Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/06/02 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JUNE 2, 1998 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Bill Bethel Rich Macias Nancy Fong Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding - their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Cecilia) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW98-04- RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES: The development of a retail building totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square foot parcel, in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 1076-191-09. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 84-13. 7:40 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 - VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE, LEWIS HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 533 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site, and a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site pin, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 533 single family homes in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre, respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. 8:20 p.m. (Brent) DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned Shopping Center with Phase One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive- thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot restaurant (previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. 9:00 P.M. (Rebecca) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. DRC AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED 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. I, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 28, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Govemment Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civ' Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Cecilia Gallardo June 2, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES: The development of a retail building totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square foot parcel, in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-191-09. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 84-13. Design Parameters: The project site is located within an existing commercial shopping center that houses a gas station, fast food restaurants, and retail shops. North and east of the site are residential properties. The shopping center was developed under Conditional Use Permit 84-13 that created a Master Plan for the development of the site. The Master Plan addressed conceptual building locations, overall circulation, points of ingress and egress, parking layout, and provided conceptual elevations which included architectural style, various product types, form, bulk, height and materials. The subject parcel is one - of two properties within the shopping center left undeveloped. The tenant for the proposed pad building is "Hollywood Video." A bank was previously approved for this pad (DR 87-10). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The original proposal did not ft the established architectural theme of the center. Staff has worked with the applicant which resulted in a number of revisions; however, the following key design issues remain: 1. Architecture: The architectural style of the building should be compatible with the architectural theme of the existing center and be in conformance with the Master Plan approved for the site. Attached is a copy of the existing elevations for the shopping center, which include design elements such as tile roofs, exposed rafter tails, curvilinear gables and colonnades. The architecture should be revised to be more consistent with the existing buildings, and the approved Master Plan as follows: a) A colonnade (covered pedestrian walkway) should extend around the entire building. The plans show the colonnade only at the tower, on the west and south end of the building. The applicant is proposing a 1-foot pop-out"arch" around the remainder of the building to simulate a colonnade. The addition of a colonnade would provide further treatment to the north and east elevations. b) The tile roof should be continuous around the entire building. The tile roof element is not present on the east elevation. 2. Signs: The applicant is requesting 24-inch "Hollywood" and 18-inch "Video' lettering for the tenant signs. The Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center limits the maximum height of signs to 18 inches. Planning Commission policy has been to allow an 18-inch maximum letter height for shopping centers, except for major anchor tenants. The shopping center owner supports 24-inch letters; however, has not submitted an application to amend their Uniform Sign Program. (See attached letters regarding signage.) DRC COMMENTS DR 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES June 2, 1998 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. Additional landscaped areas, including trees, should be provided wherever possible. Areas of special concern include areas adjacent to the north and east sides of the building. 2. Provide additional landscaping in decorative pots at the west and south entrances. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised for further Committee review. Attachments Design Review Committee Comments: Members Present: Bill Bether, Rich Macias, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo The Committee recommended the project be brought back to the Committee with the following revisions: 1. Redesign the roof element of the towers. 2. Include additional architectural details to the east elevation to provide 360 degree architecture. If this cannot be provided with a colonnade or a continuous tile roof, then trellis and vine plantings are to be provided within the arched recessed areas of the east elevation. 1 Resolve tower element location along the south elevation to provide greater interface between subject building and potential project to the east. 4. The committee was supportive of amending the Uniform Sign Program for the center to include provisions that would allow a single user pad tenant to have 24-inch signs if the applicant could demonstrate the necessity for them,given the site location, and if the architecture of the building was enhanced to incorporate the design elements outlined in the original master plan. • 7.� ter'--�—;i � . '. :;. �. ld q J � 1 C r. 't ro W I i T � I i i 1 ' �"i-•{t�i 1�/►•rr�i�M Nom, � •�f.� 1 ��.��.►:�♦ i;�,��•�• � • +.r • � - � ' err tl s �I . T PnGO N61 —ar dar. �. �,c,�r�sn rsolunr! li,b, ly � y .�1 �y1 shy !4i{IVY Si11 RESOLUTION NO. 84-134 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA;"ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INC. 8^--.-13 FOR A SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND BASE LINE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS , on the 9th day of July, 1984, a complete application was filed by Sycamore Investments for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of November, 1984 , the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows : SECTION 1 : That the following findings can be met : 1 . That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Develo pmient Code , and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2 . That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use com7lies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2 : That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on November 28, 1984. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84-13 is approved subject to the following conditions : PLANNING DIVISION 1 . That approval of the future phase in the easterly portion of the project is conceptual only and specific site Plan and architectural review is required. 2 . Future buildings layouts and designs shall be consistent with the approved Mission architectural style. 3. Future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and irrigated for aesthetics and erosion control . Resolution No. 84-134 Page 2 A . Provide texturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles to create an integrated pedestrian circulation system. In addition , sidewalk connections shall be provided to the public sidewalks on Archibald and Base Line. 5. Provide locking bicycle facilities in a convenient location. Details shall be included in the landscape plans to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. Provide pedestrian connection near Building "B" to the adjacent residential project. A lockable gate may be permitted for security purposes if master keyed for the adjacent residents in Tract 11797. 7. Pedestrian amenities shall be provided within the plaza, including, but not limited to, outdoor eating areas , canopy shade trees, raised planters and benches , and drinking fountain. Details shall be included in the landscape plans to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8. Special landscaping treatment shall be provided at the intersection including a raised planter and annual color ground cover. 9. Provide decorative tile treatment as an architectural accent throughout project and in place of red-orange Del Taco ceramic tile_. Samples of the decorative tile and roof tile shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Building "B" shall be revised to include an arched colonade treatment on the front (west) elevation and covered trellis structures on the north and south sides perpendicular to the building. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1 . Project shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) drive approaches per street in locations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Cross slopes on circulation aisles shall be maximum 40 , except where specific aisles do not have adjacent parking. 3. Ribbon gutters across drive entrances are to be at an absolute_ minimum and all drainage must exit the site in standard under-sidewalk drains . Resolution No. 84-134 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING C ON OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 BY E. David rker, airman ATTEST: Rick/Go , Deputy Secretary r r I , Rick ;Gomez , Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and _regular,ly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of November, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RENPEL, MCNIEL , CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT FAX TRANSMISSION - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .. 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 9 1 730 (909) 477-2750, Exr. 2260 - FAx: (909) 477-2847 To: Jerry S. Ray Date: April 8, 1998 Fax 9: (918) 396-1398 7� Pages: 1, including this cover sheet. From: Dan Coleman( )(-I Subject: DR 98-04 - 24 INCH SIGNS COMMENTS: Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1998 regarding your desire for 24 inch high letters for the proposed Hollywood Video. Your letter will be included in the staff report to the Design Review Committee. Please be advised that we have not received any request from the shopping center owner to amend their Uniform Sign Program to allow 24 inch letters. We received the revised development plans yesterday and are reviewing them for completeness. If complete, the project would be scheduled for the next availavle Design Review Committee meeting which is on May 5, 1998. If you have any further questions regarding the processing of this application, please contact the project planner, Cecilia Gallardo at (909) 477-2750. II 04-88-1998 a7:18PM F. -.1 CITYCOM MPtAqnE1ENT, INC TO 916194539965 P.02 " I ! f CITY COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC- I ' Wedaesdam,April 8, 1998 Dan Coleman,Principal Planner City ofRa=ho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Ceatcr Drive P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE:Proposed Hollywood Video at Archibald and Baseline(Sycamore Plate) Dear Mr. Coleman: 1 have been in contact with the group that is attempting to develop a Hollywood Vldoo at the above referenced site.As operator(per the CC&R's)of the center,we have no objection to Hollywood Video's adc2a4 Iti r,with"Hollywood„in white and"Video"in Red and having signs offset their tr } Posed building size of the existing building; accordingly,square feet is approximate 40%of the o multi-tq�t retail building; acegrdtnely, we feel that based on the size of the structureandowunderstandingthatapreviousmerchanta rthecenter(Smpr- Go)had rcceivedCity agprova!for 24 inch sign-s,that this building warisnIs consideration to 4ow for 24 inch lettering. Ibank you for your consideration ! S ly'-- � � 'chaal Fommato City Commercial Manageme E, inc. 10771 Anow Route-Suite 500a Post Office Box SU■ Ranet,o Cucamonga.CA 91729-0548 Phone 909.948-1662X Toll Free 500-576-t lyt Fax 909.948-1349 TOTFL P-02 April 8, 1998 � n3oc�o Diu"�c� G�•`i p�at`o'�9 Dan Coleman Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Proposed Hollywood Video Archibald and Baseline Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear Dan: As the proposed tenant for this building, we have been informed that there is a potential issue with obtaining 24 inch Hollywood and 18 inch Video lettering which is identical to the store at Etiwanda and 1-l5. Because the building is 7,000 square feet, two signs of anything less would be very disproportionate and not adequate identity. We hope you will consider the above signage. Hollywood Videos real estate committee has decided not to move ahead with the site if your city finds our signage unacceptable. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, &resident be Western Zone HOLLYWOOD VIDEO 10300 SW Allen Boulevard 50 ).g77 1'a00 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 BBf�Q 'o`'i-- ,3i Certified Mail April 6, 1998 R c C i V N. Beth Ray Revocable Trust qp? - $ 1998 Dated February 12, 1992 4750 Hobby Horse Lane Skiatook, OK 74070 City of Rancho CUC :rcr;a (918) 396-1397 Plannir.0 D:vi,irn (918) 396-1398 (fax) Mr. Dan Coleman Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Development Review # 98-04 Dear Mr. Coleman: Prior to purchasing subject parcel we performed an extensive due diligence survey with regard to restrictions, or possible restrictions, on the property resulting from zoning, restrictive covenants, ordinances, development agreements, etc. One of our primary areas of focus was signage, and in our research we discovered several facts which led us to certain conclusions. (1) The city's sign ordinance allows 24 inch high letters on signs. (2) The development agreement in place for subject parcel, which was quite old, called for 18 inch maximum letters. (3) Former tenant, Stop and Go, had been allowed 24 inch letters. Given this information and the additional facts that the building which would be allowed on our site would be several times larger than either Stop and Go or any of the other existing tenants, thus logically necessitating larger letters if for no other reason than aesthetics, and further that the development agreement in place was so old and outdated as to effectively render it obsolete, we concluded that any prospective tenant or user of our pad would have no problem in obtaining permission to erect signs which met city code. Much to our surprise and dismay we have been informed that this is not the case. We believe that any reasonable person would agree that the proposed tenant, Hollywood Video, has literally bent over backwards, if you will, to accomodate the city in affecting architectural modifications which the city feels are necessary; however, Hollywood Video has informed us that they simply cannot live with the city's onerous stance with regard to 18 inch sign letters. As the owner/seller of the property, we are experiencing a financial loss of approx- Dan Coleman Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga April 6, 1998 imately $5,000. per month for each month the property remains unsold. (It is in escrow for $500,000. and our carrying costs, or loss of interest plus taxes, POA dues, liability insurance, etc., are approximately 1% per month.) If your department's position with regard to the 24 inch sign letters remains implacable, 1 respectfully request that this letter in its entirety be presented to the Rancho Cucamonga Design and Review Board for inclusion into the minutes of its meeting scheduled for April 14, 1998 and that we receive a copy of those minutes. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments. Very truly yours, - N. Beth Ray Revocable Trus Dated February 12, 1992 Bjer S and & Co-Trustee C Stout DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count June 2, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 -VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE LEWIS HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 533 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site, and a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site pin, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 533 single family homes in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre, respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. Background: The project was reviewed by the Committee on May 5, 1998 at which time the Committee requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review. The following is a list of the Committee's concerns and how Lewis Homes has addressed them: 1. Reduce the dominance of the garages on the street scape. This should include expanding front porches and bringing porches out in front of garages, add patio courtyards to entries and front porches (include pilasters, hard scape, wrought iron fencing to frame courtyards), textured driveway treatment (take advantage of steepness of driveways/tile towards street), increase front yard landscaping, use sectional garage doors with windows. Front yard setbacks proposed to vary between 18 and 25 feet, sectional garage doors with color enhancements (with intent to not provide same garage door design on adjacent homes) are proposed, and a minimum of two of the four following upgrade enhancements are proposed for each lot: a) Expanded front porch. b) Patio courtyards with masonry walls/picket fences. c) Enhanced front yard landscaping. d) Enhanced hard scape treatment for driveways and walkways. 2. Increase level of detail on side and rear elevations, especially those elevations visible from streets and school/park sites. This should include color changes between first and second floor levels, provide key elements from front but not limited to elevations on side and rear, provide more substantial trellis structures in rear yards and provide more homes with trellises. Window surrounds for second story windows proposed on all homes and surrounds plus shutters for second story windows of all homes visible from streets. Proposing upgraded trellises on 2/3 of the homes backing onto perimeter streets and half the interior lots. 3. Increase the area of the decorative paving within the gated entry areas. Lewis Homes is not proposing to increase decorative paving in gated entry areas. Staff recommends that the gated entry areas receive increased decorative paving given that these are the main points at which the project connects to surrounding community. 4. Provide gates for access to park site from rear of lots adjacent to park. Lewis Homes proposes such access gates as an option for home buyers. DRC COMMENTS TT 15072 - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 2, 1998 Page 2 5. Prefer installation of park improvements at earliest possible phase of home construction. Lewis Homes intends to construct park as early as possible. 6. Not necessary to provide signs at neighborhood entry points with name of neighborhood. No neighborhood signs are proposed. Lewis Homes is open to any specific suggestions the Committee or staff may have for neighborhood entry design. 7. Recommend eliminating third elevation and replacing with upgraded street scape design features as recommended above. Third elevation eliminated, added upgraded street scape features per Item 1 above. - 8-. Incorporate lettered lot open space (remnant parcels) areas into home sites. Lettered lots have been eliminated with exception of Lot "E," which is a private open space/park site near the center of the project and Lot "G" next to Lots 399 and 412, which remains for no apparent reason. Staff recommends incorporating Lot "G" into adjacent lots. 9. Prefer service station over replacement with homes. Revise street layout per staffs recommendation if site is replaced with homes. 10. Revise Lots 122 and 230 to be better oriented relative to adjacent intersection/avoid having driveways so close to street intersection. For Items 9 and 10, lot layout has been revised in service sation site area and throughout project to avoid having driveways too close to street intersections. Otherlssues: While not specifically discussed at the meeting, staff recommends the following items also be addressed: 1. Provide special landscape treatment for the main interior spine street, street sides, exterior streets (Base Line Road, Rochester Avenue, Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View). 2. Create sizable and usable landscape nodes that are interlinking with the green ways, park, school, and open space. 3. Provide a hierarchy and uniformity of decorative walls - exterior streets, interior main spine streets, corner side streets, etc. Lewis Homes is of the opinion that these items are already adequate!y addressed and that no changes are,needed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project as revised and with the above recommendations. Attachments: DRC COMMENTS TT 15072 - LEWIS HOMES DEV. CO. June 2, 1998 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Buller) reviewed the project and recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the following: 1. Park construction must occur at earliest possible time. Staff shall prepare a condition of approval which ties park construction timing to issuance of building permits and/or occupancy similar to what has been required of other large tracts with parks. Committee suggests completion of park construction no latter than issuance building permits for 150th home baring any City imposed delays. _ 2. Provide enhanced paving throughout entire gated entry areas for all three entry points. Intent is to provide high quality appearance relative to surrounding public streets. 3. Revise gate design for gated entry areas to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4. Continue specialized wall treatment in gated areas out onto public street frontage to further enhance entries. 5. All homes shall either have enhanced front porches per plans or front yard courtyard areas surrounded by low wall and/or low picket type fence. LEWIS HOMES NUXNAGEMENT CORP. 1156 N.bloun[ain Avenue/P.O.Box 670/Upland,California 91755-0670 (909)935-0971 FAX:(909)956-7520 May 19, 1998 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGE REVISIONS Dear Brent: Enclosed please find ten development package sets of revised plans for Tentative Tract Map 15072 located in our Terra Vista project. Each package contains the following: I. Architectural plans showing elevations for the front, side, and rears showing porch and courtyard details. 2. Landscape architectural drawings including the main entry gate and elevation details, neighborhood entries, large village common area exhibit, typical front yard street scenes at selected locations throughout the project site, typical neighborhood cross sections, and the landscape easement buffer of the comer gas station site on the Baseline Road/Rochester Road intersection. 3. Engineering drawings including Site Utilization Map and Area Development Map, Tentative Tract Map 15702, Site Plan, and Conceptual Grading Plans. We have revised the Site Plan and Tentative Tract Map to include residential lots to the intersection of Baseline Road and Rochester Avenue. This map yields 545 residential lots. Included as an alternate plan, with a Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan, and Conceptual Grading Plan is a plan allowing for a gas station at the comer of Baseline Road and Rochester Avenue. Included with the engineering package is a driveway exhibit showing typical slopes of Mr. Brent Le Count May 19, 1998 Page 2 driveways for various site conditions. The proposed dropped garage alternative will allow us to keep driveway slopes at ten percent or less throughout the project. Attached is a listing of changes made to the project plans for the community that have been incorporated to address Design Review comments from the May 5, 1998 meeting. We appreciate your assistance with this project and look forward to presenting our revised project to the Design Review Committee on June 2, 1998. Sincerely, LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. Gl T. Crosby Project Manager GTC:kjw\024RC enclosure Tract No, 15072 Terra Vista Independence May 19, 1998 Revisions to Address Design Review Concerns A. Dominance of garages on streetscene I. Varied front setbacks from I8-25' 2. Expanded front porches standard as shown on elevations 3. Added patio courtyards with masonry walls/picket fences standard as shown on elevations 4. Added variety of driveway upgrade treatment/pattems 5. Added variety of entry walk locations and upgrade treatment/pattems 6. Added enhanced frontyard landscape packages-standard to complement each elevation 7. Added sectional garage doors with varied window patterns 8. Added aarage door color scheme variations Lewis will guarantee: Every individual home will receive 2 of 4 streetscape enhancements from the following: 1. Front porch 2. Courtyard 3. Enhanced Landscaping 4. Upgraded hardscaping-driveways/walks treatment/pattems These elements are arranged into complementary packages that will be a standard for a particular Elevation designed to provide variety and interest in the streetscape as a collection. Lewis will guarantee: Garage door variety so that no 2 houses side by side will have the same exact standard garage door. B. Detail on side and rear elevations 1. Added side elevation fury-outs with different stucco colors-exposed to public view 2. Added side elevation accent shutters on selected windows-exposed to public views 3. Added enhanced sill detail and shutters at second floor rear elevations-exposed to public view 4. Added more trellises at selected rear elevations along perimeter streets 5. Added several trellis designs for variety and to create useable patio areas Lewis will Guarantee: Trellises will be standard for 2/3 of the homes exposed to public view on the perimeter streets. On interior lots trellises will be standard for every second house at downhill lots where an adjacent Uphill lot overlooks the rearyard. C. Gates for access to park from rear of lots adjacent to the park I. We agree and will offer this to the buyers at their choice. D. Siteplan issues 1. Incorporated lettered lot open space parcels into residential lots 2. Revised residential lot layout over the gas station area 3. Revised lots 122 and 230 to better integrate with neighborhood 4. Revised street layout to meet Engineering Dept concerns E. Driveway,grades 1. Alternative garage plan will reduce driveway slopes to 10% or less DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:40 p.m. Brent Le Count May 5, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15072 - VILLAGE OF INDEPENDENCE LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A subdivision of 90 acres of land into 533 single family lots, a 1.3 acre private open space lettered lot, a 1.3 acre future service station site,.and- a 5 acre public park site; and the design review of building elevations, site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan for the construction of 533 single family homes in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts (4-8 dwelling units per acre and 8-14 dwelling units per acre respectively) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-35, 36, and 37. Background: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Pre-Application Review on July 23, 1997, and by the Design Review Committee (conceptual only) on August 19, 1997. The minutes from both meetings are attached for reference. The Commission toured the Independence project under construction in Irvine in September of 1997. _ Design Parameters: The 533 homes would be organized into four "neighborhoods" within the gated community. The neighborhoods will have access to a main spine street (Street A) with gated entrances on Mountain View Drive and Church Street and a third entrance off of Rochester Avenue. Street A includes a community trail. A five acre future public park site is proposed at the western edge of the site next to an existing elementary school. A 1.3 acre private open space/park area is proposed roughly in the center of the project. Lewis' design intent is to provide "individual scale and diversity, capitalizing on streetscape (different species of street trees) to convey an identifiable image and character" for each of the four neighborhoods. Three of the neighborhoods are proposed to have three different plans each with three alternative front elevations with floor areas ranging between 1,500 square feet and 2,948 square feet. The fourth neighborhood is proposed to have two different plan types each with two alternative front elevations. These would be large homes with 3,345 square feet to 3,683 square feet of floor area. The project has been designed with the "innovative" development standards of the Terra Vista Community Plan which allows certain flexibility in lot size, setbacks, etc., in exchange for provision of upgraded design methods. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The various home designs have a boxy appearance with minimal visual interest and variation from home to home. All homes are proposed to have front-on garages which tend to dominate the streetscape. Provide increased variation in plane and visual interest. Front entries and porches should all have significant depth (such as Plan 519). Side and rear elevations should be further articulated to avoid singular, flat stucco walls. Suggest use of differing color schemes to visually identify the various neighborhoods. 2. The service station use will have a significant impact upon adjacent homes. Provide a substantial physical buffer between the service station and proposed homes. This would likely involve pulling the cul-de-sac bulb for Street N westerly, away from the service station site. 3. Note the attached annotated excerpts from the Terra Vista Community Plan Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Guidelines. Marked items are those staff feels are deficient in the project. DRC COMMENTS TT 15072 - LEWIS DEV. CO. May 5, 1998 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. Limit the number of.steep (in excess of 10%) driveways to provide more useable drivew-@7- - area. Note that the City's Residential Design Guidelines suggest provision of a minimum of 18- foot area in front of garages of no more than 5% slope. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Revise gate designs at entry points for Street A to allow public access to trail along Street A. Otherwise, the trail cannot function as a link between Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue per the Terra Vista Community Plan. 2. River rock veneer shall consist of real or natural river rock cobble as opposed to a - ' manufactured product. Other types of rock veneer (i.e., slate, etc.) can be manufactured product. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back before the Committee prior to being forwarded to the Planning Commission. Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes dated July 23, 1997 Design Review Comments dates August 19, 1997 Excerpts of Residential Design Guidelines of Terra Vista Community Plan and Citywide Residential Design Policies Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project and requested that the project be brought back before the Committee with the following changes: 1. Reduce the dominance of the garages on the street scape. This should include expanding front porches and bringing porches out in front of garages, add patio courtyards to entries and front porches (include pilasters, hard scape, wrought iron fencing to frame courtyards), textured driveway treatment (take advantage of steepness of driveways/tile towards street), increase front yard landscaping, use sectional garage doors with windows. 2. Increase level of detail on side and rear elevations, especially those elevations visible from streets and school/park sites. This should include color changes between first and second floor levels, provide key elements from front but not limited to elevations on side and rear, provide more substantial trellis structures in rear yards and provide more homes with trellises. 3. Increase the area of the decorative paving within the gated entry areas. 4. Provide gates for access to park site from rear of lots adjacent to park. 5. Prefer installation of park improvements at earliest possible phase of home construction. DRC COMMENTS TT 15072 - LEWIS DEV. CO. May 5, 1998 Page 3 6. Not necessary to provide signs at neighborhood entry points with name of neighborhood. 7. Recommend eliminating third elevation and replacing with upgraded street scape design features as recommended above. 8. Incorporate lettered lot open space (remnant parcels) areas into home sites. 9. Prefer service station over replacement with homes. Revise street layout per staffs recommendation if site is replaced with homes. 10. Revise Lots 122 and 230 to be better oriented relative to adjacent intersection/avoid having . driveways so close to street intersection. While not specifically discussed at the meeting, staff recommends the following items also be addressed with revised plans: 1. Provide special landscape treatment for the main interior spine street, street sides, exterior streets (Base Line Road, Rochester Avenue, Church Street, Terra Vista Parkway, and Mountain View). 2. Create sizable and usable landscape noes that are interlinking with the green ways, park, school, and open space. 3. Provide a hierarchy and uniformity of decorative walls - exterior streets, interior main spine streets, corner side streets, etc. CITY OF RANC'1`0 C1IJ--At\A0NGA 7"77L �, PII,NIVI.\'G CODAi`:!iSSIOIV 191:VUT=S Adjourned d:i?eting July 23, 1,.o7 Chairman Barker celled the Adjourned Nleetln0 of the City of Rancho CUc=mcncn Planning m Comission to order 2t 9:15 P.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucanong2_ Civic Center, 105CO Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, C211fornia. ' ROLL CALL COININIISSIOINERS: PRESENT: David Barker, V%i:i:am Bethel, Rios NlZcias, Peter Tolstoy ASSENT: Larry/ I`.,IcNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City ?Ia,^n? , Dan Coleman, Pr,,. pal Planner. Dan James, Senior Civil =ncineer =:,y .BUSIiN SS =R=-APPLICATION REVIEW 97-07 - L=N/iS D_`J=1 O? :i=t'T CO - Tha revi=`: of conceptual ol2ns for the Vill=oe of Independence `ril in the Terra Vista Plann?d Community, consisting of 5=1 dv.elling units on 34 acres of 12nd, IOC2,ed Sppih of Ease Line Road, :•/est of Rochester %,venue, north of Ch'J(CIl Stree;. and _east of Teen-- bist2 Park:: 2y cgs; and Mountain Vie%v Drive. ?_ -ante , City Planner, ex.olai, the ?�;;,ose 2n _coals o: ;vie ?r_ olic2;ion R=vie`.v orocess. =: '_p'/, L_.:.5 JoimeS Cave 2 ese^,ia:ion o: a._ vi flee_ Coi^•ce_o:. n_ rovite 2 si=iisficel analysis _. ..._ village coneepi compared ;o :hree m'_'It -f2nily praj?ca v...iun Terre `/isle. Col?man, Princioa! PI=nner Comm?n:?d Upon ;, o:•_. all ccnze_oi. .�e i,die=.ed i,l2t staff .e!t .'.a. ;he applic2�nt was on the right i.a_., and aoprecia:?„'ill? benefl;s of being able to plan for an village all at once as opposed to traC:-by-trect re iiew, r.e 5(ai?� a at the O'/?2!I concect via5 sound, particularly the four distinct neighborhood units arranged along a central circulation spin=_. .:? indicated that the m2jor Issue is the lend use compatibility of iii2 gas station. n_ explained that ..._ concegt plan pro•.^.0525 2 local interior residential 5tree_t across m05t of the common Property line •• .0 !ne gas Station and that only i.-.,o lots `would share a common prop-21-1y line. He noted ;hat during Commission's Broth=el delibe2Ga-is regarding ;he s!=item, they? `.vas gr?at concern wifh buffering es:�enees from this Intense eomm-rci2l use vnth ds 2..enbant t2fAc, noise, glare, and loitering. Ie ?d that u7 to 50 feet of andscape 'oUrier /as discussed bet%veen the planned 2pariment5 and ti,_ _c5 s 2lion. =;e said that tit_ buy?r'%:as no: Ede" e In !ne vi112ae concept plans. ? Iden tlfled the g!!Or:ing minor Issues that Si2ff fe!t co'Jld be a' c , . ddresseC• tnroua.n t„e continued refinement of the •village Concept plans. Site ?Ian/Circulation 2 The central soiree needs kirtiner siUCy to ad�:ess red?'o,'!ai? sieiu lines on the inside of the curve. The .vest sloe o: in? sc (aa type _ :n 2 7 i0a: sld?':J21'r.. p, tin? villa _ common IS su.rO'J.._e, py s*-- - s and i123 m'J I''C1? Ini_:52cilCris In c!OSe proximity v. ;cah Is a ..,.0 saf?iV co'G?rn. ._.1_ staff SUg-g?5:?•d ?Ii.-ninai:n`o iron!-On lots on ul? Sir?a. ..?St of .�._ __..,.,-3.-, to =._._ _:?i?(5 ..a=... O'_: of d(t`r?..ays onto Sire?t nee: ic.ar5?_dgn5. " � -. C. PIOitf.-a c, units aoceers i0 J? Very LmTOrm vii ;h __ Min it::u,-7 18 root or;ve•;)=_v. Tn= i,i en: was to Cr_ai? 2 Variety Oi iiOrr ,aft shapes 0: ve.'led se,becks. 2. Park - The pa:!< Concept Nas last revie'•'Ied by t..e far;( 2nd rare=_`ion Commission in 1990. City requirements i"Or cenaln park ie3:ur_es nave changed. Or example, a 90 i00t baseball iHid, f'Jil cou- bas::etb211, and at least 27 parking sozzes should be OrOVlded. Since this Is the last park within e:72 Usia,'an anal,Isls of p2r;` and dedication for the entire O12nned c0 mmunity is needed and ad;ustments to park acre=age as necess=ary. 3. Architecture - 2. The elev=ations are not consistent with Lewis' stated intent "that each neighborhood area express lis own unique C1har2cter`.lhich could Include 2 variety Or architactur2l styles and scale." A!1 Oi the houses appear i0 be the same architectural style. b. AN of the ,fuses are bulky 2 story with straight : ells . may overwhelm the street. C. Eight o'J, Or the nine floor plans h2`:a the caraze in tie same location `.Vhich is closest to tn? str_e.. The garages `.i:il CCmInat? the d. Jio_ and (?2, efeva,lons need -.cnitec;ural :•__.,,,en;. In sOfmi_ cases lilere Is no teat')•° than a small %:^ndo:v or tv:o on a side ?!_.=_,ion to br_a., up the str=aight 2 story w211s. The plans should provide 350 degree Develo?men; Standards - The proposed concept is consistent ':JiG the existing standards exceot for on? -rcduct ,vh;ch is proposed :viii a 3,000 scu-re :oot minimum lot area; whereas. ,he_ Terra Vista Community ?Ian currently r2eci as a 3,5O0 squat? tact minimum 10 2(ea. 23'.:e,d •...._. _ the . .. Co!?.f.an f?ci;?- ;hat the .,ail •.:iii Conti'-_ afOw^._ ,h? vifinge from the terminus .. vr_.:...a Trai! east_ , aic-, Terra Vis:2 Pa..t-vey C.-:,.cri S moo-' - 2r. c_. .e! a> :_ :'. a. „ _ of ._,f_Ln'_ .__'! be ?ro':i_?_ alb ;he school and DUIIer replied t„at 5 fCOt block wails are sizndard; hOV:?v?r. In s0•^e cases z combination or 10:'+ .:alt5 '.itn wrouch; Con vlevi i2ncino nas been used near Public Loy Cld:cated :hat Len;s Is coil s ide ring instaiiin g=,=s ,o provide direct access for each ?o`::ner that b-z} s uo i0 the Oar::. m!s$IOn?r Ma-:as inquired 2bout :hat poky ex:s's regarding gated communities In terms Of unction. loc2:!on, and CornOat:011lty. 5Ulle, exOl2S^9 ' !h2t In the pest It :/3$ _.nsld--reJ In200rc rla:_ for 10 acre In-till sites by no, -_=Pd nei hborh0c,45, _. _7'_:- _e °zpr0oriat_ larce,r sites. He stated that a..2 �:IS!a has One ex6ttng ca:ed cOrnm'_n . ih? _.... _: 0 na .?.7 .:._-u and ?ase Line Ro2d. !,ne Co:rrLT,:Ss:On that :.f? "'$ i✓9.f_. al Plan encourages flexibility -,_".misiicn?r Ilia_:a5 i°_lt 3.=_ �., uTUnl!y =Onc e.^,t. .? 2%Or 25sed a desire co,mm,'_rL'•y. .?.: t,-ai t.-i5 y ? CO('fm :::(;! is a .., s!`:e !a:'ld 'JS? m?Ch 2nlsm. ,',_ 5� '..f ?n Lf bold be b.,.... -- 5 _7. ,:rIY 23, I �07 IM'ir. 3uNer i 20lied 'n_2: the 'pubilc p2r:< o"I25ing V/OUI C_ tied to Occ'uoer Cy release of 2 cerialn, as Vei i0 be determined, number Ci no'J se s. ColmmisslCner thoucht the par:< should be built in the firs! phese 2s 2 concession 'Or gat?d community. asked hov/ the vill-=;e construction ::;II be Ohanems. ,Mr, Loy indicated that no decisions have been mada by Lewis r___,ding phasing; however, they ..ill probably Initially offer 211 four housing products. _Commissioner Nlaci=_s agreed with stair's concerns regarding the gas station land use compatibility and buffering. H2 stated that the architecture is not impressive_. He said the elevations appear interchangeable. 'plain. He felt that the over2ll village impression is f=vorable. He indicated confidence that the same_ qu21ity can be achieved `.vithout g_iing the community. Ernie_ Gorrill, Le.:is Homes, indicated that the elevations were French and Italian INledite_rr2nean style. He stated that textural variations could be Included to distinguish the products. ComRllss;oner 3?:eel said the' he _=creed `..Itn star;s Concerns regarding circulation conflicts around ..P_ villa^ye commons. He 2s.'<ed ./hen it v/ouio be b'J!iiy Loy replied i 2t Phasing had not b=2n C3L]'mined ye,. Sian Bell, Le`•vis .orn=s, IndD_cled the( It s.Ill p:oo201y be v%I:nin fir s: or sezond oh2s2. COmrnlssioner Be.n?i stated that the village commons h2d 00tentlel danger of children chasing bells r:i5ng out onto streets. He fall that the gas st='ion '::ould hinder sales cf nee.-by lots. He questioned -0%v a cgs siai!on `::ould be buifer]_d. r-e_ observed that the s ree!scene v.,ould be nothing but _a:a-e doors. -._ .:as ConC?mod 2 Oui the seo2ration of homes ircm Ine school and park. 'He S21d ..e it:•;°_� L.°_ sepa:2.2 Ineignoo:aoods .,_,-Im,issioner 7c!s:oy state: :n2t flexibility is imppRafd. ..e supper ed ca:i,^c ine commw^,ity. .:a1:2:3d !h2 ..e 5:er .=�`/?.-�U2 5:1:Uld c°_ coy-:7:2:°_d frO�T 325° Lin �Rc)2d to Foothill, Boul_.c._ ..'::h :-is c=_velo_-._.,.. s2,j ..2s 03SOSed to ] Z:25 sia:ion `.,,,.. .,._ con,.eot as 'p r=esented in&d?pU2ie J_(f?.1,1g °_ stated th2t the oubli: oar:•: sho'u'ld be built in :.._ earliest ohases 2,d O12. :h? CO.-. =_.2i;On m2y Cn2 ce t0 I��__. C;:'/'s l2.°_SI _.'li°_(I?. r .?it that !n2 product v%- c5 c22g2 door Issue Is 2dd:ess]_d. ne 5ugges:ed t_: side entry garages tote _ .Cs Sbility. He 5=:ec than treatment on all sides of ill_ houses Is e_Xtremely _?Cause_ of proximity to neighbors' homes, eeven ..hen not visible from the street. He saw the vil12ce :O.hpept as 2 grea! epponunity for an 2 @ernalive to the ap2nnents and con-dcminiuns that could be a_.a on this site. =_ ]expressed concern `..ith poterii2l for Le%vis ;-,or-?s to aft?m?t transferring fibs .:SGy some %, . _ else ..IL1in Tena Vista. r_ q'Jestion2d `::hat the solution might be. He w25 -'cased that the or:Meat does not Include auto cou.is O__ause h_ Ielt neighbors Sh2ring a Common does no: vtor%. _..airman 32r%e: L^.:,c3:?d !n2t It !:'as manta'jry i^2I I °.na use ail tae:' design skills, panicularl'i ... tie architecture. '.) 2c.aess the Com TllSsion'5 COQ,:_rn5 •..ah I_ small lot oroduct. He Stated the' .-.= liked the vil!2ge common 2s a cOOd focal ocin; the o.-;fry st2i?m°ant S, and h2 ability E7 pr=hensibly a., this I?f _ 0: ar :2t_]' tali Ae% •?:1Cing has not always b°_'_.i ___:c5sful 2lo�lg O__i:C par:•: _ages,b'ut to 2t he sU:pCns :P I-?2, c5 `..e!I as Isle Use Oi gates I�^.:o e2-I _2_--kyard. ,:e said ;hat n2 '..25 n..' O'poCSed to 2 _as s!2dOn, but Ina: l.�2 deslon must mitlg_._ : ? Compat:Clllt/ a:._ bUffeflno ;.ssue5. ._ tali flat papa,_ -CCfs ShOCid not comina!e the streetscene =_ncouraced (I la acpl!c2n! io offer C.=2ii'/e z.-.S. ,-,a _x.7—sset stn small lot arc? 2.._ hovy units `..ia i.., He inC._a.?_ ..._. a..cntion shoL!d be 0 to d?SiOr�inC !h? sif==ts SO t c'y aon•i app°_?' as a pa:%Iirg lot. .-.? r°_=Cmrn°_^dad ]C:I !n the ns e2rly 25 Possible. :2 l_ndsc2olll_ _JnC_o: is c_3_. ]ugh=]:__ 25 C..I'vliina2. ^f `;/2i:•;5 2nC a... cliff 5.e..a.j ..a...cc.. p;S. .c _ao.T�.;Ic.�_e.i that!he IOC: orcd'JCts be disil.^icy. In their des;c ii, yet not cl2si�ln .' He si=i°_= i"at tr=;;s should b°_ use-'Ul and ' Identi!12ble. 'H= IndlCated that. I_2::'Is ,-tomes inns a c=d r°OUi3i2on as c Orooer-ty Rl=n.O,( and it.. mooed tiney would Use that experience In setting up a ..om 20'.%ne:s =ssocl=lion:­He stated that th°_ village must be tite ihighest stend=rd of quality possCle. Conmiss;oner I Olscoy indicated ihat one of ;he best f_c._'cs of t:nis village Is Its large Size. He said that ine 'Nas not opoosed to a gas stallon, but Couldn't see how I: •.%;ll be buffered. He recommended tihai each oroduct neighborhood should be noticeably differe.n,. ,,-.e suggested entry signs. n_ recommended that porches be large enough to be functional. - _- Commissioner Bethel stated he would prefer the village to app =r as a single neighborhood. Fie explained the important=_ of providing architectural treatment =round all sides of the homes. stated he did not .-.,_=nt to see any flat rear elevations. ivlr. Loy requested Commission comments reg2rding tine proposed lot sizes. Ch=i;m=n Bark=_: ;_erred to a held trip of smell lot projects ihai ::._ Pianning Commission too',. in Orange County. n?said that he had not seen an'rhiny- Gnat suiilC:e:?iy =addressed the ConnUsion's concerns '.%fin sna!I lots. i e In-kated that ihe '..as ` a:^! COriC c::.c7 ,.oh sm_=Il lot sizes. °_ staie—I alai he woUld also be concerned '.%ith large homes b progo59d on s..m3il lots. '.4r. Buller ex?lain-: :Ma! nnly one h=:': of the '_rd:s '.%cu!d 0 on sma:! its . , ,= as:;ed :he Commission t.,a. . ens generally accent=bl=_. The Commission agreed that it v:as. Commissioner Betel asked 'no:v big the b=_cky=rds 2,re. . . C:7�r1!! :_ .c7 ._a. ..._._ be 15 ._2. ___, =_ 55 ..._... c. Igi. .-..-m..miss:cne. - yard .-'_s,: s'..g.. as C'JfVi'. _..try '.0,.95. ...0 di:,eren np ...., el?menls. .._ _.......^.issl'?. __ __d to a.no.'._.- as C?S;_n evOk 3s v.-ere no ccbiiC cormm.en:s a. this time. '_Ci l?id iAdi%I I • ...37 P.m. - The ?.a.nniny^ Commission adjo'Jrn ed DESIGN REVIEW` C0N't�vfEN7S 5:OO p.m. Dan CJlen_., A"vusi 19. 1997 VILLAGE Of FNDEPEN-DENCE - LEW-IS DEV'=L01ME'N'T CO - The discussion of conceptal development plans for the Village of Independence niuhin the Tee,=_ Visa Planned Conmuni,:, consisting of 541 single fanuly dwelling units on S= acres of land, located South of Base Line Road, %ve, -- of Rochester Avenue, north of Church Street, and east of Te,,a Vista_ Park-way East and Vfountain View Drive. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, opened the meeting and sated Ghat Lettis Homes this meeting was a continuation of the dialogue t%ith the Planning CO=iss(On which sta„ed aiih the Pre-Aoplicaiion Review on July 23, 1997. P_t Lot', Lettis Homes, gave an Of the "%21Ue t0 CUS(One;” COnCe D( behind the Village o 1G_ependence. He espl='ned Lnai pan of the Concept Is iO 0-er a ^-'a: ' '1 _�_ .nO se ll1 i.^, Ohl�' i.f1O5- Ieat '-'.S Lne Oc, ei5 feels hate value. Buve-S can Choose f oin a !on_ list 0 ODiiJ:',S t0 InC Ilit?e or' nOi Ir1CIUde Cei,a_I-i -tt--i u-es or upgrades. Copies of literature ,om Independence ac 1l`es( it ine. L-On S ales, Lewis Hones, Indicated that In (heir In�eP—deuce '_( •a'es( Irvine project In iR8 TL'$iIR ---,B ine average DUyei has spent 515,000 On Ot:)i;0.15. COm.T.LSSioner Macias stated he needed to understand hots Ian Q:': COLIC mOv!R' ex(e1Oi ele VdilOns ine economic 'eall:!es Oi the project. ..... Gn.-'H• f etCij �fJ.^: ^.ie� il: Oi [%e lhdep°.n CenCe n( t.', esi -Fine. He invited the COmillssloriers to (OL'f their piodLC( in lnir.e to experience hots' (he value is refIeaed in CCh_- Interior s7aCes acid ie^tues. He Indicated L'Lai LTV v:e t!il!!ng (O eat Lne sides and fear O( is?eye nooses Cons Ui°lt t%iih ch1 it O--her DrojeCu In Ra:_i10 Cuca.0'._?_. 3UCa 2i R-ria USanc2, but G!d nJi t:1,( iO iesO:i IO heCO1C e%;Ors, sL'Cn as 707-OUis. He s_(ed tha_. Lett iS '.`:aj 7rOpos!ng t0 Upgrade ..._ iO :Mee-C the C OF Rancho Cucamonga s d'_s!gn 802!5, fnCiCd ng' .�A:a❑g a t,l tie"--(Ion (Plan C). '_. =xPanded color paleae. 3. La 0--r lot sizes. Trim around a!! «Mdov:s an side and rear elevations. ;.dd ng azciu(ecnLral details tO wont elet'ai1On5, S!Ql as SiOR' 0" once t'ene°_e r, COCbe15, and rail Lngs. Bra=' Eu!fe-. Cin' Plz per,su,m-marized L^.at the deVelOpei.:as ?Sl:Lng he Co, ission to embrace interior '.'2!L'e In exchange for txterior value. He as'%-2d the de Ce!Oper t0 I!lCS(rate Erie extenor shell ameniry par},age iO, Lne village. H-_ asked - n., _ 'l l!ag_. Jn..d Ii i:... Std° 2:1d rear elet'B t!Ons Dave a sense of ':a!ue? He noted that nO Options W_ O-e:ed in Wes: IP:LR°. Pe sl:22eSit� &2t L'1° Ge%eloper consider oFerina ex Ec for t:72-ade5. S-1 2!es said the v:ou!d 'pe v.illin� io of e. de . u o " snB Sri' e5 as 1.^. 07::0:^. De..°"Se nany hU':e-CS nflt_ COT,:?!SSIOnei!�/faClas Stated that he tOUld ha'de dI,:ICUIi'% aC"D(LID> !^:°-0- t'a!Ue lnSiead Of those deSlgn ill° Cizv lt'O'_IC normally r'.o U!Ce Oh ext°_-!o-. y _ Beth°! a "eed and Char h-_ `;:?; c0n.ceme^ atop n°1?:1OOrhoodi hecom!ng DRC COMMENTS LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. August 19: 1997 Page 2 NL-. Go-nll said that WAs Homes was not ask ng the Cii•; to violate their design policies. He explained how the Village concept was intended to create an innovative and un que project which emphasized the -. perimeter treatment. He said that since in Rancho Cucamonga the public could not drive through this gated community that addressed concerns about public views of design; hence, Lewis Homes felt that he project would be consistent with the City's 360 degree architectural treatment policy. Nor. Swales asked the Commission to identify a Lewis Homes project in Rancho Cucamonga, such as Renaissance, as a good example of 360 degree treatment for them to follow. Co-L.,issioner Ntacias indicated that _gates did not abrog=ate 4e dw elope- from comM ing % h the Cir:'s 360 degree archftec7wal treatment polio'. He asked in what phase the park would be built? NI.. Loy said than. it was too early In the process to idwQ: phasing; hov.:ever, indicated that it would be _cohst,ucted in the ea.-iier phases. Cominissioner Macias said that the Dare should be MR :S ;ady as Possible. i Isere was discussion about possible dates for a Co:=,fission tour of lr:d_°Dendence at West Irvine. The consensus %%as to call ail Plan_*ung Commissioners regardiin_g a four on a Saiurday mori ing in Septembe., _._:Sl': Sgwmbn: 6. The tour would return to Rancho Cucamon" at noon. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 2, 1998 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - 'Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned Shopping Center with Phase One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot restaurant (previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: Conditional Use Permit 95-25 was approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1997 for a master planned shopping center including two restaurants. The adequacy of the design guidelines were a key issue during the Planning Commission's deliberations. In an effort to move the project along, a condition of approval was added requiring: "A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include integrated architectural and landscape themes and examples of architectural styles for the shopping center, including but not limited to major tenant, in-line shops, and freestanding pad buildings, shall be prepared for review and approval of the Design Review Committee, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction, as shown on the Phasing Plan." The applicant is currently in plan check for the Burger King restaurant (which is within Phase One) and has prepared a Design Guidelines supplement for Committee review. Previous Design Review Comments: The Committee reviewed a draft of the Design Guidelines in April of 1997 (see attached minutes). The . Committee's comments were as follows: 1. The Design Guidelines should be more comprehensive, particularly to include greater amount of text explaining how the four proposed architectural styles and amenities relate to each other in the big picture (i.e. Thomas Winery, Klusman House and internally viewing the project as a whole). Staff Comment: Text was added to a section titled, "Project Design Goals" that states the relationship of the "combination of styles can easily be compared to a fruit bowl." The common elements which tie the project together are white stucco walls with red clay tile or simulated wood shake roofs, and accent elements (street furniture and hard scape). Mixing of such a diversity of styles presents design challenges. While diverse styles make work on pad buildings, staff is not convinced that the combination of styles works on in-line shop buildings (see Shop Building Sketch 2B). 2. A stronger sense of unity and a greater explanation should be provided to explain how the accent elements will provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness, yet provide variation within the overall theme. The Committee expressed concern with the lack of a unifying theme in the proposed street furniture and lighting fixtures. Staff Comment: The Guidelines indicate that water, planters, seating, pedestrian and parking lot lighting, and native river rock will have common color and shape to provide consistency. However, the "Site Furniture" and "Center Accessories" sections of the Guidelines show very dissimilar styles of benches and light standards, DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ June 2, 1998 Page 2 and a very modern-looking tubular bike rack all lacking a unifying theme. If different styles of architecture are deemed acceptable by the Committee (see comment #1 above), then different styles of street furniture may be appropriate. 3. Photographs and text on the Klusman House should be included to establish an important third example of potential architectural styles for pad buildings. Staff Comment: Photographs and some text on Klusman House, Rains House, and Thomas Winery are provided. The text for Rains House and Thomas Winery should state what style of architecture they represent. Also, the text should be expanded to more completely describe the elements, forms and materials which are characteristic of these styles of architecture (see attached example from Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan regarding Thomas Winery). The spelling - of Rains should be corrected. 4. The renderings are not based on the current Master Site Plan; do not accurately depict possible views of the future development. Current renderings of the project based on the current Master Plan should be included. Staff Comment: The renderings are the same; however, their image quality has deteriorated significantly. They appear to be copies made from copies, which has obliterated the details. The only difference in the renderings appears to be the addition of river rock base to columns Other Comments: 1. The Committee noted that the Design Guidelines would be critical to assuring the Commission that this project will be of a high quality for this important intersection. 2. Landscape Plan has no explanation of types of plant materials, accent trees, etc. Text and illustrations should be added to show how the on-site landscaping will work with the City's established landscape guidelines for Foothill Boulevard. 3. The Design Guidelines do not address signs; however, a Uniform Sign Program has been submitted under separate cover. The Uniform Sign Program does not illustrate how signs will be integrated into the different architectural styles proposed for the shop buildings. 4. The site plan diagram under "Center Accessories" should be corrected to switch the labels for #1 and #2 (incorrectly shows pedestrian light fixtures within parking lot). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Guidelines be revised and brought back to the Committee for further review. Attachments: DRC Comments dated April 15, 1997 DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ June 2, 1998 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Buller) recommends that staff initiate a condition modification for Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to allow issuance of building permits for Phase One (Burger King and Zendejas buildings) construction, prior to approval of Design Guidelines and that no building permits for Phase Two be issued until approval of the Design Guidelines by the Design Review Committee, The Committee made the following comments regarding the content of the Design Guidelines in addition to those identified by staff: 1. Applicant proposing "Fruit Bowl" of architectural styles which does not work on such a small site. Proposing combination of 3 architectural "styles" (i.e: Klusman House, Rains House, Thomas Winery) with different roof materials (simulated wood shake and Spanish tile) on a relatively small site without clearly defining how these styles will be combined. Architectural renderings don't appear to match master plan for site shown in the Guidelines. 2. Architectural options need to be more clearly defined. 3. Consider deleting Rains House style. Renderings do not show any concept examples of the Rains House architecture. Staffs opinion is that fired red brick does not mix well with the other two styles proposed. 4. Pad buildings adjacent to Klusman House should not compete with the scale and style of Klusman House. These buildings should be single story. 5. River rock columns do not work well with the Klusman Spanish Revival architecture and should not be used in areas immediately around and part of the Klusman House. 6. Will all patio furniture for outdoor dining areas have to match the proposed "Smith Hawkins?" What about umbrellas on larger tables? DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Steve Haves April 1=, 1997 DESIGN GUIDELI!`ES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-26 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for a proposed Master Planned Shopping Center with Phase One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,543 square foot restaurant. on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - A.PN: 207-211- 12 and 13. Background: This project has been considered on three separate occasions by the Planning Commission. Most recently reviewed by the Commission on March 26, 1997, the applicant requested a continuance to April 23, 1997 to allow the newly hired consultants on the project to prepare a Design Guideline - Supplement worthy of consideration by the Design Review Committee. The applicant's goal was to have the guidelines prepared in a timely manner to that a review could be completed by the Design Review Committee prior to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Staff Comments: At the time of comment preparation, the updated Design Guidelines Supplement had not yet been received by staff. Once the guidelines are received by staff, they will be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners and an oral presentation will be given by staff at the meeting. However, if the guidelines are not received in time for staff to provide a comprehensive review or the Design Review Conunittee ample opportunity to review the supplement prior to the meeting, this item will be held over to the next Design Review Committee meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Haves The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the Design Guidelines and the draft Uniform Sign Program as presented. The Committee noted that the revised Design Guidelines appeared identical to those presented to the Commission on March 26, 1997, except for two renderings, which were not based upon the proposed Master Site Plan. The Committee did offer the following comments relative to the two documents: 1. Design Guidelines: a. The Design Guidelines should be more comprehensive; particularly to include a greater amount of text, explaining how the four proposed architectural styles and amenities related to each other in the "big picture" (i.e., Thomas Winery, Klusman House and internally vie�ying the project as a whole). DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 RODRIGUEZ April 15, 1997 Page 2 b. A stronger sense of unity and a greater explanation should be provided to explain how _ the accent elements will provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness to the project, yet provide variation within the total overall theme. The Committee expressed concern with the lack of a unifying theme in the proposed street furniture and lighting fixtures. C. Photographs and text on the Klusman House should be included to establish an important third example of potential architectural styles for pad buildings. d. The renderings are not based on the current Master Site Plan; do not accurately depict possible views of the future development. Current renderings of the project based on - the current Master Plan should be included in the Design Guidelines. e. The Committee noted that the Design Guidelines would be critical to assuring the Commission that this project will be a high quality project suitable for this important intersection. 2. Uniform Sign Program: a. The Committee was concerned with the "boiler plate" approach to the program and noted that elements within the program would not "fit" with the specific architectural style shown for the Major Tenants and In-Line Shops by the renderings in the Design Guidelines supplement. Specifically, the Committee felt that the diagram for In-Line Shops could not work the with proposed architectural style because of the long; overhanging sloped roof element, which does not glee any exposed wall area above shops entrances. and the Sign Program indicates wall areas above shops buildings where wall sign could be provided. b. The Committee asked staff to provide the applicant with written comments. The Committee recommended that the Design Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program be revised and be rescheduled for Design Review Committee. i i. 9.4.4 9.4.6 Architectural Imagery Design Palette: As previously mentioned, the Thomas ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER Brothers Winery is the style determinant DETERMINANT: in this subarea. The main buildings at the Thomas Brothers Winery do not por- THOMAS BROTHERS WINERY tray "special" architectural features other than a grape arbor and multiple shed o Wall Materials: roofs. Investigations into the archi- tectural heritage of winery buildings Textured stucco, smooth stucco suggests that the structure is repre- Clapboard or board and batten sidinq sentative of the California Barn Style Vertical wood siding (see sketch) . The simple, clean lines of Brick the barn in profile provide an almost un- Cobblestone, river rock, fieldstone limited range of architectural expressions. The barn silhouette is universally recog- o Roofs: ni.zed as a symbol of the winery culture and is uniquely suited to serve as the Cable, hip, and shed roofs primary architectural prototype for this Pitch - 3:12 to 6:12 subarea. Wood shingle Slate Repeated use of building materials, color, Metal (colored earthtones) and basic architectural elements, can be expanded so that proposed buildings can be designed in harmony with the basic o Accents: contextual "feel" of the winery. Vine arbors, covered walkways 9.4.5 Roof overhangs over entries Landscape/Streetscape Imagery Multi-lighted windows Porches The concept within the activity center Exposed rafter tails area is to incorporate a formal, regularly spaced street tree planting system o Scale: utilizing an Informally shaped, colorful street tree palette. The trees are to be One to two stories with towers, planed 30 feet on center and are to pergolas, campaniles. placed between two to five feet inside the property line (see illustrations Section o Colors: * 8 .3.2) . White to off-white Beige, sand, warm earth tones Pastels with primary color accents * These color ranges are only examples and are only encouraged to be utilized. �m� DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 9:00 P.M. Rebecca Van Buren June 2, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. Design Parameters: The subject site is a 40-acre site bounded to the north by the future Route 30 Freeway and to the south by Rancho Cucamonga High School. A single family tract backs up to the site on the west and a flood control retention basin is due east (across Rochester Avenue). The main entrance to the subdivision will be from Rochester Avenue, with a secondary access along Highland Avenue. The site slopes from north to south. There are 70 trees on the property, including scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, Walnut, of which 56 are heritage trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. All are proposed by the developer for removal. Background: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on April 28, 1998 and directed the applicant to address the design concerns of"de-emphasizing" the garage and providing additional enhancements on side and rear elevations facing streets. The Committee requested that revised plans be submitted for their review. The Committee also agreed that freeway sound wall issues would be deferred and that the tree in the rear yard of Lot 37 may be removed with mitigation. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently with staff in revising his plans to address the Committee's concerns. In reviewing the revised plans, staff found that the revisions are acceptable and there are no major design issues. The following summarizes the changes: 1. Elevations. a) Front entries have been brought forward and integrated into the courtyard element. b) Front porches are expanded in depth. c) A trellis element has been added to the front elevation of two of the six plans. d) Roll-up sectional garage doors with a variety of window patterns are included on all plans. e) Decorative driveway treatment is included on all lots. f) Horizontal trim feature and chimney paneling have been added to enhance side elevations. 2. Site Plan has been revised at Staff's request to pair more driveways on north/south streets. Additional landscape treatment is proposed in street corner knuckles where driveways are concentrated. DRC COMMENTS TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES June 2, 1998 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. Tree mitigation measures: Staff recommends that in addition to the typical front yard landscape scheme, a specimen tree (36-inch box) be installed in the front yard of each corner lot and entry- facing lot (Lots 101, 102, 110, and 111) to mitigate the removal of existing trees on site. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of the sidewalk and any walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti potential. Corner side yard walls should be shifted to provide a landscape area between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy. 2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block material. 3. Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme walls. Staff Recommendation: i Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 28, 1998 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Design Review Committee acknowledged the significant architectural revisions the applicant incorporated into the project since the first review on March 31, 1998. The Committee recommended- approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. The Landscape Plan shall be revised to continue the landscape palette in the slope area in the southwestern portion of the project adjacent to Lark Avenue, and, to enhance landscaping on lots at street corner knuckles where driveways are concentrated. 2 Garden and retaining walls extending into front setbacks shall have a decorative cap and an end pilaster or "square block" to provide definition. 3. Wood fence on southern side yards of Lots 143 and 159 shall be replaced with decorative block wall. The applicant agreed to the proposed tree removal permit mitigation and policy issues in the Design Review Comments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES. The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Village of Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. Design Parameters: The subject site is a 40-acre site bounded to the north by the future Route 30 Freeway and to the south by Rancho Cucamonga High School. A single family tract backs up to the site on the west and a flood control retention basin is due east (across Rochester). The main entrance to the subdivision will be from Rochester Avenue, with a secondary access along Highland Avenue. The site slopes from north to south. There are 70 trees on the property, including scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, Walnut, of which 56 are _ heritage trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. All are proposed by the developer for removal. Background: This project was reviewed as Pre-Application Review 97-12 by the Planning Commission on October 22, 1997, see attached minutes. The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on March 31, 1998 and focused on major architectural issues. Design Review Committee requested the applicant incorporate architectural revisions and enhance side and rear elevations, see attached minutes. There were other issues that time did not permit discussion, which should be addressed tonight. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Elevations have been enhanced to address issues identified at the last meeting. 2. Project entry streets were revised to replace curb adjacent sidewalk with landscaped parkways. Landscape opportunities at Rochester Avenue entry where sidewalks abut perimeter walls should be explored. 3. The freeway sound wall is an issue for this tract as well as other tracts along the corridor. Staff and developers are pursuing the matter with SANBAG and Caltrans in an effort to locate sound walls at the freeway shoulder where they will be most effective and minimize their height. 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 associated Tree Removal Permit requests removal of all 70 trees. One healthy tree, in particular, is worthy of preservation: a 40-foot tall Italian Stone Pine shown in the rear yard of Lot 37. This tree is a rare specimen of this size in the area. The preferred scheme is to preserve the tree in-place by redesigning the Tract. Redesign would eliminate cut or fill, or construction, within drip line of tree. The arborist report states that this tree cannot be relocated; therefore, any removal would require replacement with the largest nursery grown specimen available. 2. Lark Avenue has been modified to allow on-street parking. DRC COMMENTS TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES March 31, 1998 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of sidewalk and any walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti potential. Corner side yard walls should be shifted to provide a 5-foot wide landscape area between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy. 2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block material. 3. Bands of special paving should be incorporated into long driveways throughout the subdivision. 4.- Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment: Planning Commission Minutes dated October 22, 1997 Design Review Committee Minutes dated March 31, 1998 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) recommended the project be brought back to the Committee with the following revisions: 1. Elevations should be revised to "de-emphasize" the garage. This should be a comprehensive approach to include various techniques. For example, front porches should be expanded beyond the 6-foot depth shown. House plans without porches should be revised such that entry statements and courtyard features become more dominant. Garage doors should be upgraded architecturally (sectional steel doors with a variety of window patterns). Front yard landscaping exceeding minimum requirements and decorative driveway treatment will further this goal. 2. Side and rear elevations facing streets should have additional enhancements. 3. Additional details are needed to indicate the location of project boundary walls and landscape treatment along public streets, particularly where side yard retaining walls abut the sidewalk. Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) areas should be clearly indicated. 4. The Committee agreed that freeway sound wall issues would be deferred to a later date. 5. The Committee agreed that the significant tree in the rear yard of Lot 37 may be removed with mitigation that specimen size trees be used along entry streets. n DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS JUNE 2, 1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary