HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/04/20 - Agenda Packet
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY APRIL 20, 2004 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ACTION AGENDA
l J
•
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
(Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00840 - WLC/PITASSI ARCHITECTS -
Update of exterior changes for the Cultural Arts Center on 3 acres of land located
on the south side of Church Street and east of Day Creek Boulevard in the Mixed
Use District of the Victoria Community Plan and part of the Victoria Gardens
Regional Center-APN: 0227-201-35.
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.
(Brent) REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN - VICTORIA GARDENS
REGIONAL CENTER -The review of Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design
Guidelines for the Route 66 Outparcels within the Victoria Gardens Mall in the
Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northeast corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 0227-201-35.
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 on 5.12 net acres of land in the
<,, Community Commercial District (Subarea 4), located at the southeast corner of
Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative Site Plan consisting of adrive-thru pharmacy is
being considered -APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Variance
DRC2003-00511.
8:00 p.m.
(Donald/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAPSUBTT16592
- ELBA INC. - A residential subdivision of 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres of
land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on
the north side of Hillside Road, and on the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -
APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-01139, Tree
` Removal Permit DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076 and Pre-
Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
April 20, 2004
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-01139 -ELBA INC. -The design review of building elevations and
detailed site plan for 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres of land in the Very Low
Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of
Hillside Road, and on the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -APN: 1061-561-05.
Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592, Tree Removal Permit
DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076 and Pre-Application Review
DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
•
8:20 p.m.
(Emily/gene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACTSUBTT16716-JT
STORM DEVELOPMENT - A request to subdivide 13.22 gross acres into 28
single-family homes in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue,
approximately 660 feet south of Victoria Avenue -APN: 0227-121-16 and 49.
Related Files: Variance DRC2003-01061 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-
01060.
8:40 p.m.
(Emily/Cam) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00116 - SAITO DESIGN GROUP, INC - A
request to develop a 9,885 two-story office building on .69 acre in the Industrial
Park District (Subarea 6), located on the north side of Trademark Street at its
intersection with Center Avenue -APN: 210-381-07.
9:00 p.m
(Nancy) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2004-00226-0 & S HOLDINGS-A requestto
review the Uniform Sign Program for the Foothill Crossing commercial center,
located at the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill and Day Creek
Boulevards -APN: 0229-021-20, 34, 47, 53, 54, and 55.
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
lJ
7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 2004
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00840 - WLC/PITASSI ARCHITECTS- Update of exterior
changes for the Cultural Arts Center on 3 acres of land located on the south side of Church Street
and east of Day Creek Boulevard in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan and part
of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center-APN: 0227-201-35.
PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE MEETING
•
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Fletcher, McPhail, Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The architect for the project, Pete Pitassi, reviewed the proposed modifications to the Cultural Arts
Center including elimination of the domed tower, elimination of the elevator tower/tower of
imagination in the plaza area, color changes, and elimination of some window shades on the east
elevation. The Committee recognized the necessity to bring the project within budgetary limits and
approved the proposed modifications.
u
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 2004
REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER -
Thereview ofSite Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Guidelines for the Route 66 Outparcels within
the Victoria Gardens Mall in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the
northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0227-201-35.
Background: The Planning Commission approved the Design Review for the Regional Center on
November 13, 2002. The Planning Commission did have opportunities to comment on the Route 66
Outparcels. For example, better on-site circulation and stronger pedestrian connections between
buildings were requested. At that time, the site planning and design guidelines for the Route 66
Outparcels (that is the rectangular area of land along the north side of Foothill Boulevard between
Day Creek Boulevard to the west and the I-15 Freeway off-ramp to the east) was not yet ready for
approval and so was not included in Commission's action. Staff and the developer have been
working since that time to resolve site-planning issues related to parking requirements and on-site
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, as well as design guidelines. The developer has provided a
Route 66 Handbook (Exhibit "C")that includes Design Guidelines, a Route 66 Development booklet
(Exhibit "D") showing site planning of the infrastructure intended to be installed by the developer,
pad arrangement, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, some signage, and a detailed Landscape
Plan (Exhibit "E") for review by the Design Review Committee.
Design Parameters: While the Route 66 Outparcels (a.k.a.: Outparcels) are part of the Regional
• Center, the style of development is very different and that of typical pad style buildings interspersed
with parking and drive aisles. The Outparcels, therefore, do not contain major anchors or an urban
core as is associated with the main portion of the Regional Center to the north. There is no sense of
development over time associated with the Outparcels. The site will have access from Foothill and
Day Creek Boulevards, and Victoria Gardens Lane, as well as Monet Avenue, which is an "S"
shaped private street bisecting the Outparcels into two halves.
The Design Guidelines for the Outparcels propose an eclectic development style with the only
cohesive design features being beacons (vertical building elements), eyebrows (horizontal and
shade structures), and targets (interesting building features for visitors to focus in on). The
Outparcels, while technically part of the Regional Center, are separated from the core of the Center
by Victoria Gardens Lane and will function to a major degree as a separate entity. A development of
this size (13-acre shopping center with 80,000 square feet of leasible area) would normally be
required to be developed with a cohesive design theme to avoid a disjointed, unrelated, and
uncoordinated appearance. The developer is of the opinion that once mature, the landscaping will
tie the development together visually regardless of what the individual buildings look like.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. The Design Guidelines should be substantially revised to ensure cohesive development. This
could mean specifying a certain architectural style or mixture of styles, specific colors and
• materials, specific building forms and shapes, specific roof styles, etc. Small centers that have
been built recently witho7ut such guidance (such as the series of pad buildings along the
south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Aspen Avenue) have ended up with just the sort of
disjointed and uncoordinated appearance the City has traditionally tried to avoid. The
developer wishes to leave the design guidelines as vague as possible in order to maximize
options in terms of potential lease agreements. While this would provide the easy way out
DRC ACTION AGENDA
REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER
• April 20, 2004
Page 2
now it will place an undue burden on the City once projects are submitted for individual
parcels/pads.
2. The Design Guidelines, Section 2.2 Building Guidelines, should be revised to include
illustrations of "large scaled architectural elements" mentioned in the very first guideline. It is
not clear if the required "Beacons," "Eyebrows" and "Targets" are, in fact, the same as "large
scaled architectural elements." In other words, would more than "Beacons," "Eyebrows" and
"Targets" be required to embody "large scaled architectural elements"?
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 Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan provides a specific design treatment for the corner of
Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The developer negotiated through the Design
Review process a slightly different corner treatment design (approved by Planning
Commission on November 13, 2002 -see Exhibit "A") that while smaller in overall size provide
a large curving pergola or trellis set among several palm trees. The trellis along with
enhanced landscaping and palm trees was found to be an acceptable design solution even
though the dimensions were reduced over that specified by the Day Creek Master Plan. A
new intersection design is now proposed with the Route 66 Outparcel development criteria
that is essentially the same corner design treatment as previously approved but with the large
curving trellis feature removed. The trellis feature was a majorjustifying factor for allowing the
• developer to reduce the dimensions of the intersection treatment and, therefore, staff is of the
opinion that it should not be removed. It may be revised, however, to match the trellis designs
for the southeast and southwest corner treatments approved for the O & S Holdings project on
the south side of Foothill Boulevard. In this case, the overall dimensions of the corner
treatment area shall match the other approved corner treatments as well.
2. None of the parking calculations include provisions for fast food users which are required to be
parked at a slightly higher parking ratio than sit-down orfull-service restaurants. As individual
parcels/pads are developed, they will have to either stand alone in terms of parking provided
or demonstrate that there is adequate excess parking on adjacent parcels to make up for the
difference.
3. The traffic circulation pattern amongst Parcels 1, 9, 10, and 15 is still awkward and in need of
restudy to provide for a smoother, more ordered flow. Drive aisles intersect each other in an
offset position relative to those on the opposite side.
4. Provide pedestrian connections across site from public sidewalks to pads. This is
recommended, at a minimum, along one side of all driveway entry throats. See Paving
Exhibit.
5. Provide more pedestrian connections between buildings:
• From Pad 2 to 6
• From Pad 6 to 7
• From Pad 7 to 8
• From Pad 3 to 4
• From Pad 5 to 12
• From Pad 10 to 15
DRC ACTION AGENDA
REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER
• April 20, 2004
Page 3
6. The "infrastructure" plans should not include the last strip of parking adjacent to the building
pads. This parking should be installed by the individual pad developers to ensure loading
points and handicapped parking locations are correct relative to the main entrance(s) of the
buildings.
7. Where there is insufficient room to provide a linear planter separating the fronts of parking
stalls, specify diamond shaped tree wells so that trees may be planted every three stalls to
provide adequate shade.
8. Replace the crosshatch (paved) areas on the plan with landscape planters. Typically, these
areas are located at the ends of parking rows where planter "finger islands" would normally
occur. If these areas are necessary to accommodate vehicle-turning movements than this
indicates an overly tight site planning arrangement.
9. Note that nodrive-thru use (whether fast food, bank, or other) will be permitted at the corner of
Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard (Parcel 7). This matter was discussed at length
during review of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan and Development Agreement and a
condition of approval on the Development Agreement prohibits adrive-thru use in this location.
The developer has continued toshow adrive-thru use on Parcel 7 contrary to this condition as
evidenced by the Site Plan included in the design guidelines.
10. Provide Secondary Project Gateways and B-Street Name Identity signs at the intersection of
• Victoria Gardens Lane and Monet Avenue.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the
developer to revise their development plans and design guidelines for the Route 66 Outparcels for
further review by the Committee.
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Design Review Committ
- Approved Corner Treatment -Day Creek and Foothill Boulevards
- Approved Corner Treatment -SEC and SWC of Day Creek and
Foothill Boulevards
- Route 66 Tenant Control Handbook (Design Guidelines)
- Route 66 Development Booklet
- Route 66 Landscape Plan
ee Action:
Members Present: Fletcher, McPhail, Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee conditionally approved the Site Plan/Master Plan for the infrastructure, but
requested further modifications to landscaping and design guidelines as follows:
1. Revise the Design Guidelines to provide clear and enforceable direction for future pad
developers to follow. The Committee was adamant that the Design Guidelines as written are
• so vague that they will potentially cause excessive burden for the City to negotiate with each
pad developer. The architect for the project showed the Committee four before and after
examples of pad buildings they had been working on in an effort to demonstrate that Forest
City will ensure high quality design prior to pad tenants submitting to the City for Design
DRC ACTION AGENDA
REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER
• April 20, 2004
Page 4
Review. The Committee was not unanimously in favor of the art deco and art modern styles of
the buildings shown by the architect at the meeting, but applauded him in working to achieve
the consistency and quality design for the four pads. The Committee directed the applicant to
express in words and illustrations in the Design Guidelines the level of detail necessary to
achieve the high quality design. The Committee stated that the landscaping guidelines should
provide for more color and focus so that the landscaping enhances the buildings and
infrastructure. The guidelines should be revised to avoid the use of Ligustrum and
Raphiolepis plant species as the "theme" plant material, as these are overly plain and would
not differentiate the project as a specialized design.
2. Each individual pad developer shall provide a pedestrian connection across their site
connecting pads on either side of their pad. The pedestrian pathway shall be designed with
decorative paving and landscaping that match uniformly throughout the Route 66 Outparcels.
3. Forest City shall revise the Master Plan to clearly delineate pedestrian connections throughout
the site that will be provided with the developer-installed infrastructure.
4. Either eliminate the parking strip immediately adjacent to the pads or avoid laying down
parking spaces in these areas so that the handicapped clear area and future loading areas
can be aligned with their respective building elements (entrance and service area,
respectively). Furthermore, the City will require that each pad developer install decorative
• paving within the handicapped clear areas aligned with the front entrances of the buildings as
is done elsewhere in the City. Should the area immediately adjacent to the pad be paved with
the infrastructure installation, then it will be necessary to saw cut out portions of paving to
accommodate this decorative paving.
5. Eliminate the crosshatched areas either by widening the drive aisles or through the use of
rolled curbs or other creative design solutions that will accommodate fire lane requirements.
Eliminate the strip of parking that blocks the drive aisle running parallel to Monet Avenue on
the north edge of Pad 12. The Committee is adamant about poor circulation in this area;
future users of the site should not have to make an awkward right-turn at this point to drive
through the Pad 12 parking area to get to the exit or get into the northern reaches of the site
from the southern Monet Avenue entrance.
The applicant agreed either to comply with or to work with staff to resolve the following: Day
Creek/Foothill Boulevard intersection design treatment; Foothill Boulevard Activity Center
design treatment; traffic circulation pattern in the vicinity of Pads 1, 9, 10, and 15; provision of
pedestrian connections from Foothill Boulevard to the pads along Foothill Boulevard; no
drive-thru uses allowed on Pad 7 per the Development Agreement; provision of diamond
shaped tree wells in parking areas where needed; and gateway/street identifier signage at
Monet and Victoria Gardens Lane.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Lisa Kuschel April 20, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510 -
F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES -The development of a commercial center totaling 42,155 square
feet on 5.12 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4), located at the
southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative Site Plan consisting of adrive-thru pharmacy
is being considered -APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Variance DRC2003-00511.
Design Parameters: At the December 2, 2003, meeting, the Design Review Committee directed the
applicant to revise the project and address the identified design issues. A copy of the
December 2, 2003, Design Review Committee action is attached for reference. The applicant has
been working diligently with staff in redesigning the site plan and elevations to address the design
concerns. To streamline the processing time, staff has agreed that the applicant submits only the
detailed Site Plan and elevations for Design Review Committee review. Once the Design Review
Committee recommended approval, the applicant will prepare Grading and Landscape Plans for
Planning Commission review.
The applicant in redesigning the Site Plan has eliminated the fast food drive-thru and the gas
station. The new design includes two alternative Site Plans. Site Plan A is designed with a 13,000
• square-foot drive-thru drug store at the corner that included a loading area at the rear of the building.
Site Plan B is designed with a 7,621 square-foot retail building featured on the corner. All other
buildings are planned for retail space. Variances are requested to reduce the required building
setback from 25 feet to 16 feet along the south property line, and to reduce the required parking and
landscape setbacks from 45 feet to 32 feet for approximately 250 feet of Foothill Boulevard street
frontage.
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.
Site Plan A: This version of Site Plan includes a proposed drug store at the corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. This corner is designated as an Activity
Center per Foothill Boulevard Districts and Special Boulevards per the City's General
Plan. Having a pharmacy with a loading area does not meet the intent of the Activity
Center. The loading area as designed does not have sufficient maneuvering area to
make it work. Further, the loading activities would significantly impact the adjacent
residential area to the south, such as frequent deliveries. Staff does not support this
version of the Site Plan.
b. Site Plan B: This version of the Site Plan shows a retail building at the corner of Foothill
• Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Staff believes that this is a superior Site Plan and
supports it.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2003-00510 - F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES
April 20, 2004
• Page 2
2. Elevations: Revised elevations include tower elements, colonnade, stacked stones accent
and as a wainscot, pop-outs, and trellis work. Staff believes that the revised elevations have
improved substantially.
The pop-out element at the west elevation of Retail Building D should be increased in
depth to 3 feet.
Storefront glass and spandrel glass should be provided at the north side of the west
elevation for Building "D."
c. Add a tower element at the northwest corner of Retail Building "D."
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Create a plaza terminus area in front of Building "B" entry at the end of drive entry off Foothill
Boulevard.
For Site Plan "B," maximize the landscaped area near the handicap parking spaces
(southwest corner of the building) rather than providing a hardscape finger.
3. Foothill Streetscape. Redesign to comply with the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. The
• activity center should have a design of formal arrangement of double row street trees and
hardscape for the segment from the corner to the driveway. The segment east of the driveway
should have design elements of the Suburban Parkways.
4. Provide lockable wrought iron gates at each end of service corridor for Buildings "B"and "C" to
prevent nuisance problems.
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 Site Plan Alternate B be conceptually approved for
use of the property as a general retail center.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Fletcher, McPhail, Fong
Staff Planner: Lisa Kuschel
At the meeting, the applicant presented a revised Scheme B Site Plan that showed the a deeper
• setback for the corner building from Etiwanda Avenue, and adequate screening of the drive-thru and
loading area for the drug store. The Committee accepted this Scheme B Site Plan with the
condition that the applicant works with staff to refine the screening of the drive-thru and loading area
and resolve all technical items before Planning Commission review. The Committee also accepted
the Scheme A Site Plan with a retail building at the corner instead of a drug store.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2003-00510 - F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES
April 20, 2004
Page 3
The Committee expressed concerns with the proposed elevations not having sufficient vertical
variation. The Committee suggested bringing the towers higher and more variation to building
height instead of long horizontal roofline. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff in
revising the elevations that meet their expectations.
The Committee stated that the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue is an activity
center and the building and site design at this corner should be more pedestrian friendly to take
advantage of this activity center. The Committee directed the applicant to add tower elements with
storefront glass and plaza area in front of it.
The applicant stated that they agreed to address the identified items under the secondary and policy
issues. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff.
C~
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:00 p.m. Donald Granger April 20, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16592 -ELBA INC. - A
residential subdivision of 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Hillside Road, and on the east
side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files: Development Review
DRC2003-01139, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076 and
Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01 1 39 -ELBA INC. -
The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres
of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side
of Hillside Road, and on the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception
DRC2004-00076 and Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Pre-Application Review: The Planning Commission conducted aPre-Application Review on
May 28, 2003, and provided the following direction to the applicant:
• House product shall be architecturally compatible with the historic Demens-Tolstoy home.
• The design of perimeter walls is critical to the overall project design (view opportunities to the
Demens-Tolstoy home and use of compatible materials).
• Lot 5 should have asingle-story house, in order to preserve the views from the Demens-
Tolstoy home.
• Existing, mature trees should be retained and integrated into the project.
• The overall concept of the 11-lot subdivision was acceptable.
Attached are the Planning Commission minutes for DRC2003-00240 dated May 28, 2003.
Design Parameters: This awkwardly shaped site surrounds the historic landmark Demens-Tolstoy
Ranch House. The project site has native grades that average 10 percent, 50 feet of fall from the
north boundary to the south boundary of the subdivision, and drains to the southeast. The site is
bounded on the east by Archibald Avenue, to the south by Hillside Road, to the west by future
Tolstoy Ranch Road, and to the north by a subdivision under construction. The site is surrounded
by residential uses to the east, across Archibald Avenue, and future single-family residences to the
north, south, and west. All properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned Very Low
Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre).
The proposed project consists of four floor plans that range in square footage from 4,008 square
feet to 5,390 square feet. Architectural styles include Country Victorian, Spanish, and Craftsmen.
The project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District, which requires architectural design
techniques that minimize the amount of grading and allow the house to follow the natural grades.
• The project has been designed so that all floor plans have stepped pads with an overall elevation
change of 3 feet, thus meeting the design goals of the Hillside Overlay District. There are 10 mature
Oak trees that have been evaluated by an arborist that are viable candidates for relocation. The 10
Oak trees will be relocated into the front yards of the proposed subdivision. The Community Trail
along Hillside Road, from Tolstoy Ranch Road east to Archibald Avenue, and along Archibald
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT16592 AND DRC2003-01139 -ELBA INC.
• April 20, 2004
Page 2
Avenue north from Hillside road to the north boundary of the subdivision, will be installed with the
project. A single-story house has been plotted on Lot 5, thereby preserving views from the Demens-
Tolstoy home.
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.
Subdivision -The proposed layout creates awkward side yard to rear yard orientations
between lots that are problematic from the standpoint of complying with the City's standard of
70-foot setback between horse corrals and neighbors' house. The following location violates
the standard:
Lot 1 -The Plan 2A house is only 23.96 feet from the side property line (which is the
rear property line of the lot to the north); therefore, would preclude horse keeping on the
neighbors' lot, which would be a violation of Code. A solution is to plot a Plan 3 instead
(similar to Lot 2) or eliminate Lot 1.
2. Architecture -The Development Code requires 360-degree architectural treatment to all
elevations. Although the proposed architectural styles are appropriate to the surrounding
• area, the elevations should be enhanced in order to adequately convey Country Victorian,
Spanish, and Craftsmen themes. Also, materials and architectural features found on the front
elevations should be carried to the side and rear elevations. Staff suggests that the following
enhancements be made:
Plan 2, Country Victorian: The elevations do not incorporate features that are typical of
a County Victorian theme (shingle siding, spindlework, etc.). The plan should be
modified to represent Country Victorian architecture, or renamed Country Ranch. The
proposed elevations should be modified to include additional wood siding on the side
and rear elevations, and the staked stone should be carried up the entire columns at the
balcony on the rear elevation.
Plan 2, Spanish: All elevations should receive additional enhancement, such as stucco
recesses, wrought iron, and awnings.
Plan 2, Craftsmen: The elevations should be modified to include additional shingle
siding to the side and rear elevations, and the staked stone should be carried up the
entire columns at the balcony on the rear elevation.
Plan 3, Country Victorian: The elevations do not incorporate features that are typical of
a County Victorian theme (shingle siding, spindlework, etc.). The plan should be
modified to represent Country Victorian architecture, or renamed Country Ranch. The
proposed elevations should be modified to include additional wood siding on the left and
rear elevations, and the staked stone should be carried up the entire columns at the
balcony on the left elevation.
• Plan 1, Craftsmen: The elevations should be modified to include additional shingle
siding on the side and rear elevations.
Plan 1, Country Victorian: The elevations do not incorporate features that are typical of
a County Victorian theme (shingle siding, spindlework, etc.). The plan should be
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT16592 AND DRC2003-01139 -ELBA INC.
• April 20, 2004
Page 3
modified to represent Country Victorian architecture, or renamed Country Ranch. The
proposed elevations should be modified to include additional wood siding on the left and
rear elevations.
3. Along the east property line of Lot 5 and the south property lines of Lots 3 and 4, two types of
walls/fencing are proposed: a 6-foot high split-face wall and 6-foot tubular steel fencing. In
order to provide continuity of design with the Tolstoy historical home, both types of fencing
should be modified to include 6-foot high river rock pilasters at the corners and 75-100 feet on
the center.
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 6-foot high tubular steel view fence is proposed along the south property line of Lots 5-8
adjacent to the CommunityTrial along Hillside Road. For privacy and public view purposes, a
6-foot high split-face wall should be constructed with river rock pilasters. The pilastes should
be placed at the rear corner of each lot.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All interior private yard slopes are required to be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs, and
one tree per 150 square feet of area.
2. River rock shall be real, or native fieldstone maybe used. Stone veneers are not permitted.
3. Provide decorative pavement on driveways. Decorative driveways shall have variation
throughout the subdivision.
4. No wood fencing is allowed. Construct block walls between homes (i.e. along interior side and
rear property line) for permanence, durability, and design consistency.
5. Access gates to rear yards should be constructed of a material more durable than wood.
Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned prior to scheduling for
Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Fletcher, McPhail, Fong
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
At the meeting, the applicant presented revised drawings which satisfied the Major and Secondary
Issues. The Committee reviewed the project and recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. In order to meet the 70-foot separation between dwelling units and corrals on adjacent
• properties, a Plan 3 shall be plotted on Lot 1, thereby maximizing the distance between a
dwelling unit on Lot 1 and the north property line.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT16592 AND DRC2003-01139 -ELBA INC.
April 20, 2004
Page 4
2. The applicant presented revised elevations at the meeting which satisfied the Committee and
the Development Code's requirementfor 360-degree architecture. The Committee approved
the revised elevations presented at the meeting, noting the following specifics:
• Plan 2, Country Ranch: The proposed elevations shall include wood siding on the side
and rear elevations, and the staked stone shall be carried up the entire columns at the
balcony on the rear elevation.
• Plan 2, Spanish: The side and rear elevations shall include wrought iron, window boxes
shutters, and awnings.
• Plan 2, Craftsmen: The elevations shall include additional shingle siding to the side and
rear elevations, and the staked stone shall be carried up the entire columns at the
balcony on the rear elevation.
Plan 3, Country Ranch: The proposed elevations shall include wood siding on the left
and rear elevations, and the staked stone shall be carried up the entire columns at the
balcony on the left elevation.
Plan 1, Craftsmen: The elevations shall be modified to include shingle siding on the side
and rear elevations.
• Plan 1, Country Ranch: The elevations shall include wood siding on the left and rear
elevations.
3. In order to provide continuity of design with the Tolstoy historical home, the split-face wall shall
be modified to include 6-foot high river rock pilasters at the corners and 75 to100 feet on the
center along the east property line of Lot 5 and the south property lines of Lots 3 and 4. The
final design shall be subject to City Planner review and approval.
4. A 6-foot high split-face wall should be constructed with river rock pilasters along the south
property lines of Lots 5 to 8 adjacent to the Community Trial along Hillside Road. The
pilasters shall be placed at the rear corner of each lot. Final design shall be subject to City
Planner review and approval.
I ~
LI
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Emily Wimer April 20, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16716 - JT STORM
DEVELOPMENT - A request to subdivide 13.22 gross acres into 28single-family homes in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east
side of Etiwanda Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of Victoria Avenue - APN: 0227-121-16 and
49. Related Files: Variance DRC2003-01061 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-01060.
Design Parameters: The developer intends to subdivide the property. At this time, no house
product has been submitted. Elevations for review and approval will be submitted at a later date.
The property is a rectangular lot with a depth of 1,316 feet by 448 feet and a single "not a part
parcel" which fronts onto Etiwanda Avenue. Surrounding land uses include Etiwanda Intermediate
School to the north, a small vineyard to the east, Etiwanda Railway Station to the south and
Etiwanda Avenue to the west. The Etiwanda Railway Station property has been leased by the City
for a signature trailhead for the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. The transition tosingle-family
homes on the north and south sides is critical.
Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District requires that future homes be oriented with their front toward
Etiwanda Avenue. No homes are proposed at this time; however, lot size and width directly affect
the ability to plot properly. The developer has provided extra width on these three lots accordingly.
• 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.
Subdivision Layout -The Committee should determine whether the subdivision, in
combination with the lot layout, is ideal for this location. The proposed layout is a simple grid-
pattern layout with inefficient single-loaded streets (i.e., houses on one side of the street only).
The streets will be private, Homeowner's Association maintained, because of over 2,000 feet
of parkway along east-west streets that the City will not take into the Landscape Maintenance
District for the area.. The lots are proposed under the Basic Standards for the Low Residential
District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The subdivision meets and exceeds these lot
requirements; however, staff has discussed the idea of Optional Development Standards with
the developer. Optional standards are intended to provide higher standards for the
development of projects of superior quality and compatibility. These standards are used in
conjunction with the Absolute Policies and Design Guidelines during the Development Review
Process. Staff believes that Optional Standards are appropriate in this case due to the
uniqueness of the site's location between the Etiwanda Intermediate School and the historic
landmark Etiwanda Railway Station property. Optional Standards would provide a larger area
of open space between the Etiwanda School District recreation fields and the Etiwanda
Railway Station property. The opportunity exists to design a creative and innovative project
that clusters homes within open space areas. Under the Optional Development Standards
there is no minimum lot size because 30 percent of the site must be common open space.
• 2. Because of both the Etiwanda Intermediate School (which includes parking and ball fields)
and the future Etiwanda Railway Station trailhead amenities, the developer is required to
provide at a minimum a 10-foot landscape buffer on each side of the property line. The buffer
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT16716-JT STORM DEVELOPMENT
• April 20, 2004
Page 2
shall include mature vegetation on both sides to create a noise barrier and help screen the
future homes from ongoing activities.
3. The project provides a secondary emergency access point at the southwest corner of the tract;
however, the ideal solution is ultimately to connect with an existing street to the east (as
shown on Site Utilization Map. This is not possible at this time because the property owner to
the east has no intention of developing his property and has planted a vineyard. Staff
recommends that a stub street be provided to the east tract boundary at the location shown on
Site Utilization Map.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
If the Committee members approve the general lot layout, it is required that the developer
submits a Landscape Plan specifically addressing the buffers, windrows, and vegetation for
the site. The developer shall maximize the amount of open space and landscape buffer
provided. The Landscape Plan shall include natural terrain and slope, as well as fencing and
walls proposed and a landscape plant palette addressing the required buffer.
2. Tree Preservation: The applicant is also proposing the removal of a partial windrow located in
the center of the parcel. Trees which will be directly affected by the development will be
removed. All windrows which are located on the north, south, and east property lines are
• proposed to be retained. The arborist disagrees and rated most of the trees as needing
replacement. The developer will be required to replace trees in accordance with the Etiwanda
Specific Plan standards (Spotted Gum windrows planted around perimeter of tract).
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees which are recommended by the Arborist to be removed shall be
replaced at a one to one ratio on-site. The length of the windrow replacement shall be
comparable in length. Replacement windrows should follow the project perimeter and along
the 330-foot by 660-foot grid pattern wherever feasible. All replacement trees shall be
replaced in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return as a full item.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Fletcher, McPhail, Fong
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
The Committee decided to table the item until the next DRC meeting. The applicant was directed to
include Optional Development Standards as an option for the property. The Etiwanda Task Force
meeting will review the project plans on April 28, 2004, and comments will be available to the Design
Review Committee Members prior to the next meeting.
The item will be continued to the May 4, 2004, DRC meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:40 p.m. Emily W imer April 20, 2004
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-001 1 6 - SAITO DESIGN GROUP, INC -A requesttodevelop
a 9,885 two-story office building on .69 acre in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), located on
the north side of Trademark Street at its intersection with Center Avenue - APN: 210-381-07.
Design Parameters: The project is located on Trademark Street, west of Haven Avenue. The
property abuts the Young Homes office building which was built approximately 3 years ago. The
developer intents to utilize the building as a showroom only.
The front elevation from Trademark Street incorporates materials and decorative elements such as
a decorative accent file on the first story elevation, and a second story deck with decorative railing
which faces the street elevation. Reveal lines, recessed wall planes, cornice trim, and file accents
are all incorporated in the 360-degree architecture.
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 the Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. There are no major issues. The applicant has revised the elevations to incorporate staff
comments which included additional file incorporated on the sides of the building.
• Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Potted plants or additional tree wells should be added to the north and west elevations to
incorporate the requirement of one tree per 30 feet of linear building.
Policy issues:
1. All maintenance doors shall be painted to match the building.
2. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by a separate permit.
3. Roll-up doors and trellis feature shall be incorporated into the design of the trash enclosure.
4. Provide concrete tables and chairs in the employee eating area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Desipn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Fletcher, McPhail, Fong
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
The Committee requested that the exterior file material be extended over the entryway and tower
elements. The applicant agreed to the additional file if the banding around the entire building was
reduced to the originally proposed height of 3 feet. The Commissioners agreed to the change and
conceptually approved the design.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 9:00 p.m. Nancy Fong April 20, 2004
UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2004-00226 - O & S HOLDINGS - A request to review the
Uniform Sign Program for the Foothill Crossing commercial center, located at the southeast and
southwest corners of Foothill and Day Creek Boulevards - APN: 0229-021-20, 34, 47, 53, 54,
and 55.
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:
A. Sears Grand
Wall signs. Three are proposed with one each at the north, south, and east elevations.
The wall signs at the north and east elevations are 363 square feet in sign area with the
"S" at 7 feet 6 inches high. The wall sign at the south elevation is 228 square feet in
sign area with the "S" at 6 feet high.
Comment: Staff has compared the sign area with the ones we have approved for
Victoria Gardens major department stores, as well as major anchors from other
commercial centers as shown in Exhibit "A." Staff believes that Sears Grand should be
• within the same category as the department stores where Robinson-May has the same
sign area of 363 square feet. Staff recommends approval of the three wall signs.
2. Secondary Identity Signs. Sears proposed three secondary signs with one that identify
"garden center" at the east elevation, and two that identify "auto center" at the east and
north elevations.
Comment: In the past the Planning Commission has allowed major anchors to display
such secondary signs as long as there are separate entrances to the specialty service or
store. Sears do have separate entrance for the garden center and.the auto center. The
sign area and the sign dimensions are acceptable and staff recommends approval.
3. Service Identity Signs. Sears proposed to place service signs that identify "Pharmacy"
and "One-hour Photo" at the east elevation. Besides pharmacy and one-hour photo
services, Sears Grand offers other services and products that include a convenience
center, optometry, garden center, auto center, tools, etc.
Comment: It has been a long standing Planning Commission Policy not to allow signs
that identify extraneous information or services and products. This policy has been
reaffirmed at Planning Commission meetings occasionally. Sears already has three
secondary signs, allowing the service identity signs to be set a precedent for other
businesses to follow and increase the overhead clutter. Staff recommends that this type
of signs be eliminated.
4. Auto Service Identity Signs. Related to the "Auto center" is a list of auto service signs to
be placed directly above the roll-up doors. The service signs are 15 square feet in sign
• area with dimensions of 18 inches by 10 feet and are non-illuminated. There is a total of
9 service doors with signs identifying tires (2), shocks, brakes, cooling systems,
batteries, oil change, and alignment. The applicant stated that Sears needed the signs
as directions for customers to drive to the right service door.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-00226 - O & S HOLDINGS
April 20, 2004
Page 2
Comment: Staff suggested the use of ground mounted 4-foot high directional signs, or
placing the service signs on the building walls inside the building. Sears insisted on
having their wall signs placed above the service doors. Staff has found that businesses,
commercial and industrial, use one or two service signs such as "receiving,' "exit",
"entrance," or "Customer Pick-Up," etc., as a means for direction or instruction. The
proposed service signs are really identifying the types of auto service they provide to
customers, which is contrary to the Sign Ordinance. Allowing the service identity signs
would set a precedent for other businesses to follow and increase the overhead clutter.
Staff does not recommend placing the service signs on the building above the service
doors. Staff recommends that the service signs in super bold graphics be placed on
building walls inside the building or place banners with service signs 3 feet inside the
service doors.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
A. Sub-Anchor, Restaurant, and Shop Tenants Signs.
Comment: Staff recommends that the sign criteria be modified as marked on the attached
Sign Matrix Table. These sign criteria are within the norm of the Sign Programs for existing
power centers such as Terra Vista Town Center, Terra Vista Promenade, Lowes Center, and
Foothill Marketplace.
B. Tenant Identification Monument Signs. Five monument signs are proposed along Foothill
Boulevard street frontage, three are at the west side of Day Creek Boulevard and two are at
the east side of Day Creek Boulevard.
Comment: The Sign Ordinance allows a maximum of two tenant identification monument
signs for each street frontage and shall be separated by 300 lineal feet. The total number of
tenant identification monument signs along Foothill Boulevard street frontage shall be three,
two at the west side of Day Creek and one at the east side of Day Creek.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant
to work with staff in revising and completing the Uniform Sign Program. Also, staff recommends that
the list ofservice/products signs "pharmacy" and "one-hour photo," and the list of auto service signs
be eliminated.
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Major Anchors Sign Survey
Exhibit "B" - Tenant Sign Matrix
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Fletcher. McPhail
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
• 1. The Committee did not approve the service identity signs for "One Hour Photo" and
"Pharmacy." The Committee stated that it would set a precedent for the entire City. The
Committee did not object to placing such service signs on the windows and directed the
applicant to work with staff.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-00226 - O & S HOLDINGS
• April 20, 2004
Page 3
The Committee did not approve the auto service identity signs. The Committee stated that all
signs must be in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. The applicant suggested hanging the
sign behind the roll-up door. The Committee stated they are not against this solution and
directed the applicant to work with staff.
3. With regards to number of monument signs, the Committee directed the applicant to stay
within the guidelines the Sign Ordinance.
l J
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• April 20, 2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
rad Buller
Secretary
~•
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY APRIL 20, 2004 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
(Brent) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00840 - WLC/PITASSI ARCHITECTS -
Update of exterior changes for the Cultural Arts Center on 3 acres of land located
on the south side of Church Street and east of Day Creek Boulevard in the Mixed
Use District of the Victoria Community Plan and part of the Victoria Gardens
Regional Center -APN: 0227-201-35.
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
• This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant
regarding thbeir 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.
(Brent) REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS
REGIONAL CENTER -The review of Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design
Guidelines for the Route 66 Outparcels within the Victoria Gardens Mall in the
Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northeast corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 0227-201-35.
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 on 5.12 net acres of land in the
Community Commercial District (Subarea 4), located at the southeast corner of
Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative Site Plan consisting of adrive-thru pharmacy is
being considered -APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Variance
DRC2003-00511.
8:00 p.m.
(Donald/Willie) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTENTATIVETRACTMAPSUBTT16592
- ELBA INC. - A residential subdivision of 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres of
land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on
the north side of Hillside Road, and on the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -
• APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-01139, Tree
Removal Permit DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076 and Pre-
Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
•
•
DRC AGENDA
April 20, 2004
Page 2
8:20 p.m.
(Emily/gene)
8:40 p.m.
(Emily/Cam)
9:00 p.m.
(Nancy)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-01139 -ELBA INC. -The design review of building elevations and
detailed site plan for 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres of land in the Very Low
Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of
Hillside Road, and on the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -APN: 1061-561-05.
Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592, Tree Removal Permit
DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076 and Pre-Application Review
DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16716 -JT
STORM DEVELOPMENT - A request to subdivide 13.22 gross acres into 28
single-family homes in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue,
approximately 660 feet south of Victoria Avenue -APN: 0227-121-16 and 49.
Related Files: Variance DRC2003-01061 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-
01060.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-001 1 6 - SAITO DESIGN GROUP, INC - A
request to develop a 9,885 two-story office building on .69 acre in the Industrial
Park District (Subarea 6), located on the north side of Trademark Street at its
intersection with Center Avenue -APN: 210-381-07.
UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2004-00226-0 & S HOLDINGS-A requestto
review the Uniform Sign Program for the Foothill Crossing commercial center,
located at the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill and Day Creek
Boulevards -APN: 0229-021-20, 34, 47, 53, 54, and 55.
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 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 15, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 2004
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00840 - W LC/PITASSI ARCHITECTS -Update of exterior
changes for the Cultural Arts Center on 3 acres of land located on the south side of Church Street
and east of Day Creek Boulevard in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan and part
of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center-APN: 0227-201-35.
PLANS W ILL BE PROVIDED AT THE MEETING
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
Members Present:
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 2004
REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER -
The review of Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Guidelines for the Route 66 Outparcels within
the Victoria Gardens Mall in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the
northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0227-201-35.
Background: The Planning Commission approved the Design Review for the Regional Center on
November 13, 2002. The Planning Commission did have opportunities to comment on the Route 66
Outparcels. For example, better on-site circulation and stronger pedestrian connections between
buildings were requested. At that time, the site planning and design guidelines for the Route 66
Outparcels (that is the rectangular area of land along the north side of Foothill Boulevard between
Day Creek Boulevard to the west and the I-15 Freeway off-ramp to the east) was not yet ready for
approval and so was not included in Commission's action. Staff and the developer have been
working since that time to resolve site-planning issues related to parking requirements and on-site
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, as well as design guidelines. The developer has provided a
Route 66 Handbook (Exhibit "C")that includes Design Guidelines, a Route 66 Development booklet
(Exhibit "D") showing site planning of the infrastructure intended to be installed by the developer,
pad arrangement, pedestrian circulation, landscaping and some signage, and a detailed Landscape
Plan (Exhibit "E") for review by the Design Review Committee.
• Design Parameters: While the Route 66 Outparcels (aka: Outparcels) are part of the Regional
Center, the style of development is very different and that of typical pad style buildings interspersed
with parking and drive aisles. The Outparcels, therefore, do not contain major anchors or an urban
core as is associated with the main portion of the Regional Center to the north. There is no sense of
development over time associated with the Outparcels. The site will have access from Foothill and
Day Creek Boulevards, and Victoria Gardens Lane, as well as Monet Avenue, which is an "S"
shaped private street bisecting the Outparcels into two halves.
The Design Guidelines for the Outparcels propose an eclectic development style with the only
cohesive design features being beacons (vertical building elements), eyebrows (horizontal and
shade structures), and targets (interesting building features for visitors to focus in on). The
Outparcels, while technically part of the Regional Center, are separated from the core of the Center
by Victoria Gardens Lane and will function to a major degree as a separate entity. A development of
this size (13-acre shopping center with 80,000 square feet of leasible area) would normally be
required to be developed with a cohesive design theme to avoid a disjointed, unrelated, and
uncoordinated appearance. The developer is of the opinion that once mature, the landscaping will
tie the development together visually regardless of what the individual buildings look like.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. The Design Guidelines should be substantially revised to ensure cohesive development. This
could mean specifying a certain architectural style or mixture of styles, specific colors and
• materials, specific building forms and shapes, specific roof styles, etc. Small centers that have
been built recently witho7ut such guidance (such as the series of pad buildings along the
south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Aspen Avenue) have ended up with just the sort of
disjointed and uncoordinated appearance the City has traditionally tried to avoid. The
developer wishes to leave the design guidelines as vague as possible in order to maximize
DRC AGENDA
REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER
April 20, 2004
Page 2
options in terms of potential lease agreements. W hile this would provide the easy way out
now it will place an undue burden on the City once projects are submitted for individual
parcels/pads.
2. The Design Guidelines, Section 2.2 Building Guidelines, should be revised to include
illustrations of "large scaled architectural elements" mentioned in the very first guideline. It is
not clear if the required "Beacons", "Eyebrows" and "Targets" are, in fact, the same as "large
scaled architectural elements". In other words, would more than "Beacons," "Eyebrows" and
"Targets" be required to embody "large scaled architectural elements"?
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 Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan provides a specific design treatment for the corner of
Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The developer negotiated through the Design
Review process a slightly different corner treatment design (approved by Planning
Commission on November 13, 2002 -see Exhibit "A")that while smaller in overall size provide
a large curving pergola or trellis set among several palm trees. The trellis along with
enhanced landscaping and palm trees was found to be an acceptable design solution even
though the dimensions were reduced over that specified by the Day Creek Master Plan. A
new intersection design is now proposed with the Route 66 Outparcel development criteria
that is essentially the same corner design treatment as previously approved but with the large
. curving trellis feature removed. The trellis feature was a major justifying factor for allowing the
developer to reduce the dimensions of the intersection treatment and, therefore, staff is of the
opinion that it should not be removed. It may be revised, however, to match the trellis designs
for the southeast and southwest corner treatments approved for the O & S Holdings project on
the south side of Foothill Boulevard. In this case, the overall dimensions of the corner
treatment area shall match the other approved corner treatments as well.
2. None of the parking calculations include provisions for fast food users which are required to be
parked at a slightly higher parking ratio than sit-down orfull-service restaurants. As individual
parcels/pads are developed, they will have to either stand alone in terms of parking provided
or demonstrate that there is adequate excess parking on adjacent parcels to make up for the
difference.
3. The traffic circulation pattern amongst Parcels 1, 9, 10, and 15 is still awkward and in need of
restudy to provide for a smoother, more ordered flow. Drive aisles intersect each other in an
offset position relative to those on the opposite side.
4. Provide pedestrian connections across site from public sidewalks to pads. This is
recommended, at a minimum, along one side of all driveway entry throats. See Paving
Exhibit.
5. Provide more pedestrian connections between buildings:
• From Pad 2 to 6
• From Pad 6 to 7
• From Pad 7 to 8
• From Pad 3 to 4
• From Pad 5 to 12
• From Pad 10 to 15
DRC AGENDA
REVIEW OF ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER
• April 20, 2004
Page 3
6. The "infrastructure" plans should not include the last strip of parking adjacent to the building
pads. This parking should be installed by the individual pad developers to ensure loading
points and handicapped parking locations are correct relative to the main entrance(s) of the
buildings.
Where there is insufficient room to provide a linear planter separating the fronts of parking
stalls, specify diamond shaped tree wells so that trees may be planted every three stalls to
provide adequate shade.
8. Replace the crosshatch (paved) areas on the plan with landscape planters. Typically, these
areas are located at the ends of parking rows where planter "finger islands" would normally
occur. If these areas are necessary to accommodate vehicle-turning movements than this
indicates an overly tight site planning arrangement.
9. Note that no drive-thru use (whether fast food, bank, or other) will be permitted at the corner of
Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard (Parcel 7). This matter was discussed at length
during review of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan and Development Agreement and a
condition of approval on the Development Agreement prohibits adrive-thru use in this location.
The developer has continued to show adrive-thru use on Parcel 7 contrary to this condition
as evidenced by the Site Plan included in the design guidelines.
10. Provide Secondary Project Gateways and B-Street Name Identity signs at the intersection of
• Victoria Gardens Lane and Monet Avenue.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the
developer to revise their development plans and design guidelines for the Route 66 Outparcels for
further review by the Committee.
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Approved Corner Treatment -Day Creek and Foothill Boulevards
Approved Corner Treatment -SEC and SWC of Day Creek and
Foothill Boulevards
Route 66 Tenant Control Handbook (Design Guidelines)
Route 66 Development Booklet
Route 66 Landscape Plan
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
Members Present:
~J
ROUTE 66 OUTPARCEL DESIGN -VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER
THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS
ARE PROVIDED UNDER
SEPARATE COVER:
Exhibit "A" - Approved Corner Treatment -Day Creek and Foothill Boulevards
Exhibit "B" - Approved Corner Treatment-SEC and SWC of DayCreekand Foothill Boulevards
Exhibit "C" - Route 66 Tenant Control Handbook (Design Guidelines)
Exhibit "D" - Route 66 Development Booklet
Exhibit "E" - Route 66 Landscape Plan
CJ
n
U
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Lisa Kuschel April 20, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510 -
F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES -The development of a commercial center totaling 42,155 square
feet on 5.12 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 4), located at the
southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue. An alternative Site Plan consisting of adrive-thru pharmacy
is being considered - APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Variance DRC2003-00511.
Desion Parameters: At the December 2, 2003, meeting, the Design Review Committee directed the
applicant to revise the project and address the identified design issues. A copy of the
December 2, 2003, Design Review Committee action is attached for reference. The applicant has
been working diligently with staff in redesigning the site plan and elevations to address the design
concerns. To streamline the processing time, staff has agreed that the applicant submits only the
detailed Site Plan and elevations for Design Review Committee review. Once the Design Review
Committee recommended approval, the applicant will prepare Grading and Landscape Plans for
Planning Commission review.
The applicant in redesigning the Site Plan has eliminated the fast food drive-thru and the gas
station. The new design includes two alternative Site Plans. Site Plan A is designed with a 13,000
• square-foot drive-thru drug store at the corner that included a loading area at the rear of the building.
Site Plan B is designed with a 7,621 square-foot retail building featured on the corner. All other
buildings are planned for retail space. Variances are requested to reduce the required building
setback from 25 feet to 16 feet along the south property line, and to reduce the required parking and
landscape setbacks from 45 feet to 32 feet for approximately 250 feet of Foothill Boulevard street
frontage.
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.
a. Site Plan A: This version of Site Plan includes a proposed drug store at the corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. This corner is designated as an Activity
Center per Foothill Boulevard Districts and a Special Boulevards per the City's General
Plan. Having a pharmacy with a loading area does not meet the intent of the Activity
Center. The loading area as designed does not have sufficient maneuvering area to
make it work. Further, the loading activities would significantly impact the adjacent
residential area to the south such as frequent deliveries. Staff does not support this
version of the Site Plan.
b. Site Plan B: This version of the Site Plan shows a retail building at the corner of Foothill
• Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Staff believes that this is a superior Site Plan and
supports it.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2003-00510 - F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES
• April 20, 2004
Page 2
2. Elevations: Revised elevations include tower elements, colonnade, stacked stones accent
and as a wainscot, pop-outs, and trellis work. Staff believes that the revised elevations have
improved substantially.
a. The pop-out element at the west elevation of Retail Building D should be increased in
depth to 3 feet.
b. Storefront glass and spandrel glass should be provided at the north side of the west
elevation for Building "D."
c. Add a tower element at the northwest corner of Retail Building "D."
Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Create a plaza terminus area in front of Building "B" entry at the end of drive entry off Foothill
Boulevard.
2. For Site Plan "B," maximize the landscaped area near the handicap parking spaces
(southwest corner of the building) rather than providing a hardscape finger.
• 3. Foothill Streetscape. Redesign to comply with the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. The
activity center should have a design of formal arrangement of double row street trees and
hardscape for the segment from the corner to the driveway. The segment east of the driveway
should have design elements of the Suburban Parkways.
4. Provide lockable wrought iron gates at each end of service corridor for Buildings "B" and "C" to
prevent nuisance problems.
Policv 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 site plan Alternate B be conceptually approved for
use of the property as a general retail center.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Lisa Kuschel
Members Present:
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:00 p.m. Donald Granger April 20, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16592 -ELBA INC. - A
residential subdivision of 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Hillside Road, and on the east
side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files: Development Review
DRC2003-01139, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076 and
Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01 1 39 -ELBA INC. -
Thedesign review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres
of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side
of Hillside Road, and on the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road -APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception
DRC2004-00076 and Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Pre-Application Review: The Planning Commission conducted aPre-Application Review on
May 28, 2003, and provided the following direction to the applicant:
• House product shall be architecturally compatible with the historic Demens-Tolstoy home.
• The design of perimeter walls is critical to the overall project design (view opportunities to the
Demens-Tolstoy home and use of compatible materials).
• Lot 5 should have asingle-story house, in order to preserve the views from the Demens-
Tolstoy home.
• Existing, mature trees should be retained and integrated into the project.
• The overall concept of the 11-lot subdivision was acceptable.
Attached are the Planning Commission minutes for DRC2003-00240 dated May 28, 2003.
Design Parameters: This awkwardly shaped site surrounds the historic landmark Demens-Tolstoy
Ranch House. The project site has native grades that average 10 percent, 50 feet of fall from the
north boundary to the south boundary of the subdivision, and drains to the southeast. The site is
bounded on the east by Archibald Avenue, to the south by Hillside Road, to the west by future
Tolstoy Ranch Road, and to the north by a subdivision under construction. The site is surrounded
by residential uses to the east, across Archibald Avenue, and future single-family residences to the
north, south, and west. All properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned Very Low
Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre).
The proposed project consists of four floor plans that range in square footage from 4,008 square
feet to 5,390 square feet. Architectural styles include Country Victorian, Spanish, and Craftsmen.
The project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District, which requires architectural design
techniques that minimize the amount of grading and allow the house to follow the natural grades.
• The project has been designed so that all floor plans have stepped pads with an overall elevation
change of 3 feet, thus meeting the design goals of the Hillside Overlay District. There are 10 mature
Oak trees that have been evaluated by an arborist that are viable candidates for relocation. The 10
Oak trees will be relocated into the front yards of the proposed subdivision. The Community Trail
along Hillside Road, from Tolstoy Ranch Road east to Archibald Avenue, and along Archibald
DRC AGENDA
SUBTT16592 AND DRC2003-01139 -ELBA INC.
April 20, 2004
• Page 2
Avenue north from Hillside road to the north boundary of the subdivision, will be installed with the
project. A single-story house has been plotted on Lot 5, thereby preserving views from the Demens-
Tolstoy home.
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.
Subdivision -The proposed layout creates awkward side yard to rear yard orientations
between lots that are problematic from the standpoint of complying with the City's standard of
70-foot setback between horse corrals and neighbors' house. The following location violates
the standard:
Lot 1 -The Plan 2A house is only 23.96 feet from the side property line (which is the
rear property line of the lot to the north); therefore, would preclude horse keeping on the
neighbors' lot, which would be a violation of Code. A solution is to plot a Plan 3 instead
(similar to Lot 2) or eliminate Lot 1.
2. Architecture -The Development Code requires 360 architectural treatment to all elevations.
Although the proposed architectural styles are appropriate to the surrounding area, the
elevations should be enhanced in orderto adequately convey Country Victorian, Spanish, and
Craftsmen themes. Also, materials and architectural features found on the front elevations
should be carried to the side and rear elevations. Staff suggests that the following
enhancements be made:
Plan 2, Country Victorian: The elevations do not incorporate features that are typical of
a County Victorian theme (shingle siding, spindlework, etc.). The plan should be
modified to represent Country Victorian architecture, or renamed Country Ranch. The
proposed elevations should be modified to include additional wood siding on the side
and rear elevations, and the staked stone should be carried up the entire columns at the
balcony on the rear elevation.
Plan 2, Spanish: All elevations should receive additional enhancement, such as stucco
recesses, wrought iron, and awnings.
Plan 2, Craftsmen: The elevations should be modified to include additional shingle
siding to the side and rear elevations, and the staked stone should be carried up the
entire columns at the balcony on the rear elevation.
Plan 3, Country Victorian: The elevations do not incorporate features that are typical of
a County Victorian theme (shingle siding, spindlework, etc.). The plan should be
modified to represent Country Victorian architecture, or renamed Country Ranch. The
proposed elevations should be modified to include additional wood siding on the left and
rear elevations, and the staked stone should be carried up the entire columns at the
balcony on the left elevation.
• Plan 1, Craftsmen: The elevations should be modified to include additional shingle
siding on the side and rear elevations.
Plan 1, Country Victorian: The elevations do not incorporate features that are typical of
a County Victorian theme (shingle siding, spindlework, etc.). The plan should be
DRC AGENDA
SUBTT16592 AND DRC2003-01139 -ELBA INC.
April 20, 2004
Page 3
modified to represent Country Victorian architecture, or renamed Country Ranch. The
proposed elevations should be modified to include additional wood siding on the left and
rear elevations.
3. Along the east property line of Lot 5 and the south property lines of Lots 3 and 4, two types of
walls/fencing are proposed: a 6-foot high split-face wall and 6-foot tubular steel fencing. In
order to provide continuity of design with the Tolstoy historical home, both types of fencing
should be modified to include 6-foot high river rock pilasters at the corners and 75-100 feet on
the center.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
A 6-foot high tubular steel view fence is proposed along the south property line of Lots 5-8
adjacent to the Community Trial along Hillside Road. For privacy and public view purposes, a
6-foot high split-face wall should be constructed with river rock pilasters. The pilastes should
be placed at the rear corner of each lot.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All interior private yard slopes are required to be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs, and
one tree per 150 square feet of area.
2. River rock shall be real, or native fieldstone maybe used. Stone veneers are not permitted.
3. Provide decorative pavement on driveways. Decorative driveways shall have variation
throughout the subdivision.
4. No wood fencing is allowed. Construct block walls between homes (i.e. along interior side and
rear property line) for permanence, durability, and design consistency.
5. Access gates to rear yards should be constructed of a material more durable than wood.
Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned prior to scheduling for
Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
Members Present:
C 1
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Emily Wimer April 20, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16716 - JT STORM
DEVELOPMENT - A request to subdivide 13.22 gross acres into 28single-family homes in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east
side of Etiwanda Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of Victoria Avenue - APN: 0227-121-16 and
49. Related Files: Variance DRC2003-01061 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-01060.
Design Parameters: The developer intends to subdivide the property. At this time, no house
product has been submitted. Elevations for review and approval will be submitted at a later date.
The property is a rectangular lot with a depth of 1,316 feet by 448 feet and a single "not a part
parcel" which fronts onto Etiwanda Avenue. Surrounding land uses include Etiwanda Intermediate
School to the north, a small vineyard to the east, Etiwanda Railway Station to the south and
Etiwanda Avenue to the west. The Etiwanda Railway Station property has been leased by the City
for a signature trailhead for the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. The transition tosingle-family
homes on the north and south sides is critical.
Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District requires that future homes be oriented with their front toward
Etiwanda Avenue. No homes are proposed at this time; however, lot size and width directly affect
the ability to plot properly. The developer has provided extra width on these three lots accordingly.
• 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.
Subdivision Layout -The Committee should determine whether the subdivision, in
combination with the lot layout, is ideal for this location. The proposed layout is a simple grid-
pattern layout with inefficient single-loaded streets (i.e., houses on one side of the street only).
The streets will be private, Homeowner's Association maintained, because of over 2,000 feet
of parkway along east-west streets that the City will not take into the Landscape Maintenance
District for the area.. The lots are proposed under the Basic Standards forthe Low Residential
District of the- Etiwanda Specific Plan. The subdivision meets and exceeds these lot
requirements; however, staff has discussed the idea of Optional Development Standards with
the developer. Optional standards are intended to provide higher standards for the
development of projects of superior quality and compatibility. These standards are used in
conjunction with the Absolute Policies and Design Guidelines during the Development Review
Process. Staff believes that Optional Standards are appropriate in this case due to the
uniqueness of the site's location between the Etiwanda Intermediate School and the historic
landmark Etiwanda Railway Station property. Optional Standards would provide a larger area
of open space between the Etiwanda School District recreation fields and the Etiwanda
Railway Station property. The opportunity exists to design a creative and innovative project
that clusters homes within open space areas. Under the Optional Development Standards
there is no minimum lot size because 30 percent of the site must be common open space.
• 2. Because of both the Etiwanda Intermediate School (which includes parking and ball fields)
and the future Etiwanda Railway Station trailhead amenities, the developer is required to
provide at a minimum a 10-foot landscape buffer on each side of the property line. The buffer
DRC AGENDA
SUBTT16716 - JT STORM DEVELOPMENT
• April 20, 2004
Page 2
shall include mature vegetation on both sides to create a noise barrier and help screen the
future homes from ongoing activities.
3. The project provides a secondary emergency access point at the southwest corner of the tract;
however, the ideal solution is ultimately to connect with an existing street to the east (as
shown on Site Utilization Map. This is not possible at this time because the property owner to
the east has no intention of developing his property and has planted a vineyard. Staff
recommends that a stub street be provided to the east tract boundary at the location shown on
Site Utilization Map.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
If the Committee members approve the general lot layout, it is required that the developer
submits a Landscape Plan specifically addressing the buffers, windrows, and vegetation for
the site. The developer shall maximize the amount of open space and landscape buffer
provided. The Landscape Plan shall include natural terrain and slope, as well as fencing and
walls proposed and a landscape plant palette addressing the required buffer.
2. Tree Preservation: The applicant is also proposing the removal of a partial windrow located in
the center of the parcel. Trees which will be directly affected by the development will be
removed. All windrows which are located on the north, south, and east property lines are
• proposed to be retained. The arborist disagrees and rated most of the trees as needing
replacement. The developer will be required to replace trees in accordance with the Etiwanda
Specific Plan standards (Spotted Gum windrows planted around perimeter of tract).
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees which are recommended by the Arborist to be removed shall be
replaced at a one to one ratio on-site. The length of the windrow replacement shall be
comparable in length. Replacement windrows should follow the project perimeter and along
the 330-foot by 660-foot grid pattern wherever feasible. All replacement trees shall be
replaced in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return as a full item.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
Members Present:
r~
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:40 p.m. Emily W imer April 20, 2004
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-001 1 6 - SAITO DESIGN GROUP, INC - A request to develop
a 9,885 two-story office building on .69 acre in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), located on
the north side of Trademark Street at its intersection with Center Avenue - APN: 210-381-07.
Design Parameters: The project is located on Trademark Street, west of Haven Avenue. The
property abuts the Young Homes office building which was built approximately 3 years ago. The
developer intents to utilize the building as a showroom only.
The front elevation from Trademark Street incorporates materials and decorative elements such as
a decorative accent file on the first story elevation, and a second story deck with decorative railing
which faces the street elevation. Reveal lines, recessed wall planes, cornice trim, and file accents
are all incorporated in the 360-degree architecture.
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 the Committee discussion
regarding this project:
• 1. There are no major issues. The applicant has revised the elevations to incorporate staff
comments which included additional file incorporated on the sides of the building.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Potted plants or additional tree wells should be added to the north and west elevations to
incorporate the requirement of one tree per 30 feet of linear building.
Policy issues:
1. All maintenance doors shall be painted to match the building.
2. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by a separate permit.
3. Roll-up doors and trellis feature shall be incorporated into the design of the trash enclosure.
4. Provide concrete tables and chairs in the employee eating area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
t Members Present:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 9:00 p.m. Nancy Fong April 20, 2004
UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2004-00226 - O & S HOLDINGS - A request to review the
Uniform Sign Program for the Foothill Crossing commercial center, located at the southeast and
southwest corners of Foothill and Day Creek Boulevards - APN: 0229-021-20, 34, 47, 53, 54,
and 55.
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:
A. Sears Grand.
Wall signs. Three are proposed with one each at the north, south, and east elevations.
The wall signs at the north and east elevations are 363 square feet in sign area with the
"S" at 7 feet 6 inches high. The wall sign at the south elevation is 228 square feet in sign
area with the "S" at 6 feet high.
Comment: Staff has compared the sign area with the ones we have approved for
Victoria Gardens major department stores, as well as major anchors from other
commercial centers as shown in Exhibit "A." Staff believes that Sears Grand should be
. within the same category as the department stores where Robinson-May has the same
sign area of 363 square feet. Staff recommends approval of the three wall signs.
2. Secondary Identity Signs. Sears proposed three secondary signs with one that identify
"garden center" at the east elevation, and two that identify "auto center" at the east and
north elevations.
Comment: In the past the Planning Commission has allowed major anchors to display
such secondary signs as long as there are separate entrances to the specialty service or
store. Sears do have separate entrance for the garden center and the auto center. The
sign area and the sign dimensions are acceptable and staff recommends approval.
3. Service Identity Signs. Sears proposed to place service signs that identify "Pharmac)r'
and "One-hour Photo" at the east elevation. Besides pharmacy and one-hour photo
services, Sears Grand offers other services and products that include a convenience
center, optometry, garden center, auto center, tools, etc.
Comment: It has been a long standing Planning Commission Policy not to allow signs
that identify extraneous information or services and products. This policy has been
reaffirmed at Planning Commission meetings occasionally. Sears already has three
secondary signs, allowing the service identity signs to be set a precedent for other
businesses to follow and increase the overhead clutter. Staff recommends that this type
of signs be eliminated. ,
4. Auto Service Identity Signs. Related to the "Auto center" is a list of auto service signs to
be placed directly above the roll-up doors. The service signs are 15 square feet in sign
area with dimensions of 18 inches by 10 feet and are non-illuminated. There is a total of
9 service doors with signs identifying tires (2), shocks, brakes, cooling systems,
batteries, oil change, and alignment. The applicant stated that Sears needed the signs
as directions for customers to drive to the right service door.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2004-00226 - O & S HOLDINGS
• April 20, 2004
Page 2
Comment: Staff suggested the use of ground mounted 4-foot high directional signs, or
placing the service signs on the building walls inside the building. Sears insisted on
having their wall signs placed above the service doors. Staff has found that businesses,
commercial and industrial, use one or two service signs such as "receiving,' "exit",
"entrance," or "Customer Pick-Up," etc., as a means for direction or instruction. The
proposed service signs are really identifying the types of auto service they provide to
customers, which is contrary to the Sign Ordinance. Allowing the service identity signs
would set a precedent for other businesses to follow and increase the overhead clutter.
Staff does not recommend placing the service signs on the building above the service
doors. Staff recommends that the service signs in super bold graphics be placed on
building walls inside the building or place banners with service signs 3 feet inside the
service doors.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
A. Sub-Anchor, Restaurant, and Shop Tenants Signs.
Comment: Staff recommends that the sign criteria be modified as marked on the attached
Sign Matrix Table. These sign criteria are within the norm of the Sign Programs for existing
power centers such as Terra Vista Town Center, Terra Vista Promenade, Lowes Center, and
Foothill Marketplace.
B. Tenant Identification Monument Signs. Five monument signs are proposed along Foothill
Boulevard street frontage, three are at the west side of Day Creek Boulevard and two are at
the east side of Day Creek Boulevard.
Comment: The Sign Ordinance allows a maximum of two tenant identification monument
signs for each street frontage and shall be separated by 300 lineal feet. The total number of
tenant identification monument signs along Fodthill Boulevard street frontage shall be three,
two at the west side of Day Creek and one at the east side of Day Creek.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant
to work with staff in revising and completing the Uniform Sign Program. Also, staff recommends that
the list ofservice/products signs "pharmacy" and "one-hour photo," and the list of auto service signs
be eliminated.
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Major Anchors Sign Survey
Exhibit "B" - Tenant Sign Matrix
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
Members Present:
U
i
•~
•
~ a
~
(7
L f 0 W
M N N o
r UI
` O Oi N
LL U ~
` O ~ UJ
w U C7
~ O ~ fn
w
r
0 M
r O
~
~
N
N
~ W O
N
N `" w
~
~
~
N
r ~ O
~ t
~1 U N W. O ~ O ~
W d Of a
~ a d ~ d ¢
M fn fA N
\/
N
N
N C
U
N
LL
N
N i~ ~ M a a m ~
~ N G ° t~ Z N o ln ~ ~
O N ¢
N
~ _
Z
Z
N
O
~
N
~ _
Z
J N N ~ U J ~ K J N N ~ J
~ -
Z
I~
^ U ~ iA fn ~ O Cl U
O LL
(n W
J O O
~
1
O LL
f/1 Z O
~
~
10 LL
V1 U
V ~ g N N ~ Z Z e a N rn N N ~ (¢ ¢ O O y ' O `
J
(J
O
N
O
i V
~
U O
V
~
~
r
W
I'
U v
N U
W O
(~ Iri ~
Z
~ K
H Vl
Z
~
W
z
r 8 ~ m y r Y
N `~ y ~
n ~ o o
m
" Q
Z Z m
$ ~ o o
o
~
m ~ ~ a
Z EI ¢
Z
V o N ~ y ~ U 3 ~ N ~ ~ X ~ ~
~ w
~ ~
~
^
/ w
l
/
I O O O m a O Z
~ /
O
R
N
a
a
~
D
O
~
fn >
~
O
~ w
^ ~
~ a
D
O
m w
U U
Q
~ N ~ ~ Z Z ~
II ~ (V A ~ y
~ N N ~ ~ ~ N '
C
G
N
~
U ~ N
~ C
C C
'1 f~0
O m E N N W
_ = Z = ~ _ = O
O
~
d `O O LL
(n ¢ ¢ ~ (OO m ID ~ w
W U
Z N iO Y LL
N U
~ O ¢
t0 ~ O ~ Z Z ~
~ jj F fV ~ rn ~ ~ 1~0 (V N
N ^
N ~ K ~ Z
N U F I S F
O ~ a
Z
C
C
- "
o LL
N 0
N 0
o 0
ln
C
C
-
o
w C
C
C
d 0 ~ t0 N ' y O (n 0 0 d a d ¢
d N N y II II II a (V N N d
U d Z n. Z
U ~ ~ ~ U
~
U
U
U ~ ~ ~ ~
z
0
O
~ LL
~
~ G
O O
O O
N
O
~
O
N
O
O
a
O
a
C
V^ ~ ~ ~ O o O Z Z
C ~ f ~ ~ C ~ C C N
` a a o a
0 0 ~ 0 0 c
/..Y`
N
-
LL
G
G
o
N
N
N ~ T
8 Z
A ~ O ~
r
V M
tD N
~O I~ a ¢ a O J
d
!~
N
N
~
`G II 10 Z A Z R Z N
O ~ ~ ~ ~ W C
~
O
^)
~
L a ~ N
~
C l tl] II C C C c N c L
C _ ...
N
_
N
w
>
L
~ Z
L
L
~
._
~
t
L..
ry
._
N
L
~
Ip
•-
~
U V C
in ~ c
d ~
¢
o US
~ .A "
8 m¢ rn ~ =
a~ =
a
`o 0
c~ rn m =
d "v
¢
`o O
U y d =
d ~'
¢
`o o
U O°oa
LN
O =
C J
C
N ~
_ ly ~O
S W
A = J
C
N
C
N = J
C
~
C
10 S J
C
d
C O~ O
C l0 ~
~
fn C
fn
<n
n
~
E
O
E
O
E
O
U
II ~
~
O C
fn C
tn
N
a
~
N
v
~ O
N O
N
U
n
~
._
N
v
~ C
y C
fn
N
n
~
N ~
no
K Gf
Z in `w vl U y Z N Z N Z r m X
X 0 0
U O W
. 4~~' \
~~`1 t~
V
N
Q
C
a+
V C
AC
W
..3 ~ ~ v rv ~
$ ~ L~Q
~ I_ iN L
ss
s~
00 ~ ~ ~ 3
o ~ - ..v
.,
~=off 3 ry~ 0°
r a
~.° Pp 1..~ "'
°
^ C~ ~ H ~
~ ~ Y
- ` OTO a( ~
LLq p
Cy O
ON ~, ry O N ~l mN~a~Z V ON
V
o Evv~N~ ~ ~~
m E
_a
v~
- ~ ~ ~
a~ ~ v p~
°~a~ .tr:
c _
~
av j
=
N o
V °- '>a
~ w
7 ~
C
w
av
,~~' ~ 3
v ,~ \
~ 1~ ~C~~v~
an ~l ~'
~~ ~ N
m
'
,,1 ~= ry
„1
VVV ~ ~ ~ a q
A ~ 3~a~my ma
~ N ~ ~ ~c oo ~'oo~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ p ~ T `
°
~
' ~~ a
~~ 3 qo
1
~. oa~
o L
n~
o ~ ~ o
9
N~ `'
C ~ C J '^ P O
C O N
Q (p
d ? W ~
A m C
~ °iv
N (((~~~
T d }'
T
/~
Oi _T
'" .. ~ ~ 0.1,
o `~ m 0~
3Ev-c Of
O
_ `a
~/1 S
~ o ~ v„
`°~> 3 ~a ~
_ ~,r
_ -
~
~
.
~
n c _ ~ 4' a ~ ~ ~ o °~
n n
° =a °~-E~ '~' ~t r
~
a E° i a E v b v ~
a n E a
~cw ~ o NE o ~
N'^o ~ ~EQ
~
>
a M o D o
aw ~° ~'
r
i
~ y
- m om
m o w ~ ~ ~
°w _ p
~
~
d V ~N~
'^ ~v~~ o_ ~
~,
a
o
a °a
~ ~ m
a °
'o a t a o
°iO y a
a °^
- Nom 1 ~ ~$c m '^o °E m L.
~ X03 ~ '+
! oor °c(°o .. o oc~
v ~, ~
~
1 a
~ a _,~~_o a =
~~~ Q
yp a~
~ ~` ~ ~a~~o ~ ~„a
a " o rn Y
: H4 w
°~ c m
Q Ev E
n n
c a o o
~~ Q
n ~ o X
~ a
° ~? c ~ o
m ~_
N o,m
er N cmm c rn~ 1po L o~m
N .n ~ tit ~ ~ti~~ ~ O~ V ~L ~ ~ w ~.
1
~ c~~ ~ - mcV mE`a~ ~ mcV
E ~ ~ ~ o Q = c ... 3 -
~ v o c 3 0 - ~ q 3
3 ~
_ 3 ~ w c 3 ~
~
l ~ 3 r°
~
~ ~~
¢ m.._ u-
a m._ ~
-
¢ ~
o
u- 3-u ~ c
¢ m -
0
m 0
m
'
a
a
~
t aw w
°'
r aw v
~
~ m a
.`°i
~ m
,
`o
c
00
.. c
~o~
Eo
,~.
L 0
E C
rn n
- - TL TL
~n
~ W o o ~ ~
"
~ o.rn o~ o;_
J r
c
..~ ~ c°'
..~ to ~o t
~ a~ N N a - v-
_ t ;
a a
~ ~' °
E
7 woa ao
m °'c ,,/~ ac
E o~ ~ ~~ °t ,~`~ a~
. n c 1,~, (\ o- c n -~
x o° `i °o ° °~
c
'°
o
o m m
0
o
0~
o~
L Z- Z_ Z Z L
~ _ _
L
~
a ~
~ ~ ~ ~
Q ~ ~ ~S ~ ~
N
E
~ ~
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~ r
f
N ^
w(\ Q
~
'
m ~ m E
o o
E ~ E o
E 7 E E m
v
~
~ _
~ m r a
E
~ ;
~
Z ~
o, ~~ ~
~ ~
~ --
q
V
g a n
o
E a~ a~ - a~;
. o
~ v` ac a`
~
f oa o`er o`a o
~
N ~
~ F ~ ~ ~
C c
`°
O` ~ .. <
In ~'
L
° ~ ~
?
c ~
:°, v
n
F
j C ~ L
Q 7
VI K ~~ N
•
4 ~
y <
1
1
N uui
V
'3:
i ~~
I
i ~C
i ~.
N°
1
~ ~
Q
a
Fa
}~ ~ i
Uri
n ~
V
J
b
1
~J
D
.
`
c
°' w
n a
O
>
1
a
~ ~ H
C
J
3
3
t
°'
n ° .. a
3 °i
v
C n a
o N o
° n r c
__ _L E ~ o
.. ~
o
T m
n
n -
°y o
c
c
a
E
rn ,,
~
v a ~ a
~ O1 m
~ ° a w E
~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ c
a a 4'
r
1 ~ ~ m "'
a d
a a o
m m c m
1 ~Ln ,n
~ c c
~ ~ c
~ p
?
~ v
v
> v
a
> > c
v
E o 0 0
~ ~ f E E o
~ a m u o
Y
L
O~
.
~
E
«
m
X
a
a
a
c ~,
rn
N o
E
~x o
o
c
` 0
N
C
W
J
c
oa
am
w-
` a =
N y o
°
E n
o°
~ a "
Z as iO
E No
7 w
E >
_~
~x as
v °
m
N
c
o
w
C ._
d ~.
E °'
a
7
C °
0 ~
c
G ~
8
CJ
• •
N
EU
N I.L
T
s
P
c
. ,~
v c
r
°=
c
0
°'
v o ~
0 0
a ~.~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY APRIL 6, 2004 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) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00768-CARYSCHNEIDER-Arequest
to develop asingle-family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997
Camino Predera Street, 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.
(Alan/Mark) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00961 - MIKE & WENDY
STACHOWIAK -Arequest to develop asingle-family residence in the Low
Residential District at 8045 Camino Predera Street, Lot 12 of Tract 10035 -
APN: 0207-631-02.
7:30 p.m.
(Donald/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTPM16488 -OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT -Arequest for a
single parcel subdivision for Industrial Condominium Purposes on 2.27 acres of
land, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the north side of
Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue - APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files:
Development Review DRC2003-00988, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487,
and Development Review DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-00988 -OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT -Arequest to
construct two buildings totaling 23,962 square feet consisting of office, medical
and retail use on 2.27 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7),
• located on the north side of Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue -
APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16488,
Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487, and Development Review
DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
•
LJ
DRC AGENDA
April 6, 2004
Page 2
8:00 p.m.
(BrenUMark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-01085 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -The development of a
81,464 square foot multi-tenant industrial building on 4.72 net acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the south side of 7th Street,
east of Archibald Avenue -APN: 0209-211-46. Related File: Preliminary
Review DRC2003-00584.
8:20 p.m.
(Debra/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2003-00850 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A
request to develop a public storage facility of 185,491 square feet, along with
3,597 square feet for the manager's office and apartment, on 6.13 acres in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast
corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp -
APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050.
8:40 p.m.
(Nancy/Joe) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00839-FOOTHILL CROSSING, LLC
- A request to review changes to building elevations for all the buildings in the
shopping center, located at the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill
Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the Regional Related
Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan -APN: 0229-021-62,
63, and 64.
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
~J
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Alan Warren April 6, 2004
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 subject project was recommended for approval by the DRC in November
2003 and approved by the City Planner in December 2003. A condition of approval was that
Conceptual Landscape Plans be designed by a licensed landscape architect for DRC review prior to
issuance of the building permit. Construction level plans have been designed by D. Rodney Tapp,
Landscape Architect, and submitted for DRC review.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
The front yard design has an appropriate amount of trees and shrubs to satisfy the intent of
the hillside standards.
2. During the review of a previous tract design for the lots, a condition was approved that deleted
the street trees from the south side of Camino Predera Street to help preserve views.
. Engineering will be involved in ensuring that the street trees are not provided. Towards this
end the three W estern Redbud trees (to around 18 feet in height) on the down slope front yard
should not present a significant view problem in front of the single-story house.
3. Staff recommends that ground cover be installed on the rear yard slope to help control erosion
from the construction grading. A 15-foot level area is to be provided for a useable backyard,
but the applicant is not ready for the final landscaping treatment. Therefore, staff believes
ground cover (with the retention of existing Silk Oaks along the south property line) and a
temporary above ground irrigation system will satisfy the intent of the hillside landscaping
requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends favorable consideration for the planting plan.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Fong
Staff Planner:. Alan Warren
Staff reported that a neighbor, Mr. Ford, requested consideration be given to low plant materials to
help preserve views.
The Committee approved the project with a Conceptual Planting Plan, as submitted.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Alan Warren April 6, 2004
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00961 -MIKE & WENDY STACHOWIAK - A request to
develop asingle-family residence in the Low Residential District at 8045 Camino Predera Street, Lot
12 of Tract 10035 - APN: 0207-631-02.
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 above Foothill Boulevard.
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 that 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 lot to 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 24 percent over most of the lot with significant steeper grades near the south
portion.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
The major issue for any house product proposed on the south side of the street is the concern
of residents on the north side regarding potential view obstructions to the south. The
proposed house is a true split level design that exhibits asingle-story facing the street. This
entry level becomes the second floor as the structure continues down the slope.' The two-
story portion faces south down the slope. The house fits within the building envelope as
required by the Hillside Development provisions.
Due to the lowering of the house in relation to the existing street level, grading cuts in excess
of 5 feet (up to 9 feet) are proposed. As a result, the project will need to be approved by the
Planning Commission as required by the Hillside Development standards. The cut was
needed to lower the house in relation to the existing street grade. Staff believes that the
amount of vertical cut is justified in this case to lower the house to single-story level with the
street grade
3. As part of the grading design, a significant mound (remnant feature of the Camino Predera
• roadway cut) is proposed to be removed from the front yard area. The isolated mound does
not appearto be a significant land feature and, therefore, staff does not believe its retention is
important to the intent of the hillside standards.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2003-00961 -MIKE & WENDY STACHOWIAK
April 6, 2004
. Page 2
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. 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 recommends that
the trees be protected in an appropriate manner during construction.
2. City residential standards require a 15-foot level backyard area immediately behind the rear
wall of houses. The level area behind the rear wall is less than this amount. Staff
recommends that a 15-foot level area be provided with a deck or stepped retaining walls
below the proposed retaining walls just behind and below the rear of the house. Staff believes
such a feature will satisfy the intent of the rear backyard requirement.
3. Front yard and rear slope landscaping should be provided in pursuant to City standards.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Round off and contour all graded slopes to blend with the existing terrain, and present a more
natural appearance.
2. Establish proper soil management techniques to reduce the adverse effects (i.e., erosion) of
grading.
3. Select plant materials for their suitability to the environment and compatibility with Xeriscape
principles (i.e., water conservation). Include existing mature trees worthyof preservation in the
landscape concept.
4. Select fast growing vegetative ground covers for fill/cut slope areas to retard soil erosion.
5. Significant landscaping is required for down slope elevations. Slopes that required
landscaping shall be planted with informal clusters of trees and shrubs to soften and vary the
slope plane. Jute netting is required.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the application to the
Planning Commission with a favorable recommendation subject to the above listed conditions.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Fong
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
The Committee received and reviewed written comments from neighboring residents requesting
alternative designs be considered.
The Committee approved the project, with a Conceptual Planting Plan, as submitted and with the
• above listed conditions except as noted:
1. The Committee requested that the applicant investigate the potential of reducing the roof pitch
and moving the footprint a little further down the slope in order to lower the height of the
house. The modification should come back to the DRC on the Consent Calendar.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2003-00961 -MIKE & W ENDY STACHOW IAK
April 6, 2004
• Page 3
2. The rear 15-foot level area required in the backyard maybe attained with an expanded deck
area at the rear of the house.
3. The specific pool area design is not required at this time, but it should be returned to the DRC
as a MDR application when the pool plans have reached a more detailed concept.
•
C~
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m. Donald Granger April 6, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16488 -OASIS
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - A request for a single parcel subdivision for Industrial
Condominium Purposes on 2.27 acres of land, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on
the north side of Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue - APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files:
Development Review DRC2003-00988, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487, and Development
Review DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00988 -OASIS
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct two buildings totaling 23,962 square feet
consisting of office, medical and retail use on 2.27 acres of land in the Industrial Park District
(Subarea 7), located on the north side of Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue -
APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16488, Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM16487, and Development Review DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Background: On January 20, 2004, the Committee (McPhail, Fletcher, Fong) reviewed the project
and recommended that the project be revised and brought back for further review. The Committee
• directed the applicant to revise the project. The Committee directed the applicant to pay particular
attention to providing a pedestrian sidewalk that connects to other buildings, adding brick to the wall
planes, and reconfiguring the tower features to provide a hip roof and additional architectural
elements.
Design Parameters: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Red Oak Avenue and
Laurel Street. The project site is located within the Industrial Park Haven Overlay District, which
strives for high employment density and a high level of architectural quality. Site planning must
incorporate elements of apedestrian-oriented, campus-like setting with generous amounts of
landscaping. ~Paseos, esplanades, and courtyards are highly encouraged.
The applicant is proposing to construct two buildings totaling 23,962 square feet consisting of
office, medical, and retail uses. The project site has been with designed with a court yard centered
between the buildings that includes a water fountain, landscape planters, and a wood overhead
trellis. The exterior materials consist of stucco and red brick. Horizontal and vertical reglets provide
additional relief to the wall planes. The vacant property to the east is concurrently being proposed
for development of a two-story office building totaling 16,448 square feet (DRC2003-00987).
In response to the Committee's comments at the January 20, 2004, meeting, the applicant has
worked diligently with staff and revised the project to include the following:
• A pedestrian sidewalk has been provided around the entire perimeter of the site that
connects the proposed building to the other buildings in this block.
• The main north-south drive aisle has been reoriented with stamped concrete that
terminates into a circular plaza, providing a focal point.
• The Landscape Plan has been upgraded with intensified plantings and additional color.
• Substantial amounts of brick have been added to enhance the elevations.
• The tower elements have been modified to include a hip roof.
• The trellis feature has been modified to include heftier lumber sizes with decorative ends.
DRC AGENDA
SUBTPM16488 -OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
April 6, 2004
•. Page 2
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.
Avoid using brick only as a base treatment. Brick should be added in strategic areas to
emphasize the office/professional use of the project. Staff suggests the following:
On the north elevation, brick should be applied to the entire wall plane, up to the cornice,
on Units 2, 5, 7, and 10.
On the south elevation, brick should be applied to the entire wall plane, up to the cornice,
on Units 2, 5, 7, and 10.
Brick should cover the entire wall plane on all elevations for both towers.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
Eliminate the foam window surrounds in the two towers. The tower windows should be
modified to include brick surrounds with soldier courses and concrete ledges.
2. Brick should be used as a border treatment around the stamped concrete at the circular plaza
• 3. Colored concrete or 24-inch by 24-inch scored concrete should be used in the first 16 spaces
in front of the buildings (carpool and handicap) and in the courtyard at the main entrance at
the south elevation. Colored/scored concrete will define the buildings entrances and enhance
the architecture of the building.
The bollards at the plaza should be decorative and be illuminated.
Decorative pavement, matching the existing stamped concrete in the primary drive aisle,
should be added at the two east-west drive aisles near the west property line of the project.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
The project will require review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program.
Outdoor furniture shall be provided in the outdoor employee eating area.
3. All outdoor furniture (tables, benches, trash receptacles, bollards, etc.) shall be uniform.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the staff recommendations, and
that the project be revised prior to being scheduled for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Fong
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
DRC AGENDA
SUBTPM16488 -OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
• April 6, 2004
Page 3
At the meeting, the applicant presented revised drawings which satisfied several of the Major and
Secondary Issues. The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval with the
following conditions:
Brick shall be added in the following areas to emphasize the office/professional use of the
project:
On the north elevation, brick shall be applied to the entire wall plane, up to the cornice,
on Units 2, 5, 7, and 10.
On the south elevation, brick shall be applied to the entire wall plane, up to the cornice,
on Units 2, 5, 7, and 10.
Brick shall cover the entire wall plane on all elevations for both towers.
2. The foam window surrounds in the two towers shall be eliminated, and replaced with brick
surrounds with soldier courses and brick ledges.
3. Brick shall be used as a border treatment around the stamped concrete at the circular plaza.
Colored concrete or 24-inch by 24-inch scored concrete shall be used in the first 16 spaces in
front of the buildings (carpool and handicap) and in the courtyard at the main entrance at the
south elevation.
. 5. The bollards at the plaza shall be decorative and illuminated.
6. Decorative pavement, matching the existing stamped concrete in the primary drive aisle, shall
be added at the two east-west drive aisles near the west property line of the project.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 6, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01085 -CHARLES
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -The development of a 81,464 square foot multi-tenant industrial building
on 4.72 net acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the south side of
7th Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 0209-211-46 -Related File: Preliminary Review
DRC2003-00584.
Design Parameters: The site is located on the south side of the 7th Street cul-de-sac east of
Archibald Avenue. There is an existing multi-tenant/multi-building industrial development
immediately to the west of the site, vacant land to the south, and a rail line (a rail spur is proposed
with the project) and the General Motors building to the east. The project is intended to connect to
the existing industrial park to the west via driveways and shared parking. Loading docks are
proposed along the east side of the building that will be hidden from view of the street by 14-foot
high screen walls. The building is of standard tilt up style construction with reliance upon color
variation, glazing, and limited areas of sandblasted concrete to provide visual interest. The level of
architectural quality is a step up from both the existing multi-tenant industrial park to the west, as
well as the General Motors building to the east, but a step down from the "Pannatoni" development
under construction to the northeast. This building and other recent industrial buildings utilize more
sandblasted concrete and even specialized cornice and canopy details at the main entry.
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: ,
There are no major design issues. Staff appreciates the applicant bringing in a project with
employee eating areas, Lush landscaping, and decorative driveway treatments and even bike
racks without having to have these items required/negotiated through the design review
process.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Increase the area of exposed sandblasted concrete to provide more visual interest of a
timeless quality. The preferred design theme would be to apply sandblasted concrete around
the entire base of the building thereby fostering a rusticated look similar to wainscoting but
suggestive of structural integrity. The next best scenario would be changing out the painted
"U" shaped column-like patterns to sandblasted concrete. In both scenarios, leaving the
existing proposed sandblasted panels in place is preferred.
2. The building relies heavily onpainted-on and reveal patterns as opposed to actual change of
plane or material. Staff recommends introducing greater articulation at the office entries by
recessing or popping out the entire wall panels that have higher parapet (not just the small
. glass area). Also, increase the width of the horizontal painted lines to be in proportion to the
wider side of surface features rather than the slimmest side.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2003-01085 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
April 6, 2004
Page 2
3. Provide 14-foot high screen wall at the northeast corner of the site to screen loading docks to
the south. Slope ground level upon north (7th Street) side of wall so that no more than 8 feet
of wall height is exposed to view. This may require widening of the planter areas on the north
side of the wall. The electronically operated automatic gate shall be as opaque as possible to
prevent views into the loading dock.
4. Where vertical changes of plane occur, the parapets shall return back over the roof at least
four feet to convey a thick building unit rather than a thin facade.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Wails facing the public right=of-way shall be no higher than 8 feet exposed above the ground
level. This maybe achieved by sloping the ground level on the street side up to the wall in the
case of an extra-high screen wall.
2. All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from the surrounding area. The developer
will be required to provide amock-up of the roof equipment (painted surveyor's stake,
cardboard boxes, etc.) for project planner review prior to ordering or installing an roof
equipment once the roof is in place.
Staff Recommendation:- Staff recommends approval subject to the submittal of revised plans
. reflecting the above comments prior to City Planner approval of project.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommends approval of the project subject to staff's comments with the following
additional comments below. The applicant agreed to the requested changes.
Provide sandblasted concrete on the "U" shaped column-like patterns and on the upper
concrete panels on the east elevation.
Provide sandblasted concrete features wrapping around both the southeast and the southwest
corners of the building to avoid conveying awall-papered appearance.
3. Provide 4-foot deep return walls where parapets rise above the surrounding parapet lines.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Debra Meier April 6, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 -
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to develop a public storage
facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the manager's office and apartment,
on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast
corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp - APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01.
Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR COMMITTEE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ATTHE MEETING
Design Parameters: The proposed project was reviewed by the Committee on March 16, 2004.
Although many aspects of the project received concurrence between the Committee and the
applicant (see attached DRC Action for March 16, 2004), the Committee previously recommended
that the architecture of the facility be reviewed and modified to provide more richness in detailing.
The Committee suggested that the architect analyze the introduction of additional building material
in key visible locations that would provide texture and interest to the street frontage. Specific
suggestions included the use of medallions or the inlays. In summary, the Committee recommended
an enhancement to the articulation and richness of the street exposure of the project.
. The applicant's architect will provide plans and a verbal presentation of the proposed modifications
to the Committee at the meeting.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Fong
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
Provide trim surrounds for the square file applique on the building walls.
Eliminate wall signs on the north elevation facing the I-210 Freeway. The signs conflict
with the City's desire to avoid having signs face the freeway, and the operation of the
storage facility is acommunity-oriented rather than freeway-oriented business.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:40 p.m. Nancy Fong April 6, 2004
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00839 -FOOTHILL CROSSING, LLC - A request to
review changes to building elevations for all the buildings in the shopping center, located at the
southeast and southwest corners of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the
Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan-APN: 0229-021-62,
63, and 64.
Design Parameters: Attached are copies of the applicant letter and the proposed changes to the
building elevations. The applicant will be at the meeting to present the changes to the Committee.
Staff will present an oral report.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
The Committee reviewed the proposed changes to the building elevations as described by the
applicant. The Committee stated that the arched storefront design with the special mullion pattern
• gives the building that special design. The Committee determined that the proposed changes to the
square off typical storefront windows do not have the same details. The Committee did not approve
the changes and directed the applicant to work with staff in preparing plans that maintain the same
arched design and special window mullions.
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
April 6, 2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
uller
Secretary
u
•
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY APRIL 6, 2004 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 theyare items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
7:00 p.m.
(Alan/Vicki) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00768-CARYSCHNEIDER-A request
to'develop asingle-family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997
Camino Predera Street, 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 mayopen the meeting for public input.
7:10 p.m.
(Alan/Mark) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00961 - MIKE & WENDY
STACHOWIAK - A request,to develop asingle-family residence in the Low
Residential District at 8045 Camino Predera Street, Lot 12 of Tract 10035 -
APN: 0207-631-02.
7:30 p.m.
(Donald/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTPM16488 -OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - A request for a
single parcel subdivision for Industrial Condominium Purposes on 2.27 acres of
land, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the north side of
Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue -APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files:
Development Review DRC2003-00988, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487,
and Development Review DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-00988 -OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - A request to
construct two buildings totaling 23,962 square feet consisting of office, medical
and retail use on 2.27 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7),
located on the north side of Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue -
APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16488,
Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487, and Development Review
DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
DRC AGENDA
April 6, 2004
Page 2
•
8:00 p.m.
(Brent/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2003-01085 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -The development of a
81,464 square foot multi-tenant industrial building on 4.72 net acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the south side of 7th Street,
east of Archibald Avenue -APN: 0209-211-46. Related File: Preliminary
Review DRC2003-00584.
8:20 p.m.
(Debra/Rene) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2003-00850 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A
request to develop a public storage facility of 185,491 square feet, along with
3,597 square feet for the managers office and apartment, on 6.13 acres in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast
corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp -
APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050.
8:40 p.m.
(Nancy/Joe) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00839 -FOOTHILL CROSSING, LLC
- A request to review changes to building elevations for all the buildings in the
shopping center, located at the southeast and southwest corners of Foothill
Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the Regional Related
• Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan-APN: 0229-021-62,
63, and 64.
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 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 1, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Alan Vlhrren April 6, 2004
Project Description: HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00768 - CARY SCHNEIDER - A
request todevelop asingle-family residence in the Low Residential District at 7997 Camino Predera
Street, Lot 17 ofTract 10035. APN: 020731-07.
Design Parameters: The subject project was recommended for approval by the DRC in November
2003 and approved by the City Planner in December 2003. A condition of approval was that
Conceptual Landscape Plans be designed bya licerised landscape architectfor DRC review priorto
issuance of the building permit. Construction level plans have been designed by D. Rodney Tapp,
Landscape Architect, and submitted for DRC review.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
The front yard design has an appropriate amount of trees and shrubs to satisfy the intent of
the hillside standards.
2. During the review of a previous tract design for the lots, a condition was approved that deleted
the street trees from the south side of Camino Predera Street to help preserve views.
Engineering will be involved in ensuring that the street trees are not provided. Towards this
end the three Western Redbud trees (to around 18 feet in height) on the down slope front yard
should not present a significant view problem in front of the single-story house.
• 3. Staff recommends that ground cover be installed on the rear yard slope to help control erosion
from the construction grading. A 15-foot level area is to be provided for a useable backyard,
but the applicant is not ready for the final landscaping treatment. Therefore, staff believes
ground cover (with the retention of existing Silk Oaks along the south property line) and a
temporary above ground irrigation system will satisfy the intent of the hillside landscaping
requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends favorable consideration for the planting plan.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
Members Present:
C,
J
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Alan Warren April 6, 2004
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00961 -MIKE & WENDY STACHOWIAK - A request to
develop asingle-family residence in the Low Residential District at 8045 Camino Predera Street, Lot
12 of Tract 10035 -APN: 0207-631-02.
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 above Foothill Boulevard.
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 that 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 lot to 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 24 percent over most of the lot with significant steeper grades near the south
portion.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
The major issue for any house product proposed on the south side of the street is the concern
of residents on the north side regarding potential view obstructions to the south. The
proposed house is a true split level design that exhibits asingle-story facing the street. This
entry level becomes the second floor as the structure continues down the slope. The two-
story portion faces south down the slope. The house fits within the building envelope as
required by the Hillside Development provisions.
Due to the lowering of the house in relation to the existing street level, grading cuts in excess
of 5 feet (up to 9 feet) are proposed. As a result, the project will need to be approved by the
Planning Commission as required by the Hillside Development standards. The cut was
needed to lower the house in relation to the existing street grade. Staff believes that the
amount of vertical cut isjustified in this case to lower the house to single-story level with the
street grade
3. As part of the grading design, a significant mound (remnant feature of the Camino Predera
roadway cut) is proposed to be removed from the front yard area. The isolated mound does
• not appear to be a significant land feature and, therefore, staff does not believe its retention is
important to the intent of the hillside standards.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2003-00961 -MIKE & WENDY STACHOWIAK
April 6, 2004
• Page 2
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
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 recommends that
the trees be protected in an appropriate manner during construction.
2. City residential standards require a 15-foot level backyard area immediately behind the rear
wall of houses. The level area behind the rear wall is less than this amount. Staff
recommends that a 15-foot level area be provided with a deck or stepped retaining walls
below the proposed retaining walls just behind and below the rear of the house. Staff believes
such a feature will satisfy the intent of the rear backyard requirement.
Front yard and rear slope landscaping should be provided in pursuant to City standards.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Round off and contour all graded slopes to blend with the existing terrain, and present a more
natural appearance.
2. Establish proper soil management techniques to reduce the adverse effects (i.e., erosion) of
• grading.
3. Select plant materials for their suitability to the environment and compatibility with Xeriscape
principles (i.e., water conservation). Include existing mature trees worthyof preservation in the
landscape concept.
4. Select fast growing vegetative ground covers for filllcut slope areas to retard soil erosion.
5. Significant landscaping is required for down slope elevations. Slopes that required
landscaping shall be planted with informal clusters of trees and shrubs to soften and varythe
slope plane. Jute netting is required.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the application to the
Planning Commission with a favorable recommendation subject to the above listed conditions.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
Members Present:
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m. Donald Granger April 6, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16488 -OASIS
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - A request for a single parcel subdivision for Industrial
Condominium Purposes on 2.27 acres of land, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on
the north side of Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue - APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files:
Development Review DRC2003-00988, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487, and Development
Review DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-0098$ -OASIS
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT -A request to construct two buildings totaling 23,962 square feet
consisting of office, medical and retail use on 2.27 acres of land in the Industrial Park District
(Subarea 7), located on the north side of Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue -
APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16488, Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM16487, and Development Review DRC2003-00987. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Background: On January 20, 2004, the Committee (McPhail, Fletcher, Fong) reviewed the project
and recommended that the project be revised and brought back for further review. The Committee
• directed the applicant to revise the project. The Committee directed the applicant to pay particular
attention to providing a pedestrian sidewalk that connects to other buildings, adding brick to the wall
planes, and reconfiguring the tower features to provide a hip roof and additional architectural
elements.
Design Parameters: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Red Oak Avenue and
Laurel Street. The project site is located within the Industrial Park Haven Overlay District, which
strives for high employment density and a high level of architectural quality. Site planning must
incorporate elements of apedestrian-oriented, campus-like setting with generous amounts of
landscaping. Paseos, esplanades, and courtyards are highly encouraged.
The applicant is proposing to construct two buildings totaling 23,962 square feet consisting of
office, medical, and retail uses. The project site has been with designed with a court yard centered
between the buildings that includes a water fountain, landscape planters, and a wood overhead
trellis. The exterior materials consist of stucco and red brick. Horizontal and vertical reglets provide
additional relief to the wall planes. The vacant property to the east is concurrently being proposed
for development of a two-story office building totaling 16,448 square feet (DRC2003-00987).
In response to the Committee's comments at the January 20, 2004, meeting, the applicant has
worked diligently with staff and revised the project to include the following:
• A pedestrian sidewalk has been provided around the entire perimeter of the site that
connects the proposed building to the other buildings in this block.
• The main north-south drive aisle has been reoriented with stamped concrete that
terminates into a circular plaza, providing a focal point.
• The Landscape Plan has been upgraded with intensified plantings and additional color.
• • Substantial amounts of brick have been added to enhance the elevations.
• The tower elements have been modified to include a hip roof.
• The trellis feature has been modified to include heftier lumber sizes with decorative ends.
DRC AGENDA
SUBTPM16488 -OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
April 6, 2004
• Page 2
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.
Avoid using brick only as a base treatment. Brick should be added in strategic areas to
emphasize the office/professional use of the project. Staff suggests the following:
On the north elevation, brick should be applied to the entire wall plane, up to the cornice,
on Units 2, 5, 7, and 10.
On the south elevation, brick should be applied to the entire wall plane, up to the comice,
on Units 2, 5, 7, and 10.
Brick should cover the entire wall plane on all elevations for both towers.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
Eliminate the foam window surrounds in the two towers. The tower windows should be
modified to include brick surrounds with soldier courses and concrete ledges.
2. Brick should be used as a border treatment around the stamped concrete at the circular plaza.
. 3. Colored concrete or 24-inch by 24-inch scored concrete should be used in the first 16 spaces
in front of the buildings (carpool and handicap) and in the courtyard at the main entrance at
the south elevation. Colored/scored concrete will define the buildings entrances and enhance
the architecture of the building.
4. The bollards at the plaza should be decorative and be illuminated.
5. Decorative pavement, matching the existing stamped concrete in the primary drive aisle,
should be added at the twv east-west drive aisles near the west property line of the project.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
The project will require review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program.
2. Outdoor furniture shall be provided in the outdoor employee eating area.
3. All outdoor furniture (tables, benches, trash receptacles, bollards, etc.) shall be uniform.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the staff recommendations, and
that the project be revised prior to being scheduled for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
• Members Present:
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 6, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01085 -CHARLES
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development'of a 81,464 square foot multi-tenant industrial building
on 4.72 net acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located on the south side of
7th Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 0209-211-46 -Related File: Preliminary Review
DRC2003-00584.
Design Parameters: The site is located on the south side of the 7th Street cul-de-sac east of
Archibald Avenue. There is an existing multi-tenant/multi-building industrial development
immediately to the west of the site, vacant land to the south, and a rail line (a rail spur is proposed
with the project) and the General Motors building to the east. The project is intended to connect to
the existing industrial park to the west via driveways and shared parking. Loading docks are
proposed along the east side of the building that will be hidden from view of the street by 14-foot
high screen walls. The building is of standard tilt up style construction with reliance upon color
variation, glazing, and limited areas of sandblasted concrete to provide visual interest. The level of
architectural quality is a step up from both the existing multi-tenant industrial park to the west, as
well as the General Motors building to the east, but a step down from the "Pannatoni"development
under construction to the northeast. This building and other recent industrial buildings utilize more
sandblasted concrete and even specialized cornice and canopy details at the main entry.
• 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:
There are no major design issues. Staff appreciates the applicant bringing in a project with
employee eating areas, lush landscaping, and decorative drivewaytreatments and even bike
racks without having to have these items required/negotiated through the design review
process.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Increase the area of exposed sandblasted concrete to provide more visual interest of a
timeless quality. The preferred design theme would be to apply sandblasted concrete around
the entire base of the building thereby fostering a rusticated look similar to wainscoting but
suggestive of structural integrity. The next best scenario would be changing out the painted
"U" shaped column-like patterns to sandblasted concrete. In both scenarios, leaving the
existing proposed sandblasted panels in place is preferred.
2. The building relies heavily on painted-on and reveal patterns as opposed to actual change of
plane or material. Staff recommends introducing greater articulation at the office entries by
recessing or popping out the entire wall panels that have higher parapet (not just the small
glass area). Also, increase the width of the horizontal painted lines to be in proportion to the
• wider side of surface features rather than the slimmest side.
•
DRC AGENDA
DRC2003-01085 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
April 6, 2004
Page 2
Provide 14-foot high screen wall at the northeast corner of the site to screen loading docks to
the south. Slope ground level upon north (7th Street) side of wall so that no more than 8 feet
of wall height is exposed to view. This may require widening of the planter areas on the north
side of the wall. The electronically operated automatic gate shall be as opaque as possible to
prevent views into the loading dock.
4. Where vertical changes of plane occur, the parapets shall return back over the roof at least
four feet to convey a thick building unit rather than a thin fagade.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Walls facing the public right-of-way shall be no higher than 8 feet exposed above the ground
level. This may be achieved by sloping the ground level on the street side up to the wall in the
case of an extra-high screen wall.
•
2. All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from the surrounding area. The developer
will be required to provide smock-up of the roof equipment (painted surveyor's stake,
cardboard boxes, etc.) for project planner review prior to ordering or installing an roof
equipment once the roof is in place.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the submittal of revised plans
reflecting the above comments prior to City Planner approval of project.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
Members Present:
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Debra Meier April 6, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 -
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to develop a public storage
facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the manager's office and apartment,
on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast
corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp - APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01.
Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance DRC2004-00050.
PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR COMMITTEE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ATTHE MEETING
Design Parameters: The proposed project was reviewed by the Committee on March 16, 2004.
Although many aspects of the project received concurrence between the Committee and the
applicant (see attached DRC Action for March 16, 2004), the Committee previously recommended
that the architecture of the facility be reviewed and modified to provide more richness in detailing.
The Committee suggested that the architect analyze the introduction of additional building material
in key visible locations that would provide texture and interest to the street frontage. Specific
suggestions included the use of medallions or file inlays. In summary, the Committee recommended
an enhancement to the articulation and richness of the street exposure of the project.
• The applicant's architect will provide plans and a verbal presentation of the proposed modifications
to the Committee at the meeting.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
Members Present:
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:40 p.m. Nancy Fong April 6, 2004
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00839 -FOOTHILL CROSSING, LLC - A request to
review changes to building elevations for all the buildings in the shopping center, located at the
southeast and southwest corners of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard within the
Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan -APN: 0229-021-62,
63, and 64.
Design Parameters: Attached are copies of the applicant letter and the proposed changes to the
building elevations. The applicant will be at the meeting to present the changes to the Committee.
Staff will present an oral report.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
Members Present:
n
t~
•
Foothill Crossing, LLC
0 0 oaa
~o ~
March 10, 2004
Nancy Fong
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
'10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Justification for Building Design Changes
Dear Nancy,
As we have previously discussed, the design for our building facades have been revised
due to issues that were not foreseen by our architectural team when they prepared the
CUP submittal. Attached you will find a letter from our architect that supplies the list of
changes and the justifications for each together with a pictorial representation of the
changes.
• We would hope that this one letter would suffice to explain the changes to the other
buildings we have submitted (Pad 2, Pad b, Pad b and Pad 7 are all somewhere in
process right now) as well as those we will be submitting shortly. As the architect scat
these buildings area "kit of parts" so we hope you will agree that this one letter of
justification can suffice for the balance of our pad buildings.
Please call if you have questions, comments or clarifications. We appreciate your
consideration.
es,
Project Manager
~C 2ooZ -D r, F39
17611 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90049
Tel 310.207.8600 • Fax 310.207.2288
February 18, 2004
• Ms. Nancy Fong
City of Rancho Cucamonga -
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Building 1
Dear Nancy,
Please let this correspondence serve as an explanation of the design revisions
made to Building 1 after approvals had been obtained for the C.U.P..
The factors considered in making the facade changes were as follows:
1. During our initial meetings with our structural engineer, we learned that we
needed to have a lot more shear wall locations on all sides of the building.
While this eliminated some windows, we made sure that the design did not
suffer.
2. We took into consideration more up to date leasing information, to more
truly fit the needs of the occupant.
3. We looked holistically at the facades of all the buildings and came up with a
more simplified "kit of parts", that allows us to create variation in the
designs, using an architecture that will relate on all of the buildings.
4. We re-designed the windows from the arch shape to the squared off
version because the arch shape design did not create the bracing we
needed to resist expected wind loads.
In addition to the afore-mentioned strategy changes, we did revise the corner
element, replacing the decorative wrought iron feature with an in-laid medallion.
that depicts grapes and vines of the vineyards that were part of Rancho
Cucamonga's past.
Thank you for allowing us to describe these alterations to the design.
~Gr!
Lance Brown, A.I.A.
President, Enter-Arc, Inc.
• '~Ftc 2ao2-ao~3~
U s a ~ 3 ocne ^~,,, oi~i^~ ~. a~^„~o,^~ oy ~,~^x
K - V to§p' . o P,o..l^oe^~y,o^j ieizi ~C
Q ; ~ jee~i ~^ ,p Ao0 P^ P^IB Il'4~ ^f 1^ ° °7 e
~.,: $ ,i-s iviiiwsns i ava . eeeaa ~
?I~~.S~:, _~~~ 6uissoa~ II iy~oo~ tai~sl3l:1
I
~ ~ ww
~ ~ ~ >K U UZ
(\~~~ U w `
'a ~ ao on Np
`a ~ mr o
~ V J Y O ~
' ~ i~N ao a3
opz <~ 3~
i¢~d ~~^ 3oa
/ \
w t> I
~m 1 ~~ ~
~~
JN
_ OV
Wy
WV 1 6~
LLa ~
~m
~ ,pWy
V ~ u+2
G
JN
Z U
UU WQ
Nm
w
G~ ~
JN ~~
wV
1 ~Z
I~ ~t]j
Zm
w
U¢
JNW
\~lf~~~f/ W
4Q ZN
V U
- _J
~,C Zoo2-ao~3