Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/12/16 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY DECEMBER 16, 2003 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTION AGENDA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Nancy Fong Larry McNiel 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. (Alan/Vicki) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00768-CARYSCHNEIDER-Arequesttodevelopa single family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997 Camino Predera, Lot 17 of Tract 10035. APN: 0207-631-07. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the • Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:10 p.m. (Lisa/Shelley) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16644 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide a 3.33 acre property into 16 single-family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Avenue between Mignonette Street and Cielito Street - APN: 0202-751-36, 0202-741-64, 0202-751-37. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-01040. 7:30 p.m. (Doug/Mark) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00728- CHARLESJOSEPH ASSOCIATES -Arequesttodevelopa 68,714 square foot Marriott's Town Place .Suites, three restaurant buildings totaling 21,000, and one retail building totaling 8,400 square feet on 7.01 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located at the northeast corner Milliken Avenue and 4th Street -APN: 0229-341-13. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT -• • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Alan Warren December 16, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER - A request to develop a single-family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997 Camino Predera, Lot 17 of Tract 10035 - APN: 0207-631-07. Design Parameters: Refer to the attached DRC Comments dated November 4, 2003 Background: At the previous meeting, the following recommendations were made by the Committee: The Committee determined that the house as proposed was too wide for the lot. The limited back-up space for the garage (19 feet) was insufficient when compared to the normal 24 feet required in parking lots. A Floor Plan that exhibits a narrow side to the front of the lot may resolve the issue. 2. The house needs to reflect the down slope of the lot at the rear by stepping the rear of the house. 3. A much improved Landscape Plan is required that shows a Conceptual Landscape Plan in conformance with City standards. • The applicant was advised to work with staff on several potential solutions, and that the item can tie brought back the Design Review Committee as a Consent item if the concerns can be worked out to staff's satisfaction. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The applicant has addressed the Committee's concerns by significantly changing the house footprint, elevations, and orientation as follows: The backup area in front of the garage has been increased to 25 feet by relocating the garage facing north rather than east to the side lot line. This arrangement allows for sufficient backup space. The rear roof line (facing south) has been provided with a hip configuration which visually reduces the perceived roof height. 3. The revised Landscape Plan still leaves much to be desired in exhibiting an adequate design concept. The plan should include typical plant species. While staff believes that the Committee should recommend favorably for the project to the City Planner, the Conceptual Landscape Plan should present an improved design and be subject to review and approval by the Committee, on the Consent Calendar, prior to any grading or permit issuance. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. The applicant has included several architectural features (popouts, wood siding, additional stone veneer, etc.) that significantly enhance the building elevations. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER December 16, 2003 • Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Refer to DRC Comments of November 4, 2003. Staff Recommendation: With the changes as proposed, staff recommends approval subject to the applicable staff recommendations of November 4, 2003, (Secondary issue #2 and Policy issues #s 1-10) and the above comments. Revised Landscape Plans shall be submitted as outlined above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee recommended approval with the following condition: Major Issue #3 (above) was modified to require submittal of Landscape Plans to the Committee prior to the issuance of building permits forthe house. Grading permits may be issued after Development Review approval by the City Planner and after the appeal period. U n U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 P.M. Lisa Kuschel December 16, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16644 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES: The proposed subdivision of a 3.33 acre property into 16single-family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Avenue between Mignonette Street and Cielito Street - APN: 0202-751-36, 0202-741-64, 0202-751-37. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-01040. Design Parameters: The property slopes from north to south at a 3 percent slope and contains three homes that are proposed for demolition. None of these homes appear to be historic. A row of five Palm trees currently located within the right-of-way will be relocated throughout the site to be made as part of a future landscape palette. Other existing vegetation consists of one Pine tree, two W indrow trees, four mature Juniper bushes, and several other large bushes of which will remain at this time. Lemon and orange trees are also found at the southern portion of the property. Each of the 16 proposed lots complies with the minimum lot size (5,000 square feet) and minimum parcel width (50 feet average) required in the Low-Medium Residential District section of the Municipal Code. No homes are proposed at this time. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on November 20, 2004, in which all attendees appeared agreeable with the project. Only matters regarding the timeline of the proposed street improvements and type of development allowed on the property were of concern. • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maor Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. Although the proposed subdivision meets the minimum net average of 6,000 square feet for Low-Medium Residential zone, more than 50 percent of the lots are less than 5,500 square feet. Lots 2 and 6 are just a bit above 5,000 square feet. Lot 11 is constraint by 2 to 1 slopes and the required 15-foot flat usable yard. Most of the larger lots are at the end of the cul-de- sac; however, are barely at the minimum 30-foot lot width standard. Staff believes that there is room to adjust the lot lines of several larger lots so as to even out the size of the smaller lots. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. A retaining wall as high as 8 feet (at Lot 2) with a 5-foot high screen fence on top is being proposed along the south property boundary. Minor Exception and/or Variance would be needed concurrent with any formal Development Review application for homes. The applicant should work with the Grading Committee to reduce the height of the retaining wall. Decorative material such as block with stucco, split face, and pilasters should be used for the wall. 2. The site contains a variety of trees that are proposed for removal, except some Palm trees that may be relocated to the parkway along Beryl Avenue. An arborist report has not been • submitted yet. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. DRC COMMENTS SUBTT16644 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 2003 • Page 2 The corner side yard wall shall set back 5 feet from the property line. Recommendation: Staff recommends that revised plans be submitted for Design Review Committee review under the Consent Calendar. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Lisa Kuschel The Committee recommended approval of the subdivision. The Committee stated that several lots are tight and that they would not support Minor Exception or Variance for setbacks for future house products. The applicant acknowledged. C~ J l I DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Doug Fenn December 16, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00728 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a master planned 68,714 square foot Marriott's Town Place Suites, three restaurant buildings totaling 21,000, and one retail building totaling 8,400 square feet on 7.01 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located at the northeast corner Milliken Avenue and 4th Street - APN: 0229-341-13. Design Parameters: The vacant 7.01-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 4th Street. The site was graded in the late 1980s as part of a larger master planned development known as the Bixby Business Park. The site is surrounded by industrial/office/approved hotel (Holiday Inn Express) uses to the north and east. To the west is Milliken Avenue and 4th Street is to the south. The frontage of the site is fully improved along Milliken Avenue and 4th Street including mature trees. The project is an infill project within the Bixby Business Park Master Plan. The proposed project is a four-story 112-unit Marriott's Town Place Suites hotel with a covered port-cochere entry along with a swimming pool and spa area for the guests. There are three restaurant building pads (which will come under a separate entitlement) which front the adjacent streets and total 21,000 square feet. There is also an 8,400 square foot retail in-line building, which will front along Milliken Avenue and is a part of the current proposal. Restaurant Pad C has potential for large outdoor dining; however, no outdoor dining was considered in parking calculations. • The hotel and retail building are richly designed with amodern/traditional theme with a Adoquin Stone base and vertical element enhancements along with tower elements, substantial pop outs, balconies, key stone details over windows, and smooth trowel finish on the facade, and a four color paint scheme to add contrast to the buildings. The other three restaurant buildings will have to be designed to reflect the proposed architectural scheme of the project. There is also a plaza area at the southwest corner of the project with a water fountain. There are of covered trellis thought out the project and designed over pedestrian paths to provide shade for the customers. The Bixby Business Park was designed for industrial buildings and did not anticipate hotel buildings and retail uses. However, representatives from the Bixby Ranch have approved the proposed concept and architecture of the project. The project will share access driveway to Milliken Avenue with the proposed Holiday Inn Express to the north and will have access of 4th Street and Pittsburgh Avenue. Property Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: None -The applicant has diligently worked with staff and has addressed mostly all of staff's primary and secondary issues. However, the applicant could still add some additional enhancements to the project to give the project more of a polished look. a) The hotel can use more vertical Adoquin stone on the vertical element of the building. In fact, Sheets A-2.2 and 2.3 depict the stone while sheet A-2.1 does not; this could be just • an over sight on the architects part. However, the stone material must be on all sides of the hotel. b) Additional key stone detail must be installed over the windows of the hotel building. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00728 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 2003 • Page 2 c) More balconies should be placed on the facade and should be on all four sides of the building. d) Provide a schedule or callout what materials will be used for the circular design elements that are shown on the interior drive aisles. e) Provide a decorative screen wall around the pool and spa area. A screen wall must also be provided around any pool ancillary equipment. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Landscaped median in the middle of the 4th Street drive entrance violates Fire District access standards fora 24-foot minimum width with a 14-foot vertical clearance. 2. Provide more trees along the fronts of the pad buildings. 3. Provide public art within the plaza area between Pads C and D. 4. Bus shelter columns should be changed to pre-cast concrete to match trellis or Adoquin stone. 5. Plant trees along both sides of sidewalk, between trellises, to shade parking lot and to accent • this important pedestrian connection. 6. Provide more direct sidewalk connections from public streets: a) from the intersection of 4th and Milliken Avenue, through the plaza, to Buildings C and D, b) from Pittsburgh Avenue to Building B along the south side of the driveway. 7. Provide decorative pavement at all drive entry throats (outside the public right-of-way). 8. Provide a decorative scored concrete pavement under and from the Porte-cochere across the drive aisle to connect with the circular element in the drive aisle to the south. 9. Trash receptacles must be decorative to match the architecture of the project. , 10. Streetscape tree species should maintain the consistency with the Bixby Business Park and Milliken Master Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to revision per the above recommendations prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Doug Fenn At the meeting, the applicant showed revised plans that addressed all the major and secondary • issues. Staff described those changes to the Committee. The Committee was pleased with the changes that resolved all issues and therefore, recommended approval to the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS December 16, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY DECEMBER 16, 2003 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Nancy Fong Larry McNiel 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. (Alan/Vicki) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00768-CARYSCHNEIDER-A request todevelopa single family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997 Camino Predera, Lot 17 of Tract 10035. APN: 0207-631-07. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. . 7:10 p.m. (Lisa/Shelley) 7:30 p.m. (Doug/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16644 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide a 3.33 acre property into 16 single-family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Avenue between Mignonette Street and Cielito Street - APN: 0202-751-36, 0202-741-64, 0202-751-37. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-01040. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00728 - CHARLESJOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 68,714 square foot Marriott's Town Place Suites, three restaurant buildings totaling 21,000, and one retail building totaling 8,400 square feet on 7.01 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located at the northeast corner Milliken Avenue and 4th Street -APN: 0229-341-13. 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, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 11, 2003, ai least 72 hours prior to the ,. meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 ate 10~50/0fCiv' ent8 Drive Rancho Cu onga. . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Alan Warren December 16, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER - A request to develop a single-family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997 Camino Predera, Lot 17 of Tract 10035 - APN: 0207-631-07. Design Parameters: Refer to the attached DRC Comments dated November 4, 2003 Background: At the previous meeting, the following recommendations were made by the Committee: The Committee determined that the house as proposed was too wide for the lot. The limited back-up space for the garage (19 feet) was insufficient when compared to the normal 24 feet required in parking lots. A Floor Plan that exhibits a narrow side to the front of the lot may resolve the issue. 2. The house needs to reflect the down slope of the lot at the rear by stepping the rear of the house. 3. A much improved Landscape Plan is required that shows a Conceptual Landscape Plan in conformance with City standards. The applicant was advised to work with staff on several potential solutions, and that the item can be • brought back the Design Review Committee as a Consent item if the concerns can be worked out to staff's satisfaction. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The applicant has addressed the Committee's concerns by significantly changing the house footprint, elevations, and orientation as follows: The backup area in front of the garage has been increased to 25 feet by relocating the garage facing north rather than east to the side lot line. This arrangement allows for sufficient backup space. 2. The rear roof line (facing south) has been provided with a hip configuration which visually reduces the perceived roof height. 3. The revised Landscape Plan still leaves much to be desired in exhibiting an adequate design concept. The plan should include typical plant species. While staff believes that the Committee should recommend favorably for the project to the City Planner, the Conceptual Landscape Plan should present an improved design and be subject to review and approval by the Committee, on the Consent Calendar, prior to any grading or permit issuance. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: • 1. The applicant has included several architectural features (popouts, wood siding, additional stone veneer, etc.) that significantly enhance the building elevations. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER , December 16, 2003 • Page 2 Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Refer to DRC Comments of November 4, 2003. Staff Recommendation: W ith the changes as proposed, staff recommends approval subject to the applicable staff recommendations of November 4, 2003, (Secondary issue #2 and Policy issues #s 1-10) and the above comments. Revised Landscape Plans shall be submitted as outlined above. CJ L DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:35 p.m. Alan Warren November 4, 2003 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER - A request to develop a single-family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997 Camino Predera Street, Lot 17 of Tract 10035 - APN: 0207-631=07. Design Parameters: The site is asingle-family residential lot that had previously been approved for a new tract development along the south side of Camino Predera Street. The previous design review application proposed a private street along the lower portions of the lots that fronted on Camino Predera Street. Vehicle access to many of the lots was to be from the south (downhill side of lots) off the private street. The subject lot was to be part of the access to the private street, which was to be attained with a lot line adjustment and deletion of one of the 21 lots. The recent development approval for the area included a private drive access along the south portions of each lot. In order to keep this option open for future development consideration, staff recommends that an access easement be provided for the benefit of the lotto the east. Further, staff recommends that a similar easement be provided on the remaining lots that were to gain vehicle access along the south portion of the lots. The project proponent has decided to develop only a few of the lots and to sell most of the original lots to individual developers. The previous project had a controversial process with residents on the north side of Camino Predera Street in opposition to the potential blocking of views south across the site. The grades are around 14 percent over most of the lot with significant steeper grades (38 percent) adjacent to the street. • Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: Hillside -The overall guiding issue in this application is how well the overall design works with the natural slope within the context of the City's Hillside Development standards. The house, as designed and located on the lot, satisfies the minimum technical requirements of the hillside standards. The house does fit with the Hillside Development Ordinance 30-foot building envelope and complies with the minimum setback requirements of the Development Code. The floor plan does, however, exhibit significanttwo-story elements facing the street as well as on the sides and rear. The high gable over the garage and the front porch roof are the only significant single-story features. The floor plan provides five stepped floor elevations of between 1307 feet to 1302.5 feet (4.5-foot total difference). The "Elevation at Curb Height" shows the house to be 19 feet, at the middle of the lot, above the street curb level. The Committee should determine if the house satisfies the intent of the hillside standards by providing significant examples of architecture that works well with the natural grades of the site. City design policy states, "Design house size and mass in proportion to the lot size and lot dimensions. Houses which project atwo-story volume straight up at the minimum setbacks on small lots are inappropriate." While the house does satisfy minimum hillside guidelines, it still is essentially atwo-story house sited on a hillside pad. Split level and single floor features are minimal. Being that the site is a downhill lot, the features of the building envelope are not as limiting as an uphill lot. Therefore, staff believes the house has • been appropriately designed for the site. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER November 4, 2003 • Page 2 2. Driveway Width -The applicant originally proposed a 3-car side-entry garage with 15-and 19-foot setbacks from the east property line. Staff expressed concern that this did not provide sufficient maneuvering space for cars to get in/out of the garage. In response, the applicant eliminated the third car garage door. The City standard to a two-way drive aisle with 90-degree parking is 24 feet, which cannot be achieved without modifying the floor plan to reduce house width. Alternatives would include: a) detached garage taking access from a private drive, and b) front-loaded garage Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The driveway behind the garage entry extends to the east side property line where a retaining wall of up to 3 feet is proposed to take up the grade difference. Staff is concerned of having a grade drop right behind the backup area for vehicles exiting the garage. Staff recommends that a significant physical barrier (high curb, tubular steel fence, etc.) to stop any vehicle from backing off the edge. 2. There is an existing line of mature trees (Silk Oaks) along the south portion of the site. The grading for the rear yard does not appear to affect the trees' retention. Staff, therefore, recommends that the trees be protected in an appropriate manner during construction. 3. City residential standards require a 15-foot level backyard area immediately behind the rear • wall of houses. The level area behind the rearwall is less than this amount, however, a level area of nearly 30 feet is to be provided about 20 feet from the rearwall area. Staff believes this feature satisfies the intent of the rear backyard requirement. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Grade land and landscape in workable increments to avoid exposing vast expanses of bared earth at any given time to minimize soil erosion. 2. In hillside areas, development is to be designed to preserve open spaces, protect natural features, and offer views to residents. 3. Round off and contour all graded slopes to blend with the existing terrain, and present a more natural appearance. 4. Establish proper soil management techniques to reduce the adverse effects (i.e., erosion) of grading. 5. Minimize disruption of existing natural features, such as trees and other significant vegetation, natural ground forms, rock outcroppings, water, and views. 6. Coordinate exterior building design on all elevations from building to building to achieve the same level of design quality. 7. Use native rock for fieldstone. Other forms of stone may be manufactured products. 8. Select plant materials fortheir suitability to the environment and compatibilitywith Xeriscape principles (i.e., water conservation). Include existing mature trees worthy of preservation in the landscape concept. DRC COMMENTS • DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER November 4, 2003 • Page 3 , 9. Select fast growing vegetative ground covers for fill/cut slope areas to retard soil erosion. 10. Signifcant landscaping is required for down slope elevations. Slopes that required landscaping shall be planted with informal clusters oftrees and shrubs to soften and varythe slope plane. Jute netting is required. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. Revised plans incorporating all the above comments shall be submitted forstaff review priorto forwarding for City Planner review and approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Cristihe McPhail, Pam Stewart and Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee determined that the house as proposed was too wide for the lot. The limited back-up space for the garage (19 feet) was insufficient when compared to the normal24 feet required in parking lots. A Floor Plan that exhibits a narrow side to the front of the lot may resolve the issue. 2. The house needs to reflect the down slope of the lot at the rear of the house by stepping the • rear of the hose. 3. A much improved Landscape Plan is required that shows a conceptual landscape I conformance with City standards. The applicant was advised to work with staff on several potential solutions, and that the item can be brought back the Design Review Committee as a Consent item if the concerns can be worked out to staffs satisfaction. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:10 P.M. Lisa Kuschel December 16, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16644 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES: The proposed subdivision of a 3.33 acre property into 16single-family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Avenue between Mignonette Street and Cielito Street - APN: 0202-751-36, 0202-741-64, 0202-751-37. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-01040. Design Parameters: The property slopes from north to south at a 3 percent slope and contains three homes that are proposed for demolition. None of these homes appear to be historic. A row of five Palm trees currently located within the right-of-way will be relocated throughout the site to be made as part of a future landscape palette. Other existing vegetation consists of one Pine tree, two Windrow trees, four mature Juniper bushes, and several other large bushes of which will remain at this time. Lemon and orange trees are also found at the southern portion of the property. Each of the 16 proposed lots complies with the minimum lot size (5,000 square feet) and minimum parcel width (50 feet average) required in the Low-Medium Residential District section of the Municipal Code. No homes are proposed at this time. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on November 20, 2004, in which all attendees appeared agreeable with the project. Only matters regarding the timeline of the proposed street improvements and type of development allowed on the property were of concern. 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. Although the proposed subdivision meets the minimum net average of 6,000 square feetfor Low-Medium Residential zone, more than 50 percent of the lots are less than 5,500 square feet. Lots 2 and 6 are just a bit above 5,000 square feet. Lot 11 is constraint by 2 to 1 slopes and the required 15-foot flat usable yard. Most of the larger lots are at the end of the cul-de-sac; however, are barely at the minimum 30-foot lot width standard. Staff believes that there is room to adjust the lot lines of several larger lots so as to even out the size of the smaller lots. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. A retaining wall as high as 8 feet (at Lot 2) with a 5-foot high screen fence on top is being proposed along the south property boundary. Minor Exception and/or Variance would be needed concurrent with any formal Development Review application for homes. The applicant should work with the Grading Committee to reduce the height of the retaining wall. Decorative material such as block with stucco, split face, and pilasters should be used for the wall. 2. The site contains a variety of trees that are proposed for removal, except some Palm trees that may be relocated to the parkway along Beryl Avenue. An arborist report has not been submitted yet. C DRC COMMENTS SUBTT1664 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES • December 16, 2003 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. The corner side yard wall shall set back 5 feet from the property line. Recommendation: Staff recommends that revised plans be submitted for Design Review Committee review under the Consent Calendar. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Lisa Kuschel Members Present: • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Doug Fenn December 16, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00728 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a master planned 68,714 square foot Marriott's Town Place Suites, three restaurant buildings totaling 21,000, and one retail building totaling 8,400 square feet on 7.01 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located at the northeast corner Milliken Avenue and 4th Street - APN: 0229-341-13. Design Parameters: The vacant 7.01-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 4th Street. The site was graded in the late 1980s as part of a larger master planned development known as Bixby Business Park. The site is surrounded by industrial/office/approved hotel (Holiday Inn Express) uses to the north and east. To the west is Milliken Avenue and 4th Street is to the south. The frontage of the site is fully improved along Milliken Avenue and 4th Street including mature trees. The project is an infill project within the Bixby Business Park Master Plan. The proposed project is a four-story 112-unit Marriott's Town Place Suites hotel with a covered port-cochere entry along with a swimming pool and spa area for the guests. There are three restaurant building pads (which will come under a separate entitlement) which front the adjacent streets and total 21,000 square feet. There is also an 8,400 square foot retail in-line building, which will front along Milliken Avenue and is a part of the current proposal. Restaurant Pad C has potential for large outdoor dining; however, no outdoor dining was considered in parking calculations. • The hotel and retail building are richly designed with amodern/traditional theme with a Adoquin Stone base and vertical element enhancements along with tower elements, substantial pop outs, balconies, key stone details over windows, and smooth trowel finish on the fapade, and a four color paint scheme to add contrast to the buildings. The other three restaurant buildings will have to be designed to reflect the proposed architectural scheme of the project. There is also a plaza area at the southwest corner of the project with a water fountain. There are of covered trellis thought out the project and designed over pedestrian paths to provide shade for the customers. The Bixby Business Park was designed for industrial buildings and did not anticipate hotel buildings and retail uses. However, representatives form Bixby Ranch have approved the proposed concept and architecture of the project. The project will share access driveway to Milliken Avenue with the proposed Holiday Inn Express to the north and will have access of 4~h Street and Pittsburgh Avenue. Property Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: None -The applicant has diligently worked with staff and has addressed mostly all of staff's primary and secondary issues. However, the applicant could still add some additional enhancements to the project to give the project more of a polished look. • a) The hotel can use more vertical Adoquin stone on the vertical element of the building. In fact, Sheets A-2.2 and 2.3 depict the stone while sheet A-2.1 does not; this could be just an over sight on the architects part. However, the stone material must be on all sides of the hotel. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00728 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES • December 16, 2003 Page 2 b) Additional key stone detail must be installed over the windows of the hotel building. c) More balconies should be placed on the facade and should be on all four sides of the building. d) Provide a schedule or callout what materials will be used for the circular design elements that are shown on the interior drive aisles. e) Provide a decorative screen wall around the pool and spa area. A screen wall must also be provided around any pool ancillary equipment. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Landscaped median in the middle of the 4th Street drive entrance violates Fire District access standards fora 24-foot minimum width with a 14-foot vertical clearance. 2. Provide more trees along the fronts of the pad buildings. 3. Provide public art within the plaza area between Pads C and D. 4. Bus shelter columns should be changed to pre-cast concrete to match trellis or Adoquin stone. 5. Plant trees along both sides of sidewalk, between trellises, to shade parking lot and to accent this important pedestrian connection. 6. Provide more direct sidewalk connections from public streets: a) from the intersection of 4th and Milliken Avenue, through the plaza, to Buildings C and D, b) from Pittsburgh Avenue to Building B along the south side of the driveway. 7. Provide decorative pavement at all drive entry throats (outside the public right-of-way). 8. Provide a decorative scored concrete pavement under and from the porte-cochere across the drive aisle to connect with the circular element in the drive aisle to the south. 9. Trash receptacles must be decorative to match the architecture of the project. 10. Streetscape tree species should maintain the consistency with the Bixby Business Park and Milliken Master Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to revision per the above recommendations prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn • Members.Present: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING • TUESDAY DECEMBER 2, 2003 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTION AGENDA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Nancy Fong Larry McNiel The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public • testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Alan/Joe) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00504 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 90,000 square foot retail center including a 14,480 square foot drug store, 27,000 square foot market, 2 restaurants and 4 restauranUretailyad sites ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet on nine acres of land within the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-39. Through the preparation of an Initial Study,`this action has been determined to be within the scope of the supplement to the Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed projected is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2003 MEETING 7:20 p.m. - (Doug/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00816 -Cecil Carney -The development of an office park facility consisting of three office buildings totaling 13,314 square feet, on 1.63 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of White Oak Avenue and Eucalyptus Street - APN: 0208-352-32. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16297. 7:40 p.m. --.., • (Lisa/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510 - F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES -The development of a commercial center totaling 42,155 square feet including a gas u DRC AGENDA December 2, 2003 Page 2 station/convenience store and adrive-thru fast food restaurant, on 3.55 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4), located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative site plan is also proposed for the development of 41,475 square feet of a commercial center, including two drive-thru fast food restaurants. -APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Variance DRC2003-00511; Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00027. r~ LJ 8:00 p.m. (Warren/Joe) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16445-WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A residential subdivision of 23single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road -APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, Variance DRC2003-01012, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00682 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES -The development of 23 single- family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road - APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16301, Variance DRC2003-01012, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. VARIANCE DRC2003-01 01 2 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to allow up to a 10.7-foot high combination wall along the south property boundary and an 8-foot high combination wall between Lots 10 and 11, in a residential zone where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet, for the development of 23 single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road - APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16301, Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. • 8:20 p.m. (Nancy) FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE66VISUALIMPROVEMENTPLAN-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to review the design concept for the last Activity Center between Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Alan Warren December 2, 2003 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 90,000 square foot retail center including a 14,480 square foot drug store, 27,000 square foot market, 2 restaurants and 4 restauranUretail pad sites ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet on nine acres of land within the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN:0227-161-39. Through the preparation of an Initial Study, this action has been determined to be within the scope of the supplement to the Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed projected is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2003, MEETING. Attachment: November 18, 2003, DRC Comments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Steward, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Alan Warren Staff mentioned that at the November 18, 2003, meeting, the Committee (McNiel, Flectcher, Buller) did not • approve the project and the item was continued to the December 2, 2003, meeting at the request of the applicant. At the December 2, 2003, meeting, the applicant explained to the Committee (Stewart, McPhail, Fong) how the design of the project was conceived. They have worked diligently with staff and tried their best to design the project to be compatible with the adjacent winery. They felt their proposed project has achieved it. They would like to have directions from the Committee on the proposed project. The Committee stated that there is a strong community commitment regarding the preservation of the existing winery, and that has an effect on the development of the proposed project. The consensus of the Committee was that a drug store similar to Walgreen is an acceptable use, but the site layout, building design, and relationship to the winery property to the east must be exceptional. They believed the proposed design for W algreen needs to be enhanced. It was also the consensus of the Committee that the drive-thru restaurant on Day Creek Boulevard is not acceptable in the shopping center. The Committee also gave the following directions to the applicant: The project must be designed to be better integrated with the adjacent winery. The applicant must work with the adjacent Filippi W inery so that the Site Plan, the access, the building orientation, and building materials, etc., would visually and functionally appear as one project. 2. Recommended a full Planning Commission Workshop on the proposed project. Representatives from Filippi Winery should be invited to attend the workshop. 3. The architectural style should be winery theme and the materials of the proposed project and the • winery should match such as the type and color for the stone material. Staff noted that the applicant has worked extremely well in attempting to bring in a successful project before the City. But, the opinions on the directions of the project have been quite varied. The previous DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 2, 2003 Page 2 Committee determined both drive-thrus to be unacceptable for this site and that the architectural direction for the project was very good. Tonight, the Committee is suggesting a different architectural direction. Because of the wide differences in the direction of the project, staff supported the idea of a Planning Commission Workshop to review the project design, both Site Plan and architecture. Staff was to set the first meeting in January for a Planning Commission Workshop. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Doug Fenn December 2, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00816 -Cecil Carney - The development of an office park facility consisting of three office buildings totaling 13,314 square feet, on 1.63 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of W hite Oak Avenue and Eucalyptus Street -, APN: 0208-352-32. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16297. Design Parameters: The site is a vacant parcel with no mature vegetation located at the southeast corner of W hite Oak Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. To the west and northwest across Eucalyptus Street is the Best Western Heritage Inn Hotel. North, across Eucalyptus Street is the Mercury Insurance building. Across W hite Oak Avenue to the southwest is the recently reopened Angel Hospital. The proposed site is part of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park, a 200-acre master planned business park that has been zoned and parceled for similar development. Utilities are available to the site and the site has previously been graded The project consists of a master planned development of three small sized office buildings which range in size from 4, 239 square feet to 8,893 square feet. The buildings are rectangular, and in a couple instances uniquely designed within the confines of the shape of the property. Access into the project site is from Eucalyptus Street. Additionally, the applicant has provided an outdoors employee's area for the project. The buildings have a 360-degree architectural theme that includes decorative details, recessed gray reflective glazing elements, and stone like veneer around windows and a brick facade, cornices treatments to the professional office buildings. This project will tie in with the approved professional office/industrial park to the south. • 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: None -Applicant has done a fantastic job of addressing staffs earlier design concerns. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide a decorative pavement treatment for pedestrian pathway system, particularly across drive aisles, from each building to the central open space element. 2. No exterior downspouts are to be visible from the public right-of-way. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Paint roll-up doors to match the building elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong • Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the comments listed under Secondary and Policy Issues to be placed as conditions of approval. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Lisa Kuschel December 2, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510 - F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES - A request for the development of a shopping center to include 42,155 square feet of commercial retail area, including a gas station/convenience store and adrive-thru fast food restaurant, on 3.55 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative site plan is also proposed for the development of 41,475 square feet of commercial retail area, including two drive-thru fast food restaurants. - APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related Files: Variance DRC2003-00511 and Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00027. Design Parameters: The northwest corner of the property is located in the activity center of the Foothill Boulevard Districts Subarea 4 (see attached). Subarea 4 acts as a major gateway into the City. This activity center is unique because it does not require detailed pedestrian amenities; the Development Code calls for landscape and rolling berms instead of hardscape materials. The corner building setback is encouraged to be 25 feet from the Foothill Boulevard curb face; however, the other buildings are located outside the activity center and require a 45-foot setback from Foothill Boulevard curb face. The property is surrounded by single-story single-family homes to the south and east. Variances are requested to reduce the required building setback from 25 feet to 17 feet along the south property line, and to reduce the required parking and landscape setbacks from 45 feet to 32 feet. • Pre-Application Review: During the February 12, 2003, Pre-Application Review workshop, the Commissioners indicated that deviation from their drive-thru policies would only be considered for an exceptional project design. There was also concern expressed with overbuilding the site. The four alternates presented to Commission ranged from 27,500 square feet to 31,000 square feet and included a gas station/convenience market plus two drive-thru fast food restaurants. The current proposal is 25 percent larger in floor area, but has one less pad building. See attached minutes. 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: Site Plan -Two alternatives are proposed that affect the streetscene along Foothill Boulevard: 1) a gas station/convenience market with one drive-thru fast food restaurant, and 2) two drive-thru fast food restaurants. Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96 (see attached) requires drive-thru businesses to be at least 300 feet apart, and at least 300 feet away from an intersection. The proposal is 200 feet apart. 2. Architecture -Architectural character is encouraged to be contemporary interpretations ofthe winery or barn prototype. Although attractive, the project design is neither of these styles. Examples of appropriate architectural styles are attached. 3. Building D -Identical elevations and footprints are proposed under Alternate B for both buildings. As specific tenants are identified, it can be anticipated that this will change. • Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00510 - F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES December 2, 2003 • Page 2 Drive-Thru Lane Setbacks -Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96 requires drive-thru lanes to be setback 45 feet from the curb face. In both alternatives, Building D has only a 34-foot 6-inch setback due to the bus bay/right-turn lane. Staff supports the project design which includes berming and a low decorative screen wall around the drive-thru lanes. 2. Landscape/Streetscape -Redesign parkway and street improvements to implement the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan design elements (see attached). Also, the Foothill Boulevard Districts requires a "formal, double-row street tree planting utilizing aninformally-shaped, colorful street tree." Refer to tree list in attached (page 17.32-85). The project design shows only a single row of trees. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide continuous pedestrian circulation system by extending decorative pavement treatment across drive-aisles. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and return as a full item. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Lisa Kuschel The Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff and redesign the project to address the issues identified in the staff report as well as the following issues: The Committee preferred the Site Plan with a gas station and one drive-thru restaurant. However, the Site Plan still needs work to address the technical issues such as, but not limited to, delivery gas trucks to the gas station, plazas, pedestrian circulation, and the Activity Design for Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. 2. The Committee would not support the Variance for reducing the landscape setback along Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The Committee believed that there was too much proposed on the property, which causes the setback problem. 3. The Committee expressed that the design did not address the many comments raised at the February 12, 2003, Planning Commission Workshop. The issues raised were: Adequate bufferfor the adjacent residential, too much proposed on the property, on-site circulation, the use of good design, and landscaping. 4. The Committee recommended that the architectural style should be more of the winery theme. The use of river rock material would reinforce the identity of the Etiwanda community. The Committee cited the example of the gas station project approved at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. • 5. The Committee directed the applicant to revise the plans and submit them for their review again. 6. The Committee stated that the design of the canopy for the gas station should have the same level of design with sufficient details and architectural elements as the retail buildings. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Warren Morelion December 2, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16445 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A residential subdivision of 23single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road -APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, Variance DRC2003-01012, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00682 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES -The development of 23 single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road -APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16301, Variance DRC2003-01012, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. VARIANCE DRC2003-01012 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to allow up to a 10.7-foot high combination wall along the south property boundary and an 8-foot high combination wall between Lots 10 and 11, in a residential zone where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet, for the development of 23 single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road -APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16301, Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. . Design Parameters: The project consists of 23 single-family lots located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The project is a subdivision only, with no home production proposed at this time. The lots proposed range from 7,632 to 21,040 square feet in size. The average lot size is 10,000 square feet. The ESP requires minimum 7,200 and average 10,000 square foot lots. The two lots fronting Etiwanda Avenue are 16,303 (Lot 13) and 21,040 (Lot 12) square feet, which is considerably larger than the typical Low-Medium lots in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The overall tract lot sizes and pattern are consistent with the existing Centex homes subdivision (Tract 16301) to the north and John Laing Homes subdivisions (Tract 15947 and 15948) at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Base Line Road. The project is located within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District, which requires a Conditional Use Permit to ensure that development along Etiwanda Avenue is consistent with the historical character and quality of the street. There are special development criteria in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District that require homes along~Etiwanda Avenue to face the street, maintain a minimum separation of 25 feet between structures, and provide special streetscape design. The applicant has designed the two lots along Etiwanda Avenue large enough to meet the overlay requirements. Future development of these lots with home product will require them to take access from the rear or side of the lots, with no direct access allowed from Etiwanda Avenue. Special enhanced design will also be required for the fencing material used along Etiwanda Avenue. The fencing material will be required to be similar in design and quality as the material used along Etiwanda Avenue for the tracts to the north. Attached is a typical site plan exhibit for the two lots fronting Etiwanda. The applicant has submitted a Variance application for the expansion of wall height to allow up to a 10.7- foot high combination retaining/freestanding wall along the south property boundary and an 8-foot high combination/freestanding wall between Lots 10 and 11, in a residential zone where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet. The Variance is necessary to increase the perimeter wall height and . eliminate the need to construct 2:1 slopes that would create a "no mans land" that would lead to maintenance problems and would allow visibility into the rear yards from properties to the south. DRC COMMENTS TT16445, DRC2003-00682, AND DRC2003-01012 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES December 2, 2003 • Page 2 A tree removal permit has also been submitted requesting the removal of a remnant Eucalyptus windrow that runs along the north boundary of the site. The windrow includes 21 Eucalyptus trees, two Ligustrum trees, one Citrus tree, and one Walnut tree. An arborist report has been prepared that shows all of the trees, with the exception of one Eucalyptus tree, are in a poor or dead condition. The report recommends that the trees be removed for safety reasons. 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: None -The applicant has worked with staff to resolve 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: 1. To further enhance community character and flavor, the perimeter wall along Etiwanda Avenue should be designed to be open with combination of real river rock and wrought iron fencing. All river rock pilasters should be a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches in size to match the residential developments to the north. 2. Enhanced landscaping should be provided for the lots with street frontage along Etiwanda Avenue to • further enhance the character of the community. 3. The perimeter wall on the south side of the project should be made of a decorative material that is consistent in design with Tentative Tract 16301 to the west. The wall should include real river rock pilasters a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches in size. 4. The retaining wall at the southeast corner of the project site (Lot 12) shall be limited to a maximum of 3 feet in height in the front setback along Etiwanda Avenue. The wall should include real river rock pilasters a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches in size. 5. The retaining wall between Lots 10 and 11 should be made of a decorative material where it will be visible to the public. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Steward, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee reviewed the project and recommended the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval subject to the above-mentioned comments with the following revision to Secondary Issue #3: • Use slump stone with decorative cap and no pilaster for the perimeter wall on the south side of the project. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Nancy Fong December 2, 2003 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE 66 VISUAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to review the design concept for the last Activity Center between Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. Design Parameters: The City Council approved the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan in January of 2001. The intent of Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan is to augmentthe design and development standards of the Foothill Districts in the Development Code. It is a design document that has enough specifications so that a designer can use it in preparing construction plans. However, this document did not include the specific design for the Activity Center between Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. The reason is that this segment of Foothill Boulevard is unique because of its historic significance such as Sycamore Inn and other eclectic buildings. The direction from the Council was that this activity center would be treated differently and specially and the specific design can be developed at the time of new or redevelopment of the area. The City has received new or re-development proposals for the site that used to contain the Red Chief Motel and new residential development east of Sycamore Inn. In addition, the City has designed the raised median-island and ultimate curb improvements for widening this segment of the Foothill Boulevard. As a result, staff has hired the same consultant that design the Visual Improvement Plan to complete the design of this Activity Center paid for by the developer of the Red Chief Motel site. • Staff Comments: Because this segment of Foothill Boulevard has various constraints such as limited parkway width, limited landscape setback, or building encroaching into future public right-of-way, the design concept use the formal arrangement of tree wells and pattern hardscape within the parkway similar to all Activity Centers in the Visual Improvement Plan. To have a special theme, the concept proposes to use Crape Myrtle as the tree species within median-island, and the tree wells on both sides of the street that stretch from Grove Avenue to the Pacific Electric Trail. The concept also includes the many street elements and furniture already mentioned in the Visual Improvement Plan. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING FOR COMMITTEE'S REVIEW Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the design concept of the Activity Center and forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Cristine McPhail, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee reviewed the design concept and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. t~ J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DECEMBER 2, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respec-tf'ull/y submitted, ~` Brad Buller Secretary U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ,c,~ TUESDAY DECEMBER 2, 2003 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Nancy Fong Larry McNiel The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO, ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Alan/Joe) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00504 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 90,000 square foot retail center including a 14,480 square foot drug store, 27,000 square foot market, 2 restaurants and 4 restaurant/retail pad sites ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet on nine acres of land within the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-39. Through the preparation of an Initial Study, this action has been determined to be within the scope of the supplement to the Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) that was 'certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed projected is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2003 MEETING 7:20 p.m. (Doug/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00816 -Cecil Carney -The development of an office park facility consisting of three office buildings totaling 13,314 square feet, on 1.63 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of White Oak Avenue and Eucalyptus Street - APN: 0208-352-32. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16297. 7:40 p.m. (Lisa/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • DRC2003-00510 - F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES -The development of a commercial center totaling 42,155 square feet including a gas station/convenience store and adrive-thru fast food restaurant, on 3.55 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4), located on the DRC AGENDA December 2, 2003 Page 2 southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative site plan is also proposed for the development of 41,475 square feet of a commercial center, including two drive-thru fast food restaurants. -APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Variance DRC2003-00511; Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00027. 8:00 p.m. (Warren/Joe) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16445-WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A residential subdivision of 23single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road -APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, Variance DRC2003-01012, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00682 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES -The development of 23 single- family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road - APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16301, Variance DRC2003-01012, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. • VARIANCE DRC2003-01 01 2 - W ILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to allow up to a 10.7-foot high combination wall along the south properly boundary and an 8-foot high combination wall between Lots 10 and 11, in a residential zone where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet, for the development of 23 single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road - APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16301, Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. 8:20 p.m. (Nancy) FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE66VISUALIMPROVEMENTPLAN-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to review the design concept for the last Activity Center between Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT I, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist ll for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, • accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November26, 2003 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~~~ r s h W / • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Alan Warren December 2, 2003 Project Description: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to develop a 90,000 square foot retail center including a 14,480 square foot drug store, 27,000 square foot market, 2 restaurants and 4 restauranUretail pad sites ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet on nine acres of land within the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master.Plan located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-39. Through the preparation of an Initial Study, this action has been determined to be within the scope of the supplement to the Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed projected is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2003, MEETING. Attachment: November 18, 2003, DRC Comments n U • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Alan Warren November 18, 2003 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A requestto develop a 90,000 square foot retail center including a 14,480 square foot drug store, 27,000 square foot market, 2 restaurants and 4 restauranUretail pad sites ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet on 9 acres of land within the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0227-161-39. Through the preparation of an Initial Study, this action has been determined to be within the scope of the supplement to the Victoria Arbors Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999; and no additional environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed projected is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. Design Parameters: The site is located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard. The site shares its east property line with the historic Regina Winery (Joseph Filippi Winery) complex. The winery has planted a new vineyard along the entire west side of the winery property abutting the proposed shopping center. The existing winery buildings are about 400 feet from the shopping center. Staff has encouraged the applicant to work with the tenant of the winery to work out some common issues (access, master planning, etc.). To this point, the tenant and the shopping center applicant have not resolved any of the potential shared issues. The tenant of the winery remains opposed to the project. The site, while bordering major roadways, is also adjacent to future single-family residential . development along its southern boundary. Southbound vehicles on Day Creek Boulevard will access the site from the Madrigal Street driveway. The applicant has been advised that no median island cut is authorized along the Base Line Road frontage. A neighborhood meeting was held and about an equal number of participants voiced approval and disapproval of the project. Since the meeting, staff has received correspondence from those voicing concern over the concept of a neighborhood shopping center next to the historic winery. The concerns raised are over the location of a drug store immediately adjacent to the winery property. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Site Plan/Master Plan -City policy states, "Relate the location of site uses with adjoining properties to avoid possible conflicts and take advantage of mutual potentials." The relationship of the site to the historic winery is the most significant design issue of this proposal. The shopping centers design has been formulated to complement the period architecture of the winery as provided in the Victoria Arbors Master Plan. While the architecture, as proposed, exhibits significant winery features, the site does not provide a physical interconnection between the two projects that would increase their compatibility. The proposed shopping center has acontinuoustwo-way drive aisle setback 5 feet from the east property line shared with the winery; therefore, access could occur at multiple locations. Ideally, access would align with either east-west drive aisle north and south of Walgreens. Staff recommends that a specially designed walkway be included to the east property line to • provide a point of connection between the center and any future winery expansion. Such an enhanced walkway could be along the north side of Building A or between Building B and Building A. A gated element within the perimeter wall should be provided for this potential feature. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 18, 2003 • Page 2 2. Walgreens - In conjunction with the above-mentioned connection, staff believes the north elevation of Building A can be improved with a continuous covered walkway to the east with an expanded tower element at the northeast building corner. The expanded tower should be incorporated into and be a part of the covered walkway. Similarly, the tower at the southwest corner should be expanded and the covered walkway extended to be incorporated in to the tower. The drive-thru canopy should be extended to cover both lanes by placing columns in the outer planter island and extending roof overhang. The rock veneer be natural fieldstone and that veneer be extended to the top of each tower. 3. Architecture -The applicant has stated that all the buildings are to be constructed in the first phase except for Building H that will not be built until a tenant for it has been secured. The small pad buildings to be located on the corners will form a significant presence at the intersections. Therefore, their architectural features should exhibit similar degree of accent as the major buildings. Towards this end, staff recommends that the tower elements be expanded in size and number on these buildings as follows: a. A tower at the southwest corner of Building G. b. A tower at the southwest corner of Building H. c. A tower over the drive-thru window of Building F d. Another tower along the street frontages of Building E. The rock veneer should extend to the top of the larger towers. Towers with decorative • spires would also add a distinctive accent to the site. 4. Signs - Signing is conceptually shown on the building elevations. This signing, and the type shown on a Uniform Sign Program submitted for staff review, has a distinct commercial theme. Because of the character of the winery site, staff believes the signing for the center should have a decidedly historic theme/concept. Wood signing with exterior lighting maybe more appropriate than internally illuminated plastic channel letters. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Tree well planters (3 feet by 3 feet) should be provided in front of the covered walkway columns along the north and west elevations of Building A, north elevation of Buildings B and E, and east elevation of Building G. The plantings in these wells will help soften the view of the elevations. 2. City policy requires integration of roof-mounted equipment screening into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) rather than have a "tacked-on" appearance. Because the building pads are lower than Base Line Road, staff believes the parapet walls should be equal to the height of the anticipated equipment at the roofs' highest point in order to assure complete screening. 3. As part of the project, a Minor Exception (DRC2003-00983) has been submitted for a screen/sound wall along the Madrigal Street frontage. The Development Code requires a 35-foot setback and the applicant is requesting a 32-foot setback. Staff does not believe that a 3-foot exception will cause any significant impact to the streetscape. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 18, 2003 • Page 3 4. A trash compactor is proposed for the rear loading dock of Building C. While the sound study indicates that this equipment should not cause significant noise impacts, staff recommends that the compactor be located within the building or in a stand alone roofed structure. 5. The Lighting Plan incorporates two differing styles of light fixtures. Single and double lantern styles are combined with a very contemporary style. Staff is concerned that these two styles may not be compatible and the center's overall design may suffer. Staff recommends that the contemporary fixture be replaced with one that exhibits similar features of the lanterns. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Clearly delineate on-site pedestrian walkways with special pavement, landscaping, and lighting. 2. Screen parking areas from public view with mounding, landscaping, low walls, grade differentials, and building orientation. 3. Screen trash enclosures, ground-mounted equipment and utilities from public view. 4. Provide architectural treatment to all elevations (i.e., 360-degree architecture). • 5. Provide focal points in the architectural theme to create strong entry statements and provide a sense of place. Towers, spirals, domes, massing, color, trellises, fountains, public art, and plazas are encouraged. 6. Paint roll-up doors and service doors to blend-in with main building colors. 7. 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. 8. For shopping centers, vending machines and newspaper racks are to be recessed into the building facade. 9. Locate plants in response to architectural design and site planning. Plants can be used to keynote entries, contrast with or reinforce building lines and volumes, and soften hard lines or blank wall expanses. 10. Thirty percent of all trees are to be box size for commercial and office projects. Provide one tree per every 3 parking stalls in parking lot. 11. Use plants to define outdoor spaces such as street edge, outdoor plazas, or movement paths between parking and building entrances. Maintain adequate sight lines for motorists at intersections and driveways. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that if the Design Review Committee concurs with staff on the major issues, that the shopping center proposal be revised and return to the Committee with . appropriate amendments. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00504 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 18, 2003 • Page 4 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Richard Fletcher, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee was ready to recommend denial of the project but the applicant requested a 2-week continuance to discuss the matter with their team. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Doug Fenn December 2, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00816 -Cecil Carney -The development of an office park facility consisting of three office buildings totaling 13,314 square feet, on 1.63 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of W hite Oak Avenue and Eucalyptus Street-APN: 0208-352-32. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16297. Design Parameters: The site is a vacant parcel with no mature vegetation located at the southeast corner of W hite Oak Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. To the west and northwest across Eucalyptus Street is the Best Western Heritage Inn Hotel. North, across Eucalyptus Street is the Mercury Insurance building. Across White Oak Avenue to the southwest is the recently reopened Angel Hospital. The proposed site is part of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park, a 200-acre master planned business park that has been zoned and parceled for similar development. Utilities are available to the site and the site has previously been graded The project consists of a master planned development of three small sized office buildings which range in size from 4, 239 square feet to 8,893 square feet. The buildings are rectangular, and in a couple instances uniquely designed within the confines of the shape of the property. Access into the project site is from Eucalyptus Street. Additionally, the applicant has provided an outdoors employee's area for the project. The buildings have a 360-degree architectural theme that includes decorative details, recessed gray reflective glazing elements, and stone like veneer around windows and a brick facade, cornices treatments to the professional office buildings. This project will tie in with the approved professional office/industrial park to the south. 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: None -Applicant has done a fantastic job of addressing staffs earlier design concerns. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide a decorative pavement treatment for pedestrian pathway system, particularly across drive aisles, from each building to the central open space element. 2. No exterior downspouts are to be visible from the public right-of-way. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. Paint roll-up doors to match the building elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Lisa Kuschel December 2, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510 - F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES - A request for the development of a shopping center to include 42,155 square feet of commercial retail area, including a gas station/convenience store and adrive-thru fast food restaurant, on 3.55 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative site plan is also proposed for the development of 41,475 square feet of commercial retail area, including two drive- thru fast food restaurants. - APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related Files: Variance DRC2003-00511 and Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00027. Design Parameters: The northwest corner of the property is located in the activity center of the Foothill Boulevard Districts Subarea 4 (see attached). Subarea 4 acts as a major gateway into the City. This activity center is unique because it does not require detailed pedestrian amenities; the Development Code calls for landscape and rolling berms instead of hardscape materials. The corner building setback is encouraged to be 25 feet from the Foothill Boulevard curb face; however, the other buildings are located outside the activity center and require a 45-foot setback from Foothill Boulevard curb face. The property is surrounded by single-story single-family homes to the south and east. Variances are requested to reduce the required building setback from 25 feet to 17 feet along the south property line, and to reduce the required parking and landscape setbacks from 45 feet to 32 feet. Pre-Application Review: During the February 12, 2003, Pre-Application Review workshop, the Commissioners indicated that deviation from their drive-thru policies would only be considered for an exceptional project design. There was also concern expressed with overbuilding the site. The four alternates presented to Commission ranged from 27,500 square feet to 31,000 square feet and included a gas station/convenience market plus two drive-thru fast food restaurants. The current proposal is 25 percent larger in floor area, but has one less pad building. See attached minutes. 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: Site Plan -Two alternatives are proposed that affect the streetscene along Foothill Boulevard: 1) a gas station/convenience market with one drive-thru fast food restaurant, and 2) two drive- thru fast food restaurants. Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96 (see attached) requires drive-thru businesses to be at least 300 feet apart, and at least 300 feet away from an intersection. The proposal is 200 feet apart. Architecture -Architectural character is encouraged to be contemporary interpretations ofthe winery or barn prototype. Although attractive, the project design is neither of these styles. Examples of appropriate architectural styles are attached. • 3. Building D -Identical elevations and footprints are proposed under Alternate B for both buildings. As specific tenants are identified, it can be anticipated that this will change. DRC COMMENTS DRC2003-00510 - F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES December 2, 2003 • Page 2 Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Drive-Thru Lane Setbacks -Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96 requires drive-thru lanes to be setback 45 feet from the curb face. In both alternatives, Building D has only a 34-foot 6-inch setback due to the bus bay/right-turn lane. Staff supports the project design which includes berming and a low decorative screen wall around the drive-thru lanes. 2. Landscape/Streetscape -Redesign parkway and street improvements to implement the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan design elements (see attached). Also, the Foothill Boulevard Districts requires a "formal, double-row street tree planting utilizing an informally-shaped, colorful street tree." Refer to tree list in attached (page 17.32-85). The project design shows only a single row of trees. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide continuous pedestrian circulation system by extending decorative pavement treatment across drive-aisles. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and return as a full item. • Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Lisa Kuschel Members Present: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjoumed Meeting February 12, 2003 Chairman McNiel called the Adjoumed Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, Principal Planner, Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW~DRC2003,=00027;-B,UNDY=EINKEL'ARCHffECTS-The reviewof conceptual plans for the development of a shopping center on 3.55 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) located on the southeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. APN: 229-311-14 and 15. Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the item and explained the Pre-Application Review process. Grady Hanshaw, Property Owner, and Richard Finkel, Architect; introduced the project indicating that it was very preliminary in concept, and that they were searching for feedback from the Commission on how the property should be developed. They also discussed the design with rasped to sensitivity to existing residential to the east and south. The applicant provided four design schemes (Scheme "A," "B," "C," and "D'~. Staff discussed issues relating to all proposals. It was identified that the project may be proposing too many land use functions with relation to size of the site. Issues were identified relating to the on- and off-site access and circulation, parking, site planning, impacts to adjacent residential (glare and noise), as well as location and setbacks of the proposed drive-thru facilities. Mr. Buller noted that any re-submittal of the project should carefully consider how the project would fi4 in with the surrounding area and should provide successful demonstration of Route 66 design elements, architecture, landscape architecture, frontage, and land usage. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern with the plan and identified that it must adequately buffer the project from the adjacent residential. He felt it must be designed with extreme sensitivity to surrounding residences and he noted that the neighborhood was there first. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there was too much proposed on the site, and expressed concerns regarding the drive-thru with respell to the adjacent residential. • Commissioner Stewart echoed the comments of Commissioner Tolstoy. She indicated that if she had to favor one proposed scheme, it would be scheme "C." She also re-iterated that there was too much proposed on the property. ~ Commissioner Macias expressed concem regarding potential impacts to the surrounding residences such as light, glare and noise. He also wanted to see better use of pedestrian access to and through • the project, as well as a good design and use of landscaping. Chairman McNiel identified that he would like to see the combining of the gas station and one drive- thru restaurant. He acknowledged that the Engineering Division may have constraints with respect to locating the gas station on the comer, however, he did not have an objection with the applicant's proceeding with a formal application. Mr. Hanshaw asked about the concept of two drive-thru facilities back to back, and Mr. Finkel asked if the Commission would consider allowing adrive-thru to be located within 200 feet of the adjacent residential. Chairman McNiel stated that he would need to see an exemplary project to consider deviating from the Planning Commission's adopted drive-thru policy. Commissioner Tolstoy further expressed concerns relating to on-site circulation for the drive-thru proposals. Commissioner Stewart directed the applicant to keep design elements consistent with that of the Foothill Market Place. Mr. Buller summarized the concerns of the Commission as well as staff. He directed the applicant to work for an exceptional project, and trusted that the development team is aware of the design criteria and the need for sensitivity to the surrounding residential development. • RE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2003-00063 -PACIFIC GLOBE LLC -The review of eptual plans for the development of a gas station, mini market and drive-thru fast-food rests nt on 1.68 acres of land in the Village Commercial District, located on the northeast comer ay Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue - APN: 1089-121-08 and 1089-401-66. Brad Buller, City ner, introduced the item and gave an overview of the Pre-Application Review process. Joseph Karaki, project arc ' ect, gave a brief synopsis of the project and indicated that he and the applicant would welcome the ' ection and comments of the Commission. Staff discussed the issues relating a proposal. Staff noted that although the site is zoned village Commercial, the Victoria Community n specifically contains language stating that commercial development at this location should be o ted to the community, and not be freeway dependent. Staff also mentioned the importance of low- de architecture, adequate mitigation with respect to glare and noise, and the necessity of improving icular circulation. Staff pointed out that the site is under-parked by 20 stalls, and that the number an size of the buildings should be reduced. Mr. Buller emphasized the importance of the site's being ted to the neighbofiood and having an architectural design that is sensitive to the residential uses t e south. He articulated that grades on this site will have to be used in a positive way to buffer the 'deuces to the south. Commissioner Stewart felt that the project is simply too tight. She be improved and that the proposal is over-built. • Commissioner Macias echoed Commissioner Stewart's concerns and needs much improvement. the circulation needs to the circulation PC Adjourned Minutes -2- February 12, 2002 • RESOLUTION N0. 88-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed numerous concerns with businesses that have drive-thru facilities including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants. The concerns are compatibility of use, circulation, and addressednthesetcoencernsPpespecially inrtheuscreeningtof theedr~ve-thruulaney and WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities to guide future development; and WHEREAS, development standards and design guidelines are necessary to _. -implement the design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities; and WHEREAS, such development standards and design guidelines are needed to provide clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby establish interim policies for businesses with drive- thru facilities as follows: Section 1: Goal Statement The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in understanding and complying with the City standards for building and site design. The goal is to provide high quality design, compatibility of use, and mitigate environmental and aesthetic concerns that are created by this type of land use. The following design standards and guidelines shall apply to uses with drive-thru facilities typically including, but not limited ho to kiosksfoood restaurants, banks, mini-markets, dairy, p auto service. Section 2: Development Standards A. Location - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall be 300 feet away from any intersection and from another drive-thru facility on the same side of the street, except within a shopping center or Master Plan. Restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be a m, .,,m~~m ~ a awav rom any rest en is use or • "district boundary. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 2 • • Gas B. Site Area - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall have a minimum 1 acre net land area. This minimum land area may be modified when the drive-thru facility is within a Master Plan or an integrated shopping center through the Design Review process. The minimum floor area for drive-thru facilities shall be 2,500 square feet. The minimum floor area for a drive-thru facility other than a fast food restaurant may be modified through the Design Review process. The maximum site coverage shall be 40 percent of. the net lot area. The minimum on-site landscaping, which includes articulated plazas, courtyards, and patios, shall be 15 percent of the net lot area exclusive of /~ . public right-of-way. ~~ E~ Parking and the drive-thru lane shall be setback 45 ~J feet from the ultimate curb face. Greater setbacks may be required as mentioned in the Specific Plan and as deemed necessary during the Design Review process. Section 3: Design Guidelines ~~ ~ Site Planning/Building Orientation - Future drive-thru facilities in a Master Plan or shopping center shall be identified early in the review process to avoid retrofitting the uses at a later date. The site design shall minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of the on-site circulation. Building placement shall be done in a manner to create new pedestrian spaces and plaza area. Buildings shall orient the public entrances toward the street. Building layout should be oriented to screen the drive-thru lane. Drive-thru lanes shall be screened through building orientation, the use of a combination of low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis work. Separate pay windows and pick-up windows should be provided. Stacking Distance/Parking - The drive-thru lane shall be a sufficient length to accommodate the necessary stacking of cars. The stacking distance shall be determined through a parking study as stated in Section 17.12.040C, Special Requirements of the Parking Ordinance. Each drive-thru lane shall be separate from the circulation route necessary for ingress and egress from the property or access to any parking spaces within the site. ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 3 • Parking - The parking requirements for drive-thru facilities shall be according to Section 17.12 of the Parking Ordinance. The gross floor area for outdoor seating shall be subject to the same parking requirement. D. Pedestrian Orientation - The Site Plan shall create opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other landscape open space to promote safe and convenient pedestrian movement with continuous landscape pathway between buildings. The design should discourage. a need for pedestrians to have to cross a .drive-thru wherever possible. E. Architecture - Standardized "corporate" architectural styles associated wit a chain is prohibited. Drive- thru facilities within an integrated shopping center _ or Master Plan must have architectural style consistent with the theme established in the center. Architecture must provide compatibility to surrounding uses in form, materials, colors, scale, etc. Building planes shall have variation in depth and angle to • create variety and interest in its basic form and silhouette of the building. Articulation of building surface shall be encouraged through the use of openings and recesses which. create texture and shadow patterns. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project a formal entrance through variation of architectural plane, pavement surface, treatment, and landscape plaza. F. Signing - All signs shall conform with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Drive-thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must comply with the Uniform Sign Program as established in the center. Section 4: Performance Standards A. Special performance standards for restaurants with drive-thru facilities: The use shall be operated in a manner which does not interfere with the normal use of adjoining properties. If, in the opinion of the City Planner, the provisions of this paragraph are being violated, the violations shall be grounds for reopening Conditional Use Permit hearings and adding conditions to control the violation. Performance • standards include, but are not limited to the following considerations, which, where appropriate, shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in all use permits as determined by the Planning Commission or City Council: • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 4 (1) Noise levels measured at the property line shall not exceed the level of background noise normally found in the area. (2) The premises shall be kept clean, and the operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see that no trash or litter originating from the use is deposited on adjacent properties. For drive- . thru restaurants or other uses which typically generate trash or litter, adequate trash containers, as determined by the City Planner, shall be required and employees shall be required daily to pick up trash or litter originating from the site upon the site and within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. (3) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. (4) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the site. (5) The on-site manager of the use shall take whatever steps are deemed necessary to asst re the orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and visitors on the premises. (6) A copy of these performance standards and all Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval shall be posted along side the necessary business licenses and be visible at all times to employees. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: I, Brad pBuller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of May, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE `~ z /~` W W y~ W ~ V U F 0 Q w ~ Z 2 j 1 Q p Z ~c~i 3 1 _ W ~/ i~~ v c = c a ~ ° c .x ° m m • • . • d F o N A W O ~. w o E N W N C ~ m N C a m N C 3 00 C L ~• C Y O `v v ; ~ w b_y v o E m o`'~ v <`> `^ E .Z y'C ZV~C C' ' mCr V V V~ }a 0y C C ~ M O C y O C v C Y Gl C 1' N d v N ~ C i ; J ~ m .C >~ 4Y = a` m ~ CO j O oC0 j C a q- Z V 'j E~ .^ N ~`. N i L 3 C~ E L~ q E L n OV 'Q H` t cO v O~vw 3'O~- j°~o:a -oo v~v vow _m ~ w s o ~ s , = V~ g LL a~ d~ o f T a a N K N V m ~ m o Z .n ¢ Y c v J O C y `O W ~ C Ti O o u c C N O o V V ~ E c ' °~ v o ~ o o v s 3 0 V~ W c w V~ ~ q O.'" O N O v V J V o L y 3 ~ Q A Z >' W „~ ~ ~p J vi O N C ~ V C N J c v vOi C Y ~ , V a N W w~ C d> ° 2 C ~ W N Y V< .O 4 C E O~~ O < N o0 O < v e- O O v ~ W J= ~~ ~ m '-' n v Q o 3L01 ~ `m m m v~ S E E = fi g Cn ~ N a ., p p Q o ° ° ~ o a w v s m v p d~ v `o p ~ v 3' m O m v ~ Z ~ c c a V ~ Q ~ , ~ LL . _ ry -- ip V L ~ t+l ~ = O~ p, - O C N O C @ „C, E U H~~ LL V V100 O.O V v V V~ O ~ m>~N= _ ~ C? Z O C . - =OV N V C .- ~ N V O~ d V N y v `V C K ~ ~ 'C O] y C 0 (Y 2<~ Q LL ~ _ pp _~ LL Q n C ~n V O C Q CO VOC C G= Q fO G LL ~LL N r C 00 C '/~ v b O,q}} ~y1~.~ . . yy yA OZZ 6yw ~~I ~~ ". 3f1N3Atl VONb _ 5;~% w-v V t V Q O C,~ O ~ O i V Y 3 L u ;o A V ~ ~'< 4 i :Y a C N { I , ri 1}r O 4 o m ~, LL ~ ~tml3 a ~> H ~ ' ~' m`;~ E = v m #gw1Kv' ~,4~ °' ~ ~ m o 'a . J kf~~o c; ~ F w «'''w ~ ~ c ~V vW x"1 sw~b ~~,QtjA > a ;3 d" ~ '~ p t W 3 y ` O ns31'm!d .". >. _w ~ U 5 3 U n~ ~O'~yO~>V Q ~Ui,: i~:~p~+ry~C y~ C :.R Yy ti .A C' V ~t}.mi C,~R W a ~~~fQ$~~ p {F 3 :~~ 0] ~ ~OV J Fg~ ~ 3 ~s J Qr vN,. VONVMII3 Q ~: i CA't s~ q? 39 ¢~ Q ~'p ~ ~ 1M! V= ~ E J 'R°AH~r `~ X ~ ~ Q v '. ~ .'S'.b Wm 3~ m =„~ `~,I ~ w ,~ ~ o c 1}vi _ ' F v,-~, o. mr < p y, ~ a :~ iC ~1~p m~ „~~ a{ ~s ~ .~p.,~ 4 ~ ~ ~ v m A 4 ~ t ~'flml F' ~ > V 4e ~~ yy4r m..g bd~g j". WW'~ vi~4`My ~Ctli1'eBG~"' ~ C ~ O O ~ w m CC yp~~ ^~ ~~ .^1 ~~ ~^ ~• ~\ ~\ r7 ~• ~~ ~• 1 'may ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ '< e' Y C ~ Q Q m OC 7 m H N _ J 2~ ~ a ~~ F w 0 ~L C~ t H m. c_- o ~ i v ~ H O ~ `l v~ m ~ I 0 o 0 w n W m a y L a ~ „v, A E a> C~_ 3 L < _ Y ~ ~ ~3c L ~ V ~ C 3 '° ~. '^ ~ ~ m v v oa ~ ~ ~~ `o ~ ~ > A m T ~ 3 m 'O S ~ ~ O A d V1 tE C 2 O~ V w ~ y `w .o v K y 3 W_ Z J a e o 0 Q °: v ~ ~ C v ~ c V ~ o q E ~ u O] v ~ E o v C ~ mL C_ by E L V p~ ` J V ] C ~ H v L ~ ~ V ~ ~ C C N N O r U r3 ~ a W 'r O- A ~ u L ~ ~ O ~ d N O L E m 3 VI " N C ~ N ~~U v c ~ y o w u o 't y V '° cY v - v o E L =_ ~ ~ N _a m O_ Q ~~ N O . C' O'O ~ Q m _ N~ .. ~ O V F ~ Q ` ~ ~ ry ~ C ~ v w O p m ~ ~ v mr V ~ ~ m m A `^ ~ °v C, m 1 .•. • .c • O r w E E C v z P O m ~ v W v n E E E i Y E w E T> 'E 3 s __ Y ~ ~ _____ _ ___ ~3c ~~ ~ ~~ V a v~ L r_my F v i ; ,n O O 0 ` QI O 'v ; q v O y n y n W~ ~ N T~LL y ~ W ~~ yt q ~ O a 3 ~'~ m C v rv .. v d j v L O r d Z O m v~ q`~ ~ C K C P V O O O L ~~ O N CI O w v O N '^ `er - O~ oO\ O ~y c.c > F n v j ~ E Y 'r V Z _ o v voas ~ = q ° oa m n. w s L _ A 3 0 'u n t _ _w L _: ,v, d ~ F y o f v c~ ~m o V o d o m 3 -. W ~~ " y E E m b E ~ a~ ~ r ;vE - ~ ~ oc c _ +^ ~ 3 vy avao E'r ~v ? '" c -' ' ~ i vv A~ m Ty V a `c o ~o v ~ e c r y ~ m 3 ~ r c ~, o x x v c ~f~~'T'~,,.-_ ~, ~z,~:¢¢ °~c _~axwrw:.~s~, - .s+,; .. ,m rtq+m y J ~~~ ~~ fY', ~ µV A"•i r ~: 'i0.: y°+ ~ y~t, yvlh i S[~ • ~.<~M1', 08tlA37fl0H lIIHlOOi •~ i ~~• ' .]t~~ ~ •~ •s •G~~K~~ i~ti T F O O V 3 w JC F ~ ~ _ C L O a= v r ' c y L +G F w ~ v C v 3 v U C O. N _^ O OOOL ,n C W y C OCO v d .` - ~ u,~0 ~ > Q> ~ ~ O. d ~ V -O V m V v N Tr L C O O h ~ O m m ~' h ~. ~ VUm ar ~,° y ~ o0 3 J o ~ ~. 09 09Y i Q y v •O O ~' m f0 ~' _ N Y V F 6 V O -O w 'n ~ _O v w m V A C v °' F V j t ~ ' F a V V ¢ S z V 3 a~ u i ~n . n v i 0 0' - ~ O ~ O N F m C ~ v O- T-O G v v W O E v V ~ E~ j v ° Y V N d O V F ,,, d o ; c Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ° . O L _ _ d n ~ N D C < m W ~i N ~Y V < y L N V V C ~ V O C ~, N ~~ C W ,..i~a,. r;~.,a". C .~ ~ t ~ ~ p F K 1 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.32.080 D. Subarea 4 1. Backoround. Subarea 4 is the final subarea within the Foothill Boulevard corridor and is physically separated from the other subareas. This physical separation, however, should not be allowed to disrupt the overall design continuity of Foothill Boulevard. This "Etiwanda Gateway" subarea is the least urban of the four subareas. Structures in the area do not currently have strong architectural style or thematic sense. This Subarea serves as a major entry into the Foothill Corridor, and as such, should project a strong design image. As the stone curbing along Etiwanda Avenue has been recognized as a unique historic feature, all new development shall be required to restore and/or reconstruct the stone curbing from Foothill Boulevard north to 24th Street (Wilson Avenue), in conformance with adopted City Standards acceptable to the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. Activity Center Area. The Community Design Plan for the urban activity center will relate to the CC, and RRC land use designations at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Subarea 4 is much less urbanized than the other three subareas. Due to the amount of vacant land and non-descript architectural legacy, there was no purpose in developing a design analysis map. However, all of the • architectural, landscape architecture and streetscape elements will come directly from the other subarea to ensure the design continuity of Foothill Boulevard. Unlike the other activity center Foothill Boulevard, the activity center at Etiwanda will not require detailed pedestrian amenities. It is recommended that landscape and rolling berms be utilized instead of hardscape materials. ~~ ~_~ r »' <> _~i_ ~3C5PPi5Ll~C~ C141I p ~~ SUBAREA 4 -ACTIVITY AREA MAP 17.32-83 2/01. -___ --------=cr..,.c'sr_==-._"'M _.....__~_ca:eeEhYfl'=.tc'=--=' Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.32.080 • 3 I ~ ~,c9 1613~61JJC16p - - --- -i ip9t~d9~q~~ p4p~ i i i I ~ 'i I I I ~ i I ~ I ' I '~a Irtr I I ~ II.: '•~:v: I i 'v I ~.~ I ~ a~ FootM1ll eo~evatl j~^ ~ ~ I I~ L . --X71-----' I I I J_ ._J -_ I I ~ __J I I I ~,]°-~-------- I I SUBAREA 4 -ACTIVITY CENTER 3. Building Siting. The concept for the Etiwanda Gateway is to create character, which portrays a regional commercial oriented image. Building setbacks along Foothill Boulevard will be 25 feet from the curb, with hardscape and landscape treatments predominant in this area. Parking is prohibited in this 25-foot setback area for properties at this intersection. 4. Architectural Imagery. As with other subareas, no fixed architectural "style" is mandated for the Etiwanda Gateway area. Buildings in this area should reflect the • community design palette established generally for Foothill Boulevard. This palette incorporates the architectural "models" provided for by the Thomas Brothers Winery and Sycamore Inn. Buildings and structures shall incorporate such architectural elements as brick, wood, tile, and stucco details in order to maintain a "human" scale within this regional oriented area. Cement block; tilt-up concrete, and similar "industrial-type" materials are prohibited from the activity center properties. 5. Landscape/Streetscape Imagery. The landscape/streetscape concept for the Etiwanda Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Intersection node is the same as the concept for Cucamonga Towne Center with the exception of pedestrian amenities. 6. Community Design Palette. a. Architectural Character Determinant. Contemporary interpretations of the winery or barn prototype: Wall Materials: Textured stucco Smooth stucco Stained or painted woods (clapboard, board and batten) Brick Cobblestone, river rock, fieldstone Roofs/Pitches: Gable, hip, and shed roofs (flat roofs for three-story structures only) Pitch - 3:12 to 6:12 • Wood shingle 17.32-84 2/01 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.32.080 ® Slate Metal (colored earthtones) Accents: Exposed rafter tails Warm color accents Towers, cupolas Multi-lighted windows Vine arbors Curved parapet walls Covered walkways Awnings Scale: Three-story heights Colors': Warm earthtones with bright color accents Pastels White (stucco only) `These color ranges are examples and only encouraged to be utilized. b. Landscape Architectural. Crape Myrtle (primary urban activity node and median species) Honeylocust (secondary urban activity node and median species) London Plane Tree (primary suburban parkway and median species) Carolina Laurel Cherry (major median species) Flowering Plum (secondary suburban parkway and median accent tree) In order to prevent a barren wintertime street scene, street, parkway, and median trees have been selected to avoid a completely deciduous palette. Activity center trees planted in a regimental style shall be at a minimum of 30-inch box in size. c. Northwest Corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue. This site has been selected for a Neighborhood Commercial use with specific intent to allow for partial preservation of the existing Eucalyptus grove. The site plan for such use shall incorporate as many existing trees as possible, but no less than 60 percent of the area of grove nor less than 25 percent of the trees. Provisions shall also be made fora 20-foot wide Greenway through the interior boundary near the northwest corner of the site for future connection to the Community Trail system and Miller Park. 7. Land Use Regulations -Subarea 4 a. Primary Function/Location. Subarea 4 is located contiguous to the Foothill Boulevard Corridor between the I-15 Freeway and East Avenue. Subarea 4 acts as a major gateway into the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is characterized by a variety of commercial, residential, industrial uses, and mixed use/residential. Regional related uses will be provided adjacent to the Devore Freeway, designed to compliment the Victoria Gardens Regional Shopping Center. In addition to the public hearing and notification requirements of Section 17.02.110, additional notification of all property owners within the Foothill Boulevard subarea in which the property under review is located is required. 17.32-85 2/01 ~J S;~-YLE '' . ;h ; ., .. .~ ; ~ f .r ELEMENTS ._ :_~.i. Aly.. arms, U • • 18 CHAPTER 7 ARCHITECTURAL VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PL[ Golden Vine Winery Filippi Winery Property Filippi Winery Sales Room I TURAL GUIDELINES CHAPTER 7 19 I CTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN Sterling Winery St Jean Winery With Italian Influences Heitz Cellars • • 2O CHAPTER 7 ARCHITECTURAL VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Warren Morelion December 2, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16445 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A residential subdivision of 23single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road -APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, Variance DRC2003-01012, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00682 - W ILLIAM LYON HOMES -The development of 23 single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road - APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative TractSUBTT16301,VarianceDRC2003-01012, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. VARIANCE DRC2003-01012 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to allow up to a 10.7-foot high combination wall along the south property boundary and an 8-foot high combination wall between Lots 10 and 11, in a residential zone where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet, for the development of 23 single-family lots on 6.55 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,000 feet south of Base Line Road -APN: 0227-171-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16301, Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00682, and Tree . Removal Permit DRC2003-00365. Design Parameters: The project consists of 23single-family lots located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The project is a subdivision only, with no home production proposed at this time. The lots proposed range from 7,632 td 21,040 square feet in size. The average lot size is 10,000 square feet. The ESP requires minimum 7,200 and average 10,000 square foot lots. The two lots fronting Etiwanda Avenue are 16,303 (Lot 13) and 21,040 (Lot 12) square feet, which is considerably larger than the typical Low-Medium lots in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The overall tract lot sizes and pattern are consistent with the existing Centex homes subdivision (Tract 16301) to the north and John Laing Homes subdivisions (Tract 15947 and 15948) at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Base Line Road. The project is located within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District, which requires a Conditional Use Permit to ensure that development alorig Etiwanda Avenue is consistent with the historical character and quality of the street. There are special development criteria in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District that require homes along Etiwanda Avenue to face the street, maintain a minimum separation of 25 feet between structures, and provide special streetscape design. The applicant has designed the two lots along Etiwanda Avenue large enough to meet the overlay requirements. Future development of these lots with home product will require them to take access from the rear or side of the lots, with no direct access allowed from Etiwanda Avenue. Special enhanced design will also be required for the fencing material used along Etiwanda Avenue. The fencing material will be required to be similar in design and quality as the material used along Etiwanda Avenue for the tracts to the north. Attached is a typical site plan exhibit for the two lots fronting Etiwanda. • The applicant has submitted a Variance application for the expansion of wall height to allow up to a 10.7-foot high combination retaining/freestanding wall along the south property boundary and an 8-foot high combination/freestanding wall between Lots 10 and 11, in a residential zone where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet. The Variance is necessary to increase the DRC COMMENTS TT16445, DRC2003-00682, AND DRC2003-01012 -WILLIAM LYON HOMES December 2, 2003 • Page 2 perimeter wall height and eliminate the need to construct 2:1 slopes that would create a "no mans land" that would lead to maintenance problems and would allow visibility into the rear yards from properties to the south. A tree removal permit has also been submitted requesting the removal of a remnant Eucalyptus windrow that runs along the north boundary of the site. The windrow includes 21 Eucalyptus trees, two Ligustrum trees, one Citrus tree, and one Walnut tree. An arborist report has been prepared that shows all of the trees, with the exception of one Eucalyptus tree, are in a poor or dead condition. The report recommends that the trees be removed for safety reasons. 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. None -The applicant has worked with staff to resolve 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: 1. To further enhance community character and flavor, the perimeter wall along Etiwanda • Avenue should be designed to be open with combination of real river rock and wrought iron fencing. All river rock pilasters should be a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches in size to match the residential developments to the north. 2. Enhanced landscaping should be provided for the lots with street frontage along Etiwanda Avenue to further enhance the character of the community. 3. The perimeter wall on the south side of the project should be made of a decorative material that is consistent in design with Tentative Tract 16301 to the west. The wall should include real river rock pilasters a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches in size. 4. The retaining wall at the southeast corner of the project site (Lot 12) shall be limited to a maximum of 3 feet in height in the front setback along Etiwanda Avenue. The wall should include real river rock pilasters a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches in size. 5. The retaining wall between Lots 10 and 11 should be made of a decorative material where it will be visible to the public. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above-mentioned comments. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Warren Morelion Members Present: • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Nancy Fong December 2, 2003 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE 66 VISUAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN -CITY OF RANHCO CUCAMONGA - A request to review the design concept for the last Activity Center between Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. Design Parameters: The City Council approved the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan in January of 2001. The intent of Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan is to augment the design and development standards of the Foothill Districts in the Development Code. It is a design document that has enough specifications so that a designer can use it in preparing construction plans. However, this document did not include the specific design for the Activity Center between Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. The reason is that this segment of Foothill Boulevard is unique because of its historic significance such as Sycamore Inn and other eclectic buildings. The direction from the Council was thatthis activitycenterwould be treated differently and specially and the specific design can be developed at the time of new or redevelopment of the area. The City has received new or re-development proposals for the site that used to contain the Red Chief Motel and new residential development east of Sycamore Inn. In addition, the City has designed the raised median-island and ultimate curb improvements for widening this segment of the Foothill Boulevard. As a result, staff has hired the same consultant that design the Visual Improvement Plan to complete the design of this Activity Center paid for by the developer of the Red Chief Motel site. • Staff Comments: Because this segment of Foothill Boulevard has various constraints such as limited parkway width, limited landscape setback, or building encroaching into future public right-of- way, the design concept use the formal arrangement of tree wells and pattern hardscape within the parkway similar to all Activity Centers in the Visual Improvement Plan. To have a special theme, the concept proposes to use Crape Myrtle as the tree species within median-island, and the tree wells on both sides of the street that stretch from Grove Avenue to the Pacific Electric Trail. The concept also includes the many street elements and furniture already mentioned in the Visual Improvement Plan. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING FOR COMMITTEE'S REVIEW Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the design concept of the Activity Center and forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Nancy Fong Members Present: u