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the west side of Center Avenue between 6th and 7th Streets at 9118 Center Avenue - APN: 209-261-28. • • • DRC AGENDA JUNE 4, 2002 Page 3 8:00 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00018 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT -The development of an integrated commercial center consisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. (Warren) VARIANCE DRC2002-00246-PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-Arequesttoallowup to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive - APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. 8:20 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00306 - GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -The development of a 10,368 square foot single-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue -APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. 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 • 6:00 p.m. Donald Granger June 4, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00725 -JOHN GOSTOMSKI - A request to construct a 4,345 square foot single-family home on 1.01 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, on Skyline Road, north of Almond Street - APN: 200-441-67. Background and Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,345 square foot, two-story home..The proposed house has strong variation in the roof planes, using a hip design. There is significant movement in the proposed building's footprint, resulting in all elevations being well articulated. A stacked stone base treatment is included along the east and south elevations, and on a portion of the west elevation, terminating at a logical point in the wall plane. The south elevation has asecond-story balcony with concrete balustrades that is supported by decorative columns. A 360-degree architecture is accomplished with the following accent features on the elevations: quoins, decorative window mouldings, divided light windows, shutters, and a bellyband. The architectural style of the house is compatible with the surrounding area. The home is setback over 170 feet from curb face along Skyline Road, due to presence of an 80-foot wide fault zone and related 50- to 80-foot building setback that is indicated on the recorded Tract Map. The lot, located near the terminus of Skyline Road, commands a spectacularview of the valley below. The proposedtwo-story house and attached garage is designed with 4 stepped pads that have a total elevation change of 5 feet, over native terrain with a grade change of 10 feet. The proposed house and garage requires a vertical cut of 8 feet, vertical fill of 5 feet, and has combined cuUfill earthwork quantities of 2,150 cubic yards. Under Hillside Development Regulations, projects that have greater than 5 feet of vertical cuUfill, natural slopes of 15 percent of greater, or have • earthwork quantities in excess of 1,500 cubic yards require review bythe Design Review Committee and by the Planning Commission. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside 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 substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize the impacts of grading and preserve the natural topography. The major concerns are the quantities of earthwork, primarily comprised of 1,075 cubic yards of excavation, and 1,075 cubic yards of fill. Where retaining walls have been necessary due to steep grades, the applicant has utilized terraced retaining walls that do not exceed 4 feet, and placed appropriate landscaping between the retaining walls. The terraced retaining walls are consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance and are within the allowable height limits. In contrast to conventional flat pad design, staff believes the proposed house meets the guidelines of the Hillside Development Ordinance by reducing earthwork quantities through the use of multiple stepped building pads that permit the house to follow the natural terrain. 2. Elevations: Provide the same level of architectural design quality to the one story accessory structure, which is more visible from the street because it is substantially closer to Skyline • Drive than the residence. The one-story accessory building cannot be considered part of this review application because no floor plans or elevations were provided; hence, will require separate hillside design review and approval or this application may be amended to include the drawings, prior to Planning Commission review. The applicant should indicate which process they desire. If this application will be amended to include accessory building, then Committee Consent Calendar review is recommended. DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2001-00725 -JOHN GOSTOMSKI • June 4, 2002 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Add quoins to the northwest corner of the garage wall plane. Add the stacked stone treatment to the east side of the garage. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The project is located in a high fire hazard area and fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design.. 2. All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls, shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face or slump stone). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that with the secondary issues being addressed, the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations and recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Donald Granger The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: Quoins shall be added to the northwest corner of the garage wall plane. 2. Stacked stone base shall be added to the east elevation of the attached garage. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:15 p.m. Kirt Coury June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16347 -FORECAST GROUP - A request to subdivide 6.2 acres of land into one lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overland District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00340, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00340 - FORECASTGROUP - A request to construct 80 apartments on 6.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District with the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard-APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16347 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. Design Parameters: The site is an irregular rectangular shaped parcel located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard. The lot is generally flat, sloping downward to the south and west. The site is currently developed with nine existing single-family residences. The proposed project is Phase II of an apartment project. This Phase proposes 80 units on 5.8 acres. Phase I (SUBTT16257 and DRC2001-00557) is 340 units on 24.2 acres, approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2002. The site is surrounded by Phase I, with the exception of two existing single-family homes along the northeast property boundary, abutting Etiwanda Avenue. To • the east across Etiwanda Avenue, is the approved, currently under construction, Camino Real Apartments. The project density of 13.8 dwelling units per acre is essentially at the top of the density range for this zone; therefore, transition of density to adjoining single-family homes is critical. The Site Plan has been designed to create transitions through building orientation and generous setbacks to the identified two remaining single-family residences. The project will include a total of 8 apartment buildings comprised of four building types. The proposed buildings fronting Etiwanda Avenue (one type Building C and a garage structure) will have enhanced elevations and the building masses will include both two-story and one-story elements to articulate the massing. Single-story garage structures perform as a good buffer and low massing transition along the northeast property line, adjacent the two remaining single-family residences. A recreation/open space corridor is provided within the development, which will include both active and passive recreation facilities, and will connect with the corridor proposed in Phase I. Recreation amenities include a large open lawn area, a horseshoe pit, and four barbecue areas. The proposed buildings will include a stucco finish, painted wood corbels, wood siding, and a concrete flat the roof. The project perimeter will involve 6-foot high tubular steel fencing and a masonry wall. Fencing along Etiwanda Avenue will include 6-foot high tubular steel fencing with decorative masonry pilasters. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • DRC COMMENTS TTM SUBTT16347 & CUP DRC2002-00340 -FORECAST GROUP June 4, 2002 • Page 2 ' Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently to resolve major design issues presented by staff. Also, the building architecture and design are consistent with that which was approved by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission for Phase I. There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: The Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All walls and fences shall be of decorative material. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Vary the roll-up garage door designs to avoid monotony. Suggest pairing together doors with same design. 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: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The Committee recommended approval of the proposed project subject to the Secondary and Policy Issues. In addition, the Committee identified that the buildings would be subject to the same conditions of approval that were placed on the Etiwanda Apartments Phase 1 (DRC2001-00557). • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:40 p.m. Emily Wimer June 4, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00308 - G & L COMMERCIAL -The development of four commercial/office buildings totaling 19,265 square feet within the Master Planning Virginia Date Business Center on .6 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Parcel No. 9 - APN: 1077-661-18. Design Parameters: The site is located on a p southwest of the former Edwards Cinema (see Exhibit "A"). This Center is fully improved with curb and gutter, and fully landscaped. The Virginia Dare Business Center is located within the General Commercial District. The site was previously graded and slopes less than 2 percent to the south. The retail pads located in the Center include office buildings at the frontage of Foothill Boulevard, retail services include food service and support office uses such as printing services, sign studio, and a law office. The food court is being converted to office uses. The proposed office building introduces the design element of keystone entries on windows and doorways. The overall design and architecture is in similar taste and theme as the Virginia Dare Business Center. In effort to provide compatibility with the design of the existing Center, the applicant has incorporated architectural elements such as standing seam metal roof, stucco facade, file insets, and trellis walkways. A shared parking study approved by the Planning Commission on April 10, 2002 concludes that 58,000 square feet of additional office space could be built, including the conversion of the cinema to offices, without overloading available parking based on the offset peak and demand hours.. This project will construct approximately 135 new parking spaces. • 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: The applicant has resolved and diligently worked with staff to resolve previous Major Issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Trees should be shown on the Landscape Plan on a 1/3 basis. One 15-gallon tree per 3 parking spaces provided. 2. Trees should also be provided at a rate of one 15-gallon tree per 30 linear feet of building. Staff suggests additional Crepe Myrtles to accommodate the small planter area on the exterior of the building. 3. The colors, materials such as but not limited to stucco, roof material, ceramic file insets, shall match the center. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All wall-mounted light fixtures and parking lot light poles shall have light pointed downwards. • Avoid high wattage and angled lighting, which will adversely affect adjoining businesses. 2. Signage forthe proposed building shall be consistentwith the Virginia Dare Business Center Uniform Sign Program and must be reviewed and approved separately from the approval of this Development Review. DRC COMMENTS DRC 2002-00308 - G & L COMMERCIAL June 4, 2002Page 2 • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved subject to the above comments. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee approved the project subject to the conditions below: 1. Provide a secondary hue to offset the stucco pop-outs and keystone elements on all elevations. 2. Provide additional landscaping per Development Code requirements. • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 4, 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00260 -ISLANDS RESTAURANT-A request to construct 15,431 square foot restaurant with bar on 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-25. REVISED PLANS AND MATERIAL SAMPLES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the revised roof designs submitted by the applicant. The Committee recommended that the roof material for the towers be concrete file to match the main building. The Committee is willing to accept corrugated metal roofing for the canopy over the building entrance. • • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Emily W imer June 4, 2002 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16332 -STONEBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT -The development of 20single-family lots on 14.98 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located generally on the northwest corner of Hillside Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1074-241-03 and 01. Design Parameters: Tentative Tract 16332 is located north of Hillside Road, south of W oodbridge, east of Hermosa Avenue and west of Ridgeview Avenue. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north, east, and southwest of the project site. The site is bound by Hillside Road on the south, with Haven Avenue generally located 1,500 feet to the east. Sidewalks, trails, and landscaping will be required with project approval. The site slopes southerly at an approximate 4 percent, 8 percent grading and is subject to hillside review with the submittal of house product. There is no home product proposed with the subdivision at this time. The project meets the minimum lot depth of 200 feet and exceeds the minimum lot size of A significant windrow of Eucalyptus trees exists. On the west property line a windrow of approximately 14 trees exist. Both the northern and western property boundaries are lined with Eucalyptus trees. The majority of windrows will be preserved. The applicant has worked diligently with staff to preserve the majority of the trees, and place the trail at the top of slope. Replacement of all other trees will be required on-site at a one-to-one ratio. A meandering Riding Trail is proposed along the north property line and Hermosa Avenue as well as along the rear property lines of Lots 18, 19, and 20. 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: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to address all major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: On all lots the proposed corral locations are impractical because they are only 20 feet from back of home on same lot. Staff recommends a minimum of 30 feet setback from home. The only lot where this may not be possible is Lot 15 because it backs up to the interior side yard of Lot 14. Horse corrals do meet the minimum of 70-foot setback from homes on adjoining lots. 2. The house pad areas shown do not meet minimum 10 feeU15 feet interior side yard setbacks on many lots; however, actual house footprints may comply. No homes are proposed with this application. This is mentioned only for the information of the developer to consider when designing their house product. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, which are recommended bythe Arboristto be removed, shall be • replaced at a one-to-one ratio and placed on-site. The length of the windrow replacement shall be comparable in length. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Committee approval with the above recommended conditions. DRC COMMENTS TT 16332 - STONEBRIDGE . June 4, 2002 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Emily Wimer Cancelled at the request of the applicant. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Kirt Coury June 4, 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00133 -REALTY BANCORP EQUITIES -The development of a 4,000 square foot building for retail and coffee/food service use with drive-thru (Starbucks) and (Voice Stream) on 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90. Related files: Conditional Use Permits 00-38 (Chipotle Grill), and DRC2001-00203 (Fazolis Restaurant). 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, Chipotle Grill (already approved) and a fast food drive-thru restaurant. No specific design was provided for the fast food restaurant regarding architecture. The request now under consideration is the coffee/food service restaurant with drive-thru (Starbucks) and retail building (Voice Stream). 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 Starbucks and Voice Stream are proposing 4,000 square feet. The increased floor area (approximately 1,500 square foot increase) and Site Plan revision will not necessitate additional parking, since the larger retail building space requires less parking (1 parking space per 250 square feet) than a fast food with drive-thru establishment (1 parking space per 75 square feet). • 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 easUwest on the overall master plan site and the Chipotle Grill building is being constructed to the west. 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. The building should incorporate the use of real copper roofing and awning materials. The applicant has submitted a simulated copper painted finish material as an alternative to discuss with the Design Review Committee. 2. It appears that the building proposes pop-out treatments (i.e., the east elevation tower elements); however, the proposed building footprints do not reflect these pop-outs. Building pop-outs should pop-out a minimum of 3 feet off of the main building for shadowing and relief. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00133 -REALTY BANCORP EQUITIES • June 4, 2002 Page 2 3. Provide a sidewalk connection from entry plaza to Chipotle restaurant, which ultimately provides pedestrian connection to other nearby buildings. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All features such as decorative paving, light standards, street furniture, etc., should match the details established by Applebee's Restaurant and Buddies Bistro. 2. All roof- and ground-mounted equipment should be fully screened from public view. 3. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require a separate application and approval by the Planning Division. No awning signs, (as identified on the west and south building elevations), are permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance. 4. Relocate the existing Eucalyptus trees out of the Foothill Boulevard frontage area and replace with Foothill Boulevard theme trees including Sycamores, Rhus Lancea, and Pine trees. • 5. The project should incorporate the use of outdoor patio furniture including, but not limited to, benches, tables, chairs, umbrellas, etc. The patio area should also incorporate landscaping such as planters and boxed trees. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with incorporation of the identified modifications. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The Committee recommended approval of the proposed project subject to all Major and Secondary Issues identified in the staff comments except Major Issue No. 1. The Committee would consider a substitute material for real copper roof and awnings if the material proposed is equal or better than the real copper subject to City Planner review and approval. The Committee directed staff that if the City Planner determines that the substitute material is not acceptable, than real copper material shall be required. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Kirt Coury June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00187- PARAGON -The development of a 102,516 square foot industrial building on 4.9 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the west side of Center Avenue between 6th and 7th Streets at 9118 Center Avenue - APN: 209-261-28. Design Parameters: The site is generally flat with a slight slope north to south and is currently vacant with only native grasses present. There are no trails, structures, or scenic aspects to the site. Single tenant industrial buildings surround the property on the north, south, and east. The Deer Creek Flood Control Channel (and planned Regional Multi-Purpose Trail) exists to the west. Access to the site will be through proposed drive approaches on Center Avenue. The project is a speculative industrial building targeting a warehouse and distribution tenant with limited office requirements. The project is a single phase of construction. The building will be self sufficient with independent access, parking, and utility services. Loading docks will be provided on the north elevation of the building. Finish materials for the building exterior include sandblast and building color treatments to create horizontal and vertical visual interest. The proposed windows will be treated with tinted glazed glass. The proposed building height is approximately 43 feet, which would be compatible with adjacent industrial buildings. 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: The building should incorporate an additional "office tower" element on the northeast corner of the building, to mimic the tower element reflected on the southeast building corner. 2. Provide additional sandblasting and paint treatment to the east elevation similar to that shown on the north elevation. 3. Provide a second outdoor employee patio to service the westerly portion of building. As a "speculative" building it may be divided into two tenants who should each have their own patio. 4. Provide pedestrian sidewalk connection and access gate to future Day Creek Regional Trail. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide table(s) and chairs or benches in outdoor employee eating area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with incorporation of the identified modifications. L~ DRC COMMENTS DRC2002-00187 -PARAGON • June 4, 2002 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Kirt Coury At the meeting the applicant submitted a revised east building elevation to' address staff's comments. The Committee reviewed the proposed revisions and recommended approval of the proposed project subject to the identified Major Issues Nos. 3 and 4, the Policy Issues, and the following conditions: Add a single secondary trash enclosure to serve a potential future second tenant to be located at the southwest end of the building site. Provide sandblasting treatment on the west elevation to reflect and mirror that shown on the east building elevation. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Warren Morelion June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00018 - PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-The development of an integrated commercial centerconsisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive-APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. VARIANCE DRC2002-00246- PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-A requestto allow up to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. Design Parameters: The site is triangular in shape and slopes southerly at approximately 5 percent. It is vacant and has 13 trees located at the east end. It is bordered by residential development to the west, the Haven Village shopping center to the east, and vacant land (future Tutor Time Learning Center) and the newly constructed W algreen's Pharmacy to the north. To the south of the site is the 210 Freeway, which is under construction. Access into the site is from Alta Loma Drive. The applicant is proposing to develop a commercial center consisting of three buildings (7-11, Jack in the Box, retail space) totaling 9,418 square feet. The project will be constructed in three phases. The first phase will be constructed at the northeast corner of the site and include a 3,248 square foot 7-11 convenience store with detached gas dispensing islands. The islands are covered by a large 60-foot by 66-foot canopy. The second phase will be located south of Phase One and include a 2,750 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant. The Jack in the Box restaurant is designed with a drive-thru lane at the south end. The third phase is west of Phase Two. The third phase will include two 1,000 square foot retail tenant spaces and one 1, 600 square foot tenant space with adrive- thru. The drive-thru is also located at the south side of the building. The buildings in the commercial center have been designed with one cohesive architectural style that includes stucco plaster with a 6 inch by 6 inch, 3-foot high, and ceramic the wainscot treatment: The 7-11 has tower elements on the northeast and southwest corners of the building, and the retail building has tower elements on the southeast, northeast, and northwest corners of the building. The Jack in the Box restaurant has tower elements on the north and east sides of the building. Screen walls have been proposed to screen the drive-thru lanes from Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive. The southern boundary of the project site is formed by the westbound on-ramp to the 210 freeway that is scheduled to open along this segment later this year. A retaining wall is proposed along this boundary varying in height from 1.5 feet to 12.5-feet in order to eliminate a grade change along this boundary. The retaining wall will parallel a freeway sound wall that is soon to be constructed along the west half of the site boundary. 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: DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00018 & VAR DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT • June 4, 2002 Page 2 Site Design a. Because of the building orientation and the type of fast service uses like 7-11, Jack in the Box and cafe, the main drive aisle leading to the middle of the site will have cars going in many directions that may create circulation conflicts. This area could be improved where the circulation conflicts could be reduced, as shown in Exhibit "A." b. The building in Lot C (west end of the site) sits behind a tall sound wall. Staff has suggested moving the building east where it would be more visible from Haven Avenue, meet the 45-foot minimum drive-thru lane setback, allow for more parking spaces, and provide for smoother grade changes. The applicant has been shown the suggested site design and generally is opened to the idea. However, he stated that there is a drainage easement traversing the site, which may make it infeasible for him to move the building east. Staff preference is to move the building east as shown in the Exhibit "B." If it is infeasible to relocate the easement, then staff would suggest the layout as shown in Exhibit "A." The applicant stated that Lot C is the last phased development where the final site design could come back as a separate Development Review application. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Plant 13 mature specimen trees to replace those removed. Provide trellises over the drive-thru lanes of the Jack in the Box restaurant and tenant building. The trellises should be architecturally integrated into the building designs. 3. The project has decorative paving proposed on drive aisles in the front of the Jack in the Box restaurant and in front and on the side of the tenant building. To meet commercial design standards, relocate the decorative paving to the front walkways of the buildings. ,Also provide decorative paving on the walkway in front of the 7-11 convenience store. For ease of circulation, the decorative paving connecting the 7-11 to the Jack in the Box should be relocated to run straight into the entrance of the Jack in the Box. When complete, the decorative paving should link all three buildings together. 4. The 210 Freeway retaining walls in the area have been designed with a stamped rock treatment at the base, and the sound walls have been designed using asplit-face block material consistent with other sound walls along the 210 Freeway. 5. Decorative the is proposed on a limited bases on the buildings (the base of column elements and drive-thru windows), and therefore should be increased. To increase the tile, suggest adding a the wainscot around the buildings where possible. 6. The 7-11 convenience store has translucent vinyl film proposed on the storefront glass. For screening purposes and aesthetic appearance, suggest redesigning the front with a permanent wainscot to match the rest of the building. . 7. Design all monument signs, drive aisle screen walls (not to include walls that are to match Caltrans), and trash enclosures with one architectural theme that matches the center's buildings in color and materials. The screen walls should be designed to include pilasters with caps. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00018 & DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT • June 4, 2002 Page 3 Revise the decorative paving on the west drive approach so it matches the paving on the east drive approach. Provide an additional landscape planter in front of the Jack in the Box restaurant. The new planter should be parallel to the parking spaces, have a minimum 6-foot outside dimension (including curb), and be spaced evenly between the existing planters in front. 10. Revise the landscape planters in front of the Jack in the Box restaurant so they are a minimum of 90 square feet and have an outside dimension of no less than 6 feet (including curb). 11. Revise the design and location of the Jack in the Box and tenant building's main switchboards so they are built into the structure of the building. The switchboards should be located out of the pedestrian walkways. 12. Provide an additional freestanding screen wall on the top of the proposed retaining wall to screen the drive-thru lane on the south side of the Jack in the Box restaurant. The screen wall should match the design of the Caltrans sound wall in material and color. 13. Provide 3-inch tubular steel trellis frameworks and planters around the buildings (where possible) to allow for vine plantings. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Revise the drive-thru lane on the east side of the westerly tenant building so that it is setback a minimum of 45 feet from Alta Loma Drive per Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and come back as a Consent Calendar item for further review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee directed the applicant to redesign the project and address the above-identified issues and the following additional comments: 1. In response to the identified major site issue, the applicant indicated that because of Caltrans requirements to keep the existing drainage easement in place, Option "B" would not be feasible. The applicant also indicated to the Committee that Option "A" has been studied and that they disagreed with it. The Committee stated that they still have concerns with the circulation conflicts at the middle of the site. The Committee commented that the site is "maxed out" as far as development, and that a better solution to circulation conflicts could be achieved. The Committee asked the applicant to restudy the site to create a better site design. The applicant agreed to do it. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00018 & DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT June 4, 2002 Page 4 The applicant agreed with all the identified secondary and policy issues with the exception of the following: the decorative paving connecting the 7-11 to the Jack in the Box stays in the same general location as proposed; and not having file wainscot where they proposed steel tubular trellis frame works on building walls. The Committee accepted the decorative paving connection between 7-11 and Jack-in-the-Box but required file wainscot regardless whether there are tubular trellises or not. The Committee stated that the addition of metal trellis frame works and planters to blank building walls is acceptable but believed it is the minimum. The Committee felt that the applicant should redesign the architecture of the buildings to eliminate large expanses of blank walls by adding design features and detailing such as arches, arcades, medallions, etc. Provide wrought iron fencing on top of proposed retaining wall on the south side of the project boundary to provide a barrier between proposed project and the 210 Freeway. The wrought iron fencing with dense landscaping may be acceptable in screen Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru lane. Provide an illustrative cross-section to show it. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS i 8:20 p.m. Warren Morelion June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00306 - GLENWOODDEVELOPMENT COMPANY-The development of a 10,368 square footsingle-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. Design Parameters: The site is triangular in shape and slopes southerly at approximately 6 percent. The site is vacant and has 35 trees and a large shrub grouping along the northern end. The site is bordered by residential development to the north and west, and to the east and south by vacant land proposed for commercial development. To the northeast of the site is the newly constructed Walgreen's Pharmacy. Access into the site is from Alta Loma Drive. The applicant is proposing to develop a 10,368 square foot TutorTime Learning Center on the north side of Alta Loma Dive, across from the proposed Los Osos Plaza commercial center. As part of development, the applicant has agreed to provide an access road for the condominium complex to Alta Loma Drive. The access road is located at the northeast end of the project boundary and aligns with the west entrance of the Los Osos Plaza. The Tutor Time building is designed with three primary materials that include stucco plaster, river rock, and castle stone. The river rock and castle stone are used on the building's columns and under the building's windows as a wainscot. The project has been designed with the building facing • east and parking to the east of the building. The outdoor play area for the children is located on the west side of the building adjacent to existing single-family homes. The building has one tower element on the east side at the entrance. 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: The applicant has worked with staff to resolve all major design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Add pilasters to the wrought iron fence on the north and west sides of the building. The new and proposed pilasters should be made of river rock or castle stone to match the proposed building. 2. Because open wrought iron fencing is proposed along the south property line, the south side of the building will be visible from Alta Loma Drive. To be consistent with the design of the front side of the building, river rock/castle stone columns should be added to the south side of the building to match. 3. Strengthen tower design by a) providing decorative support brackets underneath gable, and b) providing exposed rafter tails at the eave of the gable. 4. Wrap river rock/castle stone veneer on tower element and columns around to all sides. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00306 - GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT CO. • June 4, 2002 Page 2 5. Revise the landscape planters that run along each side of the "accessible path of travel" so they are a minimum of 90 square feet and have an outside dimension of no less than 6 feet (including curb). 6. Relocate the sidewalk at the southeast corner of the building to allow enough room for a landscape planter. The sidewalk and planter should be designed to match the sidewalk and planter at the northeast corner of the building. 7. Reduce turf area (to conserve water) by using fields of river rock. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. The river rock veneer material proposed on the building shall be real river rock 2. Try to obtain adjoining property owner's permission to tie perimeter fence into their existing block walls which are several feet west of shared property line. Intent is to eliminate the "no- man's land" strip between the two fences. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approve the project subject to the above- mentioned comments. • Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The applicant agreed to revise the project subject to staff's comments, except for Secondary Issue no. 2 and Policy Issue no. 2. The applicant indicated that the south elevation is connected to the children's play area and that adding columns would only create a climbing hazard for the children. The Committee agreed with the applicant and told him that he would not have to do Secondary Condition no. 2. The applicant also indicated to the Committee that tying into the adjacent property owner's existing perimeter wall would be very costly because of past experience. To eliminate the Committee's concern for the "no mans land," the applicant agreed to maintain the entire area between the residents to the west and the proposed project, including the residents portion east of the existing block wall. The Committee approved the applicant's proposal, provided he got permission from the residents to maintain the property and provided a wrought iron gate was installed for access into the site for maintenance purposes. The Committee recommended the project come back to the next Committee meeting as a consent item for review of staff comments and the following additional recommendations: As an option, the applicant may use a decorative stacked stone material as a secondary material on the building instead of the proposed real river rock and castle stone materials. The stacked stone material will be required, at a minimum, in the areas of the proposed river rock and castle stone materials. • 2. Provide landscaping in the front landscaped setback area on the east side of the proposed ~ condominium complex access road. The landscaping should match the proposed ' landscaping on the west side of the access road. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00306-GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT CO. . June 4, 2002 Page 3 3. Remove or relocate the proposed awning structure on the south side of the project so it is not visible from Alta Loma Drive. 4. All awning structures and play equipment shall be made with natural colors (browns, tans, etc.) • ,~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • JUNE 4, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bra er Secretary • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JUNE 4, 2002 6:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Committee Members: Pam Stewart John Mannerino 7:00 p.m. Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS Nancy Fong Nancy Fong 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. 6:00 p.m. • (Donald) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00725 -JOHN GOSTOMSKI - A request to construct a 4,345 square foot single-family home on 1.01 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, on Skyline Road, north of Almond Street-APN: 200-441-67. 6:15 p.m (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16347 - FORECAST GROUP - A request to subdivide 6.2 acres of land into one lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overland District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00340, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00340 -FORECAST GROUP - A request to construct 80 apartments on 6.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District with the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16347 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. 6:40 p.m. (Emily) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00308 - G & L COMMERCIAL -The development of four commercial/office buildings totaling 19,265 square feet within the Master Planning Virginia Date Business Center on .6 acres of land in the General • Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Parcel No. 9-APN: 1077-661-18. DRC AGENDA JUNE 4, 2002 Page 2 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias Nancy Fong CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Brent) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00260 -ISLANDS RESTAURANT - A request to construct 15,431 square foot restaurant with baron 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard-APN: 229-011-25. 7:10 p.m. (Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16332 - STONEBRIDGEDEVELOPMENT -The development of 20single-family lots on 14.98 • acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located generally on the northwest corner of Hillside Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1074-241-03 and Ot. 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. 7:20 p.m (Kirt) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00133 -REALTY BANCORD EQUITIES - Thedevelopment of a 4,000 square foot building for retail and coffee/food service use with drive-thru (Starbucks) and (Voice Stream) on 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue -APN: 208-352-90. Related files: Conditional Use Permits 00-38 (Chipotle Grill), and DRC2001-00203 (Fazolis Restaurant). 7:40 p.m (Kirt) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDDEVELOPMENTREVIEWDRC2002-00187 - PARAGON -The development of a 102,516 square foot industrial building on 4.9 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the west side of Center Avenue between 6th and 7th Streets at 9118 Center Avenue - APN: 209-261-28. • • DRC AGENDA JUNE 4, 2002 Page 3 8:00 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00018 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT -The development' of an integrated commercial center consisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. (Warren) VARIANCE DRC2002-00246-PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-Arequesttoallowup to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive - APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. 8:20 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002- 00306 - GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -The development of a 10,368 square foot single-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue -APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. 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 II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 30, 2002, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Cente Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:00 p.m. Donald Granger June 4, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00725 -JOHN GOSTOMSKI - A request to construct a 4,345 square foot single-family home on 1.01 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District, on Skyline Road, north of Almond Street-APN: 200-441-67. Background and Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,345 square foot, two-story home. The proposed house has strong variation in the roof planes, using a hip design. There is significant movement in the proposed building's footprint, resulting in all elevations being well articulated. A stacked stone base treatment is included along the east and south elevations, and on a portion of the west elevation, terminating at a logical point in the wall plane. The south elevation has asecond-story balcony with concrete balustrades that is supported by decorative columns. A 360-degree architecture is accomplished with the following accent features on the elevations: quoins, decorative window mouldings, divided light windows, shutters, and a bellyband. The architectural style of the house is compatible with the surrounding area. The home is setback over 170 feet from curb face along Skyline Road, due to presence of an 80-foot wide fault zone and related 50- to 80-foot building setback that is indicated on the recorded Tract Map. The lot, located near the terminus of Skyline Road, commands a spectacularview of the valley below. The proposed two-story house and attached garage is designed with 4 stepped pads that have a total elevation change of 5 feet, over native terrain with a grade change of 10 feet. The proposed house and garage requires a vertical cut of 8 feet, vertical fill of 5 feet, and has combined cuUfill earthwork quantities of 2,150 cubic yards. Under Hillside Development Regulations, projects that have greater than 5 feet of vertical cuUfill, natural slopes of 15 percent of greater, or have • earthwork quantities in excess of 1,500 cubic yards require review by the Design Review Committee and by the Planning Commission. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Regulations. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to, provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Gradino: The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize the impacts of grading and preserve the natural topography. The major concerns are the quantities of earthwork, primarily comprised of 1,075 cubic yards of excavation, and 1,075 cubic yards of fill. Where retaining walls have been necessary due to steep grades, the applicant has utilized terraced retaining walls that do not exceed 4 feet, and placed appropriate landscaping between the retaining walls. The terraced retaining walls are consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance and are within the allowable height limits. In contrast to conventional flat pad design, staff believes the proposed house meets the guidelines of the Hillside Development Ordinance by reducing earthwork quantities through the use of multiple stepped building pads that permit the house to follow the natural terrain. 2. Elevations: Provide the same level of architectural design quality to the one story accessory structure, which is more visible from the street because it is substantially closer to Skyline Drive than the residence. The one-story accessory building cannot be considered part of this review application because no floor plans or elevations were provided; hence, will require separate hillside design review and approval or this application may be amended to include the drawings, prior to Planning Commission review. The applicant should indicate which process they desire. If this application will be amended to include accessory building, then Committee Consent Calendar review is recommended. DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2001-00725-JOHN GOSTOMSKI June 4, 2002 • Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Add quoins to the northwest corner of the garage wall plane. 2. Add the stacked stone treatment to the east side of the garage. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The project is located in a high fire hazard area and fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design.. 2. All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls, shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face or slump stone). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that with the secondary issues being addressed, the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations and recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Staff Planner: Donald Granger r1 U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:15 p.m. Kirt Coury June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16347 -FORECAST GROUP - A request to subdivide 6.2 acres of land into one lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overland District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00340, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00340 - FORECASTGROUP - A request to construct 80 apartments on 6.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District with the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16347 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341. Design Parameters: The site is an irregular rectangular shaped parcel located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard. The lot is generally flat, sloping downward to the south and west. The site is currently developed with nine existing single-family residences. The proposed project is Phase II of an apartment project. This Phase proposes 80 units on 5.8 acres. Phase I (SUBTT16257 and DRC2001-00557) is 340 units on 24.2 acres, approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2002. The site is surrounded by Phase I, with the exception of two existing single-family homes along the northeast property boundary, abutting Etiwanda Avenue. To • the east across Etiwanda Avenue, is the approved, currently under construction, Camino Real Apartments. The project density of 13.8 dwelling units per acre is essentially at the top of the density range for this zone; therefore, transition of densiiy to adjoining single-family homes is critical. The Site Plan has been designed to create transitions through building orientation and generous setbacks to the identified iwo remaining single-family residences. The project will include a total of 8 apartment buildings comprised of four building types. The proposed buildings fronting Etiwanda Avenue (one type Building C and a garage structure) will have enhanced elevations and the building masses will include both two-story and one-story elements to articulate the massing. Single-story garage structures perform as a good buffer and low massing transition along the northeast property line, adjacent the two remaining single-family residences. A recreation/open space corridor is provided within the development, which will include both active and passive recreation facilities, and will connect with the corridor proposed in Phase I. Recreation amenities include a large open lawn area, a horseshoe pit, and four barbecue areas. The proposed buildings will include a stucco finish, painted wood corbels, wood siding, and a concrete flat the roof. The project perimeter will involve 6-foot high tubular steel fencing and a masonry wall. Fencing along Etiwanda Avenue will include 6-foot high tubular steel fencing with decorative masonry pilasters. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. • DRC COMMENTS TTM SUBTT16347 & CUP DRC2002-00340 -FORECAST GROUP June 4, 2002 • Page 2 Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The applicant has worked diligently to resolve major design issues presented by staff. Also, the building architecture and design are consistent with that which was approved by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission for Phase I. There are no major issues. Secondary Issues: The Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. All walls and fences shall be of decorative material. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Vary the roll-up garage door designs to avoid monotony. Suggest pairing together doors with same design. 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 n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 6:40 p.m. Emily Wimer June 4, 2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00308 - G & L COMMERCIAL -The development of four commercial/office buildings totaling 19,265 square feet within the Master Planning Virginia Date Business Center on .6 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Parcel No. 9 - APN: 1077-661-18. Design Parameters: The site is located on a p southwest of the former Edwards Cinema (see Exhibit "A"). This Center is fully improved with curb and gutter, and fully landscaped. The Virginia Dare Business Center is located within the General Commercial District. The site was previously graded and slopes less than 2 percent to the south. The retail pads located in the Center include office buildings at the frontage of Foothill Boulevard, retail services include food service and support office uses such as printing services, sign studio, and a law office. The food court is being converted to office uses. The proposed office building introduces the design element of keystone entries on windows and doorways. The overall design and architecture is in similar taste and theme as the Virginia Dare Business Center. In effort to provide compatibility with the design of the existing Center, the applicant has incorporated architectural elements such as standing seam metal roof, stucco fagade, file insets, and trellis walkways. A shared parking study approved by the Planning Commission on April 10, 2002 concludes that 58,000 square feet of additional office space could be built, including the conversion of the cinema to offices, without overloading available parking based on the offset peak and demand hours.. This project will construct approximately 135 new parking spaces. • 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: The applicant has resolved and diligently worked with staff to resolve previous Major Issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Trees should be shown on the Landscape Plan on a 1/3 basis. One 15-gallon tree per 3 parking spaces provided. 2. Trees should also be provided at a rate of one 15-gallon tree per 30 linear feet of building. Staff suggests additional Crepe Myrtles to accommodate the small planter area on the exterior of the building. 3. The colors, materials such as but not limited to stucco, roof material, ceramic file insets, shall match the center. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All wall-mounted lightfixtures and parking lot light poles shall have light pointed downwards. . Avoid high wattage and angled lighting, which will adversely affect adjoining businesses. Signage for the proposed building shall be consistent with the Virginia Dare Business Center Uniform Sign Program and must be reviewed and approved separately from the approval of this Development Review. DRC COMMENTS DRC 2002-00308 - G & L COMMERCIAL June 4, 2002Page 2 ~J Staff' Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved subject to the above comments. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: EmilyWimer n U • ...- _ _:..~ ~~ SITE PLAIN :,.: :,., ::. ~.. ..,Y ~~,,. _ '; . ~ I'~~~~~~ ~G~EL~ TA~CG.. ^:. ~ - " PROFESSIONAL I - BUILDING - _ ~" - EGWARDS ~- SIX SGIEEN -- '~ _ ~ GNEPLFX - FlNANCUL - . ~ _ . ~ BUILDING - V` ` '~~ II 0~/ ~ 7 4 h l ,~j ~ 1`"111 , G: r ~~ ~~ P ~(~ ~ ~~ - PROFESSIONAL' •~ .,"rl~,~r ~. BUILDING ~ ~ ' ..,, °;/ _ II!!Illi:il'ttI!,; - ~- _ `y." •~ •FINE GINING .- .... . ! „ • ; i ~ ~ ~ . " .. RESTAURANT :I: is ii / _ - FGDO G1URT L! ; /i - I I'~. ;iii .I' ~ ~i! ~ ~ ~1 .~" ~ -I . r .1 / I _ _ ~ ^ ~ PROFESSIGNAL ~ PRGFESSIGNAL ;~ I I I ~ ! ~ I - BUILGING ` w BUILDING 9eaQ...- ~/ - RETAIL THEME ~ ~ ~ ~ EXISTING TGWER _ G.T.E. 6s'._.^~. ~ SPIRES BUILDING '~ _ --,. ~.~ ~---~' ~/ ~ ~ FAMILY ~`~~ii ~• ~.. .'•~ /~ RESTAURANT - ' -_ <. - ._t i- ~- .~::~~ ..e"~~'~. ~'" - ~'~~~ y ~ 5'~; _. .mss'. .(tier,'.:. -S~` '•:,i.~r~_~. ~, Di,.... ~E' nom.. ``~ , FOOTHILL BLVD ~E.~chih~+'~~" • APPENDIX KEY 1 Building A -Offices 2 Tower Building -Offices 3 Building B -Offices 4 Existing Building 5 Spire's Restaurant 6 Future Office Building 7 Edward's Theaters 8 Future Office Building 9 Del Taco Restaurant 10 Future Office Building 11 Future Restaurant 12 Food Court * not within Centre development • i~ ~~ D ~3 y!iil~~iunini v ~ t 14~m?Tr i~ ~ ~ - ;. / ~ 5 N SITE PLAN 8. ~; ~. • ~ - 10. ~%Q 4~,~~ -`-- ~y(IIIIITI ~!G, ~IlTlllfl J~" .. 12 I~~ 11 os~ ~~ii~r, i nn ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ _.. .. ._ roonnl dvn CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 4, 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00260- ISLANDS RESTAURANT-A request to construct 15,431 square foot restaurant with bar on 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-25. REVISED PLANS AND MATERIAL SAMPLES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count • CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Emily W imer June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16332 -STONEBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT -The development of 20single-family lots on 14.98 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located generally on the northwest corner of Hillside Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1074-241-03 and 01. Design Parameters: Tentative Tract 16332 is located north of Hillside Road, south of W oodbridge, east of Hermosa Avenue and west of Ridgeview Avenue. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north, east, and southwest of the project site. The site is bound by Hillside Road on the south, with Haven Avenue generally located 1,500 feet to the east. Sidewalks, trails, and landscaping will be required with project approval. The site slopes southerly at an approximate 4 percent, 8 percent grading and is subject to hillside review with the submittal of house product. There is no home product proposed with the subdivision at this time. The project meets the minimum lot depth of 200 feet and exceeds the minimum lot size of A significant windrow of Eucalyptus trees exists. On the west property line a windrow of approximately 14 trees exist. Both the northern and western property boundaries are lined with Eucalyptus trees. The majority of windrows will be preserved. The applicant has worked diligently with staff to preserve the majority of the trees, and place the trail at the top of slope. Replacement of all other trees will be required on-site at a one-to-one ratio. A meandering Riding Trail is proposed along the north property line and Hermosa Avenue as well as along the rear property lines of Lots 18, 19, and 20. • 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: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to address all major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: On all lots the proposed corral locations are impractical because they are only 20 feet from back of home on same lot. Staff recommends a minimum of 30 feet setback from home. The only lot where this may not be possible is Lot 15 because it backs up to the interior side yard of Lot 14. Horse corrals do meet the minimum of 70-foot setback from homes on adjoining lots. The house pad areas shown do not meet minimum 10 feeU15 feet interior side yard setbacks on many lots; however, actual house footprints may comply. No homes are proposed with this application. This is mentioned only for the information of the developer to consider when designing their house product. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, which are recommended by the Arborist to be removed, shall be replaced at a one-to-one ratio and placed on-site. The length of the windrow replacement shall be comparable in length. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Committee approval with the above recommended conditions. DRC COMMENTS TT 16332 - STONBRIDGE June 4, 2002 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: EmilyWimer r~ L • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Kirt Coury June 4, 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00133 -REALTY BANCORD EQUITIES -The development of a 4,000 square foot building for retail and coffee/food service use with drive-thru (Starbucks) and (Voice Stream) on 1.3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-352-90. Related files: Conditional Use Permits 00-38 (Chipotle Grill), and DRC2001-00203 (Fazolis Restaurant). 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, Chipotle Grill (already approved) and a fast food drive-thru restaurant. No specific design was provided for the fast food restaurant regarding architecture. The request now under consideration is the coffee/food service restaurant with drive-thru (Starbucks) and retail building (Voice Stream). 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 Starbucks and Voice Stream are proposing 4,000 square feet. The increased floor area (approximately 1,500 square foot increase) and Site Plan revision will not necessitate additional parking, since the larger retail building space requires less parking (1 parking space per 250 square feet) than a fast food with drive-thru establishment (1 parking space per 75 square feet). . 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 easUwest on the overall master plan site and the Chipotle Grill building is being constructed to the west. 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. The building should incorporate the use of real copper roofing and awning materials. The applicant has submitted a simulated copper painted finish material as an alternative to discuss with the Design Review Committee. 2. It appears that the building proposes pop-out treatments (i.e., the east elevation tower elements); however, the proposed building footprints do not reflectthese pop-outs. Building pop-outs should pop-out a minimum of 3 feet off of the main building for shadowing and relief. C~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00133 -REALTY BANCORD EQUITIES June 4, 2002 • Page 2 3. Provide a sidewalk connection from entry plaza to Chipotle restaurant, which ultimately provides pedestrian connection to other nearby buildings. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All features such as decorative paving, light standards, street furniture, etc., should match the details established by Applebee's Restaurant and Buddies Bistro. 2. All roof- and ground-mounted equipment should be fully screened from public view. 3. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require a separate application and approval by the Planning Division. No awning signs, (as identified on the west and south building elevations), are permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance. 4. Relocate the existing Eucalyptus trees out of the Foothill Boulevard frontage area and replace with Foothill Boulevard theme trees including Sycamores, Rhus Lancea, and Pine trees. 5. The project should incorporate the use of outdoor patio furniture including, but not limited to, benches, tables, chairs, umbrellas, etc. The patio area should also incorporate landscaping such as planters and boxed trees. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with incorporation of the identified modifications. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Kirt Coury • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Kirt Coury June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00187-PARAGON -The development of a 102,516 square foot industrial building on 4.9 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the west side of Center Avenue between 6th and 7th Streets at 9118 Center Avenue - APN: 209-261-28. Design Parameters: The site is generally flat with a slight slope north to south and is currently vacant with only native grasses present. There are no trails, structures, or scenic aspects to the site. Single tenant industrial buildings surround the property on the north, south, and east. The Deer Creek Flood Control Channel (and planned Regional Multi-Purpose Trail) exists to the west. Access to the site will be through proposed drive approaches on Center Avenue. The project is a speculative industrial building targeting a warehouse and distribution tenant with limited office requirements. The project is a single phase of construction. The building will be self sufficient with independent access, parking, and utility services. Loading docks will be provided on the north elevation of the building. Finish materials for the building exterior include sandblast and building color treatments to create horizontal and vertical visual interest. The proposed windows will be treated with tinted glazed glass. The proposed building height is approximately 43 feet, which would be compatible with adjacent industrial buildings. 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. The building should incorporate an additional "office tower" element on the northeast corner of the building, to mimic the tower element reflected on the southeast building corner. 2. Provide additional sandblasting and paint treatment to the east elevation similar to that shown on the north elevation. 3. Provide a second outdoor employee patio to service the westerly portion of building. As a "speculative" building it may be divided into two tenants who should each have their own patio. 4. Provide pedestrian sidewalk connection and access gate to future Day Creek Regional Trail. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: . Provide table(s) and chairs or benches in outdoor employee eating area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with incorporation of the identified modifications. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Staff Planner: Kirt Coury DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Warren Morelion June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00018 - PANORAMADEVELOPMENT -The development of an integrated commercial centerconsisting of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant; and a 3,600 square foot retail building with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive-APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Variance DRC2002-00024, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00246. VARIANCE DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT - A request to allow up to a 12.5-foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum 8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center (Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018) on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. Design Parameters: The site is triangular in shape and slopes southerly at approximately 5 percent. It is vacant and has 13 trees located at the east end. It is bordered by residential development to the west, the Haven Village shopping center to the east, and vacant land (future Tutor Time Learning Center) and the newly constructed Walgreen's Pharmacy to the north. To the south of the site is the 210 Freeway, which is under construction. Access into the site is from Alta Loma Drive. The applicant is proposing to develop a commercial center consisting of three buildings (7-11, Jack • in the Box, retail space) totaling 9,418 square feet. The project will be constructed in three phases. The first phase will be constructed at the northeast corner of the site and include a 3,248 square foot 7-11 convenience store with detached gas dispensing islands. The islands are covered by a large 60-foot by 66-foot canopy. The second phase will be located south of Phase One and include a 2,750 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant. The Jack in the Box restaurant is designed with a drive-thru lane at the south end. The third phase is west of Phase Two. The third phase will include two 1,000 square foot retail tenant spaces and one 1, 600 square foot tenant space with adrive- thru. The drive-thru is also located at the south side of the building. The buildings in the commercial center have been designed with one cohesive architectural style that includes stucco plaster with a 6 inch by 6 inch, 3-foot high, and ceramic the wainscot treatment. The 7-11 has tower elements on the northeast and southwest corners of the building, and the retail building has tower elements on the southeast, northeast, and northwest corners of the building. The Jack in the Box restaurant has tower elements on the north and east sides of the building. Screen walls have been proposed to screen the drive-thru lanes from Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive. The southern boundary of the project site is formed by the westbound on-ramp to the 210 freeway that is scheduled to open along this segment later this year. A retaining wall is proposed along this boundaryvarying in height from 1.5 feet to 12.5-feet in orderto eliminate a grade change along this boundary. The retaining wall will parallel a freeway sound wall that is soon to be constructed along the west half of the site boundary. 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: DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00018 & June 4, 2002 • Page 2 Site Design VAR DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT Because of the building orientation and the type of fast service uses like 7-11, Jack in the Box and cafe, the main drive aisle leading to the middle of the site will have cars going in many directions that may create circulation conflicts. This area could be improved where the circulation conflicts could be reduced, as shown in Exhibit "A." The building in Lot C (west end of the site) sits behind a tall sound wall. Staff has suggested moving the building east where it would be more visible from Haven Avenue, meet the 45-foot minimum drive-thru lane setback, allow for more parking spaces, and provide for smoother grade changes. The applicant has been shown the suggested site design and generally is opened to the idea. However, he stated that there is a drainage easement traversing the site, which may make it infeasible for him to move the building east. Staff preference is to move the building east as shown in the Exhibit "B." If it is infeasible to relocate the easement, then staff would suggest the layout as shown in Exhibit "A." The applicant stated that Lot C is the last phased development where the final site design could come back as a separate Development Review application. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. Plant 13 mature specimen trees to replace those removed. 2. Provide trellises over the drive-thru lanes of the Jack in the Box restaurant and tenant building. The trellises should be architecturally integrated into the building designs. 3. The project has decorative paving proposed on drive aisles in the front of the Jack in the Box restaurant and in front and on the side of the tenant building. To meet commercial design standards, relocate the decorative paving to the front walkways of the buildings. Also provide decorative paving on the walkway in front of the 7-11 convenience store. For ease of circulation, the decorative paving connecting the 7-11 to the Jack in the Box should be relocated to run straight into the entrance of the Jack in the Box. When complete, the decorative paving should link all three buildings together. 4. The 210 Freeway retaining walls in the area have been designed with a stamped rock treatment at the base, and the sound walls have been designed using asplit-face block material consistent with other sound walls along the 210 Freeway. 5. Decorative file is proposed on a limited bases on the buildings (the base of column elements and drive-thru windows), and therefore should be increased. To increase the tile, suggest adding a file wainscot around the buildings where possible. 6. The 7-11 convenience store has translucent vinyl film proposed on the storefront glass. For screening purposes and aesthetic appearance, suggest redesigning the front with a permanent wainscot to match the rest of the building. • 7. Design all monument signs, drive aisle screen walls (not to include walls that are to match Caltrans), and trash enclosures with one architectural theme that matches the center's buildings in color and materials. The screen walls should be designed to include pilasters with caps. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00018 & DRC2002-00246 -PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT June 4, 2002 • Page 3 8. Revise the decorative paving on the west drive approach so it matches the paving on the east drive approach. 9. Provide an additional landscape planter in front of the Jack in the Box restaurant. The new planter should be parallel to the parking spaces, have a minimum 6-foot outside dimension (including curb), and be spaced evenly between the existing planters in front. 10. Revise the landscape planters in front of the Jack in the Box restaurant so they are a minimum of 90 square feet and have an outside dimension of no less than 6 feet (including curb). 11. Revise the design and location of the Jack in the Box and tenant building's main switchboards so they are built into the structure of the building. The switchboards should be located out of the pedestrian walkways. 12. Provide an additional freestanding screen wall on the top of the proposed retaining wall to screen the drive-thru lane on the south side of the Jack in the Box restaurant. The screen wall should match the design of the Caltrans sound wall in material and color. 13. Provide 3-inch tubular steel trellis frameworks and planters around the buildings (where possible) to allow for vine plantings. • Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Revise the drive-thru lane on the east side of the westerly tenant building so that it is setback a minimum of 45 feet from Alta Loma Drive per Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and come back as a Consent Calendar item for further review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion • L~ ~- ~- L '> ~. 6 c r • 1~ k C~ --i - - `,. ~"s _ 1: ~i __< a~. ~~~ 1` .. ,~ ~.,= a ~• ~ -- 1 ~. y. _ ~ 6 Q' \} \ ,fir ._~, \CI i 1, l' Ry .\" ~t~ ` `n, ..,~ i:~ e~~.~~{ya.'J~' I 4 G "'i 1, ,~ (r ~ v.~. ~ ~Sr R~ ~. ~`• , ~~ ` `~ £~' ~~< ., \ \ wA .. J ~r~" e: ,~, e..., ,\ ~ :, ~' 1 `:. -; I~ , ~~ _ I ~'' u ~ ...,..~ I ~' < a ~~ . ~~ . .... DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:20 p.m. Warren Morelion June 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00306 - GLENW OOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -The development of a 10,368 square foot single-story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 370 feet west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201, 262-28, 30, 31, and 41. Desion Parameters: The site is triangular in shape and slopes southerly at approximately 6 percent. The site is vacant and has 35 trees and a large shrub grouping along the northern end. The site is bordered by residential development to the north and west, and to the east and south by vacant land proposed for commercial development. To the northeast of the site is the newly constructed Walgreen's Pharmacy. Access into the site is from Alta Loma Drive. The applicant is proposing to develop a 10,368 square footTutorTime Learning Centeron the north side of Alta Loma Dive, across from the proposed Los Osos Plaza commercial center. As part of development, the applicant has agreed to provide an access road for the condominium complex to Alta Loma Drive. The access road is located at the northeast end of the project boundary and aligns with the west entrance of the Los Osos Plaza. The Tutor Time building is designed with three primary materials that include stucco plaster, river rock, and castle stone. The river rock and castle stone are used on the building's columns and under the building's windows as a wainscot. The project has been designed with the building facing . east and parking to the east of the building. The outdoor play area for the children is located on the west side of the building adjacent to existing single-family homes. The building has one tower element on the east side at the entrance. 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: The applicant has worked with staff to resolve all major design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Add pilasters to the wrought iron fence on the north and west sides of the building. The new and proposed pilasters should be made of river rock or castle stone to match the proposed building. 2. Because open wrought iron fencing is proposed along the south property line, the south side of the building will be visible from Alta Loma Drive. To be consistent with the design of the front side of the building, river rock/castle stone columns should be added to the south side of the building to match. 3. Strengthen tower design by a) providing decorative support brackets underneath gable, and b) providing exposed rafter tails at the eave of the gable. • 4. Wrap river rock/castle stone veneer on tower element and columns around to all sides. DRC COMMENTS CUP DRC2002-00306 - GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT CO. June 4, 2002 Page 2 5. Revise the landscape planters that run along each side of the "accessible path of travel" so they are a minimum of 90 square feet and have an outside dimension of no less than 6 feet (including curb). 6. Relocate the sidewalk at the southeast corner of the building to allow enough room for a landscape planter. The sidewalk and planter should be designed to match the sidewalk and planter at the northeast corner of the building. 7. Reduce turf area (to conserve water) by using fields of river rock. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The river rock veneer material proposed on the building shall be real river rock. 2. Try to obtain adjoining property owner's permission to tie perimeter fence into their existing block walls which are several feet west of shared property line. Intent is to eliminate the "no- man's land" strip between the two fences. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee approve the project subject to the above- mentioned comments. • Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion . •