HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/09/01 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Rich Macias Nancy Fong
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker
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.
(Brent) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - INLAND CITIES CORP. - The
design review of detailed site plan, and elevations for an 18 lot subdivision on 3.84
acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the
east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street-APN: 201-
183-01.
7:40 p.m.
(Rebecca) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15875-LEWIS HOMES
-The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site
plan for 165 single family homes on 32.6 acres of land in the Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)and Low-Medium Residential(4-8 dwelling units per acre)zone
of the Victoria Community Plan, located east of Day Creek Boulevard, between
Highland Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-351-65; 227-393-01 & 02; 227-
401-78; and 227-091-41. (Continued from August 18, 1998).
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.
8:10 P.M.
(Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-45-MASI -
The development of three auto service buildings totaling 20,400 square feet on 2.23
acres of land within the Masi Plaza in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest side of Masi Drive and Sebastian
Way -APN: 229-011-56 through 60.
8:20 p.m.
(Tom) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-19 (MODIFICATION) - LUCKYS: The development
of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 68,355 square foot grocery/drug store,
two satellite buildings totaling 5,000 square feet each, and two drive-thru pads totaling
3,500 square feet and 2,500 square feet on 9.82 acres of land in the Community
Commercial District (Subarea 2)of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the
northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -APN: 207-102-03, 05,
08, 09, 15, 20, 21, and 49.
DRC AGENDA
September 1, 1998
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes
per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
t, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist It for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 27, 1998,at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center rive, Rancho Cucamonga.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Brent LeCount September 1, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509- INLAND CITIES CORP. -The design review of
detailed site plan, and elevations for an 18 lot subdivision on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson
Avenue and Banyan Street -APN: 201-183-01.
Background:
The 18 home subdivision and associated design review were approved by the Planning Commission
on April 22, 1992. The matter of time extensions for these approvals came before the Planning
Commission on August 12, 1998. The Commission approved a one-year time extension for the
Tentative Tract Map but deferred action on the Design Review approval to allow the Design Review
Committee to re-analyze the approval. This was in response to issues raised by neighbors to the north
of the project site related to blockage of views, privacy, and that there were new homeowners in the
area that were not involved in the public hearings when the Tract was originally approved. Attached
for the Committee's use are copies of previous Design Review Committee .action agendas and
Planning Commission minutes for the project. Also attached are reduced copies of the development
plans. Staff would remind the Committee that the issue of home plotting and views was thoroughly
addressed by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission, prior to granting approval in
April 1992.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff will update the Committee at the meeting of any changes or new information and provide a
recommendation.
Attachments
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Brent LeCount
The Design Review Committee (Rich Macias, Nancy Fong) recommended approval. The Committee
members visited the subject site and surrounding neighborhood, prior to the meeting. The Committee
observed similar conditions between neighboring homes in the area. The Committee was of the
opinion that the approved design review for the tract does not require revisions and adequately
addresses neighborhood concerns related to adjacency of two-story homes in a fair manner.
Commissioner Macias indicated for the record that he had not discussed the issue with his fellow
Committee member and Planning Commissioner, Larry McNiel, who was absent at the meeting.
The members of the public that addressed the Planning Commission at the August 12, 1998 meeting,
were invited to the Design Review Committee meeting. Mr. Robert Flores of 10121 Kemwood Court
(directly to the north of Lot 8 of TT 14509)was present. He stated that he was concerned that the lots
in the subject tract are not staggered relative to the existing lots in the tract he lives in directly to the
north, that he will have a view down into the living room of the home built on the lot south of his
property, and that this home is proposed to be located closer to the rear(north) property line than other
homes in the tract. The Committee indicated that the lot configuration is not unique to the subject tract,
that if anything, the burden of reduced privacy is on the home below the Flores property, and that the
approved design review includes a condition of approval requiring re-plotting of the home below the
Flores property as far to the south as possible to provide maximum allowable rear yard depth.
DEESIGN REVIEW COMM..ZNTS
6: 30 - 7: 00 Anna-Lisa August 22, 1991
ENVIRONtFNTAL ASSESSM:NT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - 9AAYOUN DEVELOP SNT
A residential subdivision and design review of 18 single family lots
on 3.84 acres of ' land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) , located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between ,
Wilson avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01.
Site Characteristics:
The site is surrounded by Low Residential to the north and south,
Low-Medium Residential to the east and Very-Low Residential to the
west. The site is currently vacant except for some native vegetation.
The site slopes to the north at approximately 6 percent. The applicant
is proposing 3 primary elevations with 3 variations of each style.
Staff Co=eats:
The Drimary ridge line for elevation 1A-C should be broken up for .
greater variation.
/2. The side and rear elevations appear flat for Plan 1 . The
V/ elevations should incorporate pop-out elements for greater movement
in building planes.
1 � The river rock detailing on the left side of elevation 13 provides
1� an abrupt transition between the gop-out window element and the
chimney to the left. The Committee should review the river rock
detailing for elevation 1B.
/4. The river rock and brick detailing on the elevations should be
revised to finish off at a logical point. In addition, the accents
should be carried around the chimney element and the rest of the
/ front elevation. ,
5. The roof line above the garage unit of elevation 2C should be
V redesigned. All that is visible is roofing material for 16-feet
�e rtically on the elevation.
�i.6. The elevations for Plans 2 and 3 appear to be almost identical in
roof lines, massing and detailing.
Site Plan
1 . Only 4 of the 18 units are or000sed to be single story. Plan 1C
should be incorporated into the plan to provide variation in the
streetscaDe.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
IT 14509 - BAAYOUN DEVELOPMENT \_
AUGUST_ 22, 1991
Page 2
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Wendy Valletta, Peter Tolstov, Brad Buller
Staff Planner: Anna-Lisa Hernandez
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended that the following
changes be made to the site plan, grading and architectural plans, and
that the project be reviewed again as a full item.
The Committee concurred wi*_h the attached staff comments dated
August 22, 1991 , and recommended to the applicant that these items be
incorporated into the clans.
Additional comments: in addition to those items recognized by staff,
the Committee recommended that the following items also be considered:
Site Plan:
1/ To maximize full potential for RV storage on all lots, the
Committee recommended that: a) the 10-foot side yards be kept free
�.� and -clear of items such as gas meters, chimneys, etc. The side
yards should also be widened where possible, to 12 feet, instead o`
10 feet (i.e. , Lots 8, 13, 14, 15 and 17 where the side yards are
slightly larger than required) ; b) a functional gate system,
consistent with the architecture should re_olace the solid return
wall _fencing, a solid material, i.e. , wood similar to the garage
doors.
\ 2 . Lot No. 5 should be flipped to "relate" to Lot No. 4 (similar to
/ the south side - units form a "u" shaped open space) .
((( /3. The side yard fencing on Lots 1 through 9 should be carried to the
northern property line to establish rear yard boundaries for those
units. A suggested material is wrought iron fencing.
I
U The fencing on the east side of Lot 1 should be of a permanent wall
structure to ensure privacy for the resident. In addition, the
material should match the project boundary wall.
5. The wall structure on the east side of Lot 18 should be eliminated
beyond the return wall structure in the front yard area.
DESIGN ?Z71ZN COM'4ENT5
TT 14509 - 3AAYOUN DEVELOcyEN;m ,
AUGUST 22, 1991
Page 3
J o. The use of a paving material (i .e. , interlocking pavers with
r concrete banding) along the drives would help to balance the widths
of the driveways with the massing of the buildings and the
landscaoe.
7. The return wall fencing between Lots 1-18 should be placed
approximately 10 feet from the front elevation of the structure.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7: 00 - 7: 30 Anna-Lisa November 21 , 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - BAAYOUN DEVELOPMENT
- A residential subdivision and design review of 18 single family lots
on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) , located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between
Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01.
Site Characteristics :
The site is surrounded by Low Residential to the north and south,
Low-Medium Residential to the east and Very-Low Residential to the
west. The site is currently vacant except for some native vegetation.
The site slopes to the north at approximately 6 percent. The applicant
is proposing 3 primary elevations with 3 variations of each style.
Background:
The project was previously viewed by the Committee (Vallette, Tolstoy
Buller) on August 22, 1991. At the last meeting, the Committee did not
recommend approval of the project and requested that the applicant
resubmit revised plans for their review addressing the Committee'.s
concerns. The Committee made the following comments:
Site Plan:
1 . The Committee concurred with staff on those issues identified on
the comments dated August 22, 1991. (See attached) and recommended
that those items be incorporated into the plans as described below:
a) The primary ridge line for elevation 1A-C should be broken up
for greater variation.
b) The side and rear elevations appear flat for Plan 1. The
elevations should incorporate pop-out elements for greater
movement in building planes.
c) The river rock detailing on the left side of elevation 1B
provides an abrupt transition between the pop-out window
element and the chimney to the left. The Committee should
review the river rock detailing for elevation 1B.
d) The river rock and brick detailing on the elevations should be
revised to finish off at a logical point. In addition, the
accents should be carried around the chimney element and the
rest of the front elevation.
e) The roof line above the garage unit of elevation 2C should be
redesigned. all that is visible is roofing material for
16 feet vertically on the elevation.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
IT 14509 - 5aAYOUN DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 21 , 1991
Page 2
f) The elevations for Plans 2 and 3 appear to be almost identical
in roof lines, massing and detailing.
g) Only 4 of the 18 units are proposed to be single story. Plan
1C should be incorporated into the plan to provide variation
in the streetscape.
In addition, the Committee recommended the following:
2. To maximize full potential for RV storage on all lots, the
Committee recommended that: a) the 10-foot side yards be kept free
and clear of items such as gas meters , chimneys, etc. The
sideyards should also be widened where possible, to 12 feet,
instead of 10 feet (i.e. lots 8, 13, 14, 15, and 17 where the side
yards are slightly larger than required) ; b) a functional gate
system, consistent with the architecture should replace the solid
return wall fencing, a solid material, i.e. wood similar to the
garage doors .
3. Lot no. 5 should be flipped to "relate" to lot no. 4 (similar to
the south side - units form a "u" shaped open space) .
4. The side yard fencing on lots 1 through 9 should be carried to the
northern property line to establish rear yard boundaries for those
units . a suggested material is wrought iron fencing.
5. The fencing on the east side of lot 1 should be of a permanent wall
structure to ensure Drivacy for the resident. In addition, the
material should match the project boundary wall.
6. The wall structure on the east side of lot 18 should be eliminated
beyond the return wall structure in the front yard area.
7. The use of a paving material (i.e. interlocking pavers with
concrete banding) along the drives would help to balance the widths
of the driveways with the massing of the buildings and the
landscape.
8. The return wall fencing between lots 1-18 should be placed
approximately 10 feet from the front elevation of the structure.
Staff Cowin nts :
Most of the Design Review Committee comments have been addressed. Items
19, 1e, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 have been incorporated into the revised
plans .
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 14509 - BAAYOUN DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 21 , 199 1
Page 3
1 . The overall massing of Plan 2 and 3 has remained the same. The
only change has been the him element on the front elevation of
Plan 3.
2. The river rock detailing on elevation 1B and 3B should be carried
all the way across the elevation.
3. The use of a paving material along the drives would help to balance
the widths of the driveways within the massing of the buildings.
On October 29, 1991 , a neighborhood meeting was held to get input from
all adjacent neighbors for the proposed project.
The primary concern has related to the obstruction of the view corridor
for those residents directly north of the proposed project. Staff notes
that this tract sits approximately 16-17 feet lower than the residences
to the north.
Design Review Codittee Action:
Members Present: John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Anna-Lisa Hernandez
The Committee approved the project with the following revisions to the
proposed plans:
1. All detailing materials (i.e. , brick, river rock, etc. ) should wrap
across the front elevation and onto the side elevations to
terminate at the return fences.
2. The "false louvre" elements above the garage structure on elevation
1A should be eliminated for "true" louvre elements. The final
design and detail shall be subject to Planning Division review and
approval.
3. The wood detail trim piece over the garage door on elevation 1A
should be removed.
4. The roof line of the bay window structure appears awkward on the
rear elevation of elevation 1 . The windows on the 45 degree lines
under the roof eaves should be eliminated.
5. Accent paving (i.e. , brick pavers, stamped concrete, etc. ) should
be added to the driveways to minimize and balance the widtin of the
driveways.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 14509 - BAAYOUN DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 21 , 1991
Page 4
In addition to the above-referenced revisions, the Design Review
Committee advised the applicant to hold a second neighborhood meeting,
prior to Planning Commission review, to address the view corridor issue
for those residents directly north of the proposed project.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
• • f t R
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - BAAYOUN DEVELOPMENT
-
A residential subdivision and design review of 18 single family lots on
3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) , located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue
and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and
indicated a petition had been received from the property owners to the west
opposing any density higher than Very Low.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Paul Suave, Wilson Engineering, 1350 San Bernardino Road, 082, Upland,
commented he was available to answer questions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel observed that the City had received a letter with eight
signatures opposing the lot size.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the letter had been directed to the City
Council asking that they decline permits to build.
Commissioner Valletta observed that the concern appeared to be density. 5:-e
commented that when the project was processed through Design Review, she had
concerns regarding the rear yard boundaries. She wondered if the home on
Lot 9 could be switched.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, remarked that all the homes to the north are
two-story. He said there had already been some swapping of footprints. -e
pointed out that the 15-foot setback is to the toe of the elope and there _s
an additional 13 feet of elope area to the north tract boundary.
Commissioner Melchor felt it was important to understand what the streetscape
on Hermosa would look like. He thought that one-story houses would present a
better streetscape on Hermosa because of the side-on cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Valletta stated a single story house would not address t.-'e
concerns of the neighbors. '
Commissioner Melchor noted that the neighbors want two dwelling units per
acre, but the area is zoned for four dwelling units per acre. ,
Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 12 , :992
Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher regarding streetscape.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Valletta, to issue a Negative i
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 14509. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, HELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-38 - FRIENDSHIP
COMMUNITY CHURCH - The request to establish a church in a leased space of
7,083 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial park in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN:
209-401-01. (WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT)
Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant had withdrawn the project and no
Commission action was necessary.
G. STREET NAME CHANGE 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change
the name of Hiller Avenue to "Church Street' for that portion of Miller
Avenue between East Avenue and the easternmost extent of Church Street, a
distance of approximately 1-1/4 miles. This application has been filed
pursuant .to provisions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-57 and in
conformance with City Code Section 12.12.050. This application is exempt
from environmental assessment as provided in City Code Section
12.12.060. (WITHDRAWN)
Chairman McNiel remarked that the project had been withdrawn and no action was
necessary.
w
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
H. REVIEW OF AMENITIES AND RECREATION BUILDING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 -
WESTERN PROPERTIES
Anna-Lima Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, thought the reduction in
the size of the recreational building had been approved in February. ^e
Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 12 , 1392
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIV? TRACT 14509 - BAAYOUN DEVELOPMENT -
A residential subdivision and design review of 18 single family lots on
3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) , located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue
and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01. Staff recommends issuance of a
mitigated Negative Declaration.
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked how 18 - out of 57 people had not received the
original public hearing notice for the previous meeting.
Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that it was a clerical error; the person
sending out the notices thought that two of the rows of address labels were
identical because the first two labels in each row were the same name and
address.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Debbie Flores, 10121 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she did not
receive the original notice of public hearing for the previous meeting that
was held. She stated her house was only 37 feet from the property line of the
new development. She commented her main concern was her lack of privacy
because the proposed house is a two-story. She felt a one-story house would
have been a better choice given the close proximity of the houses. She asked
the Commission to consider this when thev make their decision.
Angelo Flores, 10203 South Ridge Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned and
rented property approximately 10 feet from the proposed development. He had
concerns regarding noise, safety, pollution, and the possibility that he would
have a problem renting his property out now because of the lack of privacy
that would -be created with the new development. He stated he has also
experienced problems with the property in its vacant state because it is
unkempt and large animals roam there freely.
Commissioner Melcher pointed out that if the area were developed he would no
longer have problems with weeds and animals.
Mr. Flores replied that many of renters preferred the lot vacant because they
liked the privacy.
Jim Long, 10191 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had concerns
regarding aesthetics and views also, but his main concern was with the
reliability of the developer. He felt the Commission should be aware that
Baayoun is an unethical builder. He commented that his house was built by the
same developer a couple of years ago and he is still .trying to get them to
take care of repairs that should have been done prior to his moving in. He
stated they have moved their offices several times and are extremely difficult
to reach. He expressed concern that the developer charges for view lots when
they know that development will occur later blocking the views. He said that
several people, in his development have had problems with faulty fireplaces and
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 22, 1992
1
leaky pipes. He also stated he was lied to about what would be built behind
him, but he had contacted Mr. Buller and found out that there were plans to
build there. _
Robert Flores, 10121 Kernwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the sign
postings for public hearing notices should be larger and more obvious. He
further stated that his house almost burned down as a direct result of faulty
workmanship by the developer and the claim has recently been settled through
arbitration. He also felt the . Commission should be aware of the poor
reputation the developer' has acquired. Regarding the issue of close proximity
to other houses, he stated that people moving into the new development will
undoubtedly have the same concerns he has regarding their privacy.
commissioner Melcher asked the applicant ' s engineer if the driveway grades
would permit the houses on Lots 8 and 9 to be moved closer to the street.
Jerry Wilson, Engineer for Baayoun Development, 223 N. 1st Avenue, Upland,
replied there is very little room to move the lots unless they raise them.
commissioner Melcher asked if the houses could be moved closer to the street
without making the driveways too steep.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that the home on Lot 8 can be moved,
but not the home on Lot 9.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Buller if there were any other items that should be
brought to the Commission's attention that they did not hear at the last
meeting.
Mr. Buller stated that this public hearing is to give those who did not
receive the initial notification of the first meeting an opportunity to speak
to the Commission about their concerns.
Chairman -McNiel asked what has been done to protect the City and potential
buyers in the tract.
Mr. Buller responded that the Building Department and the Citv Council have
taken a much more aggressive role in the plan checking and inspection process.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the proximity of the house on Lot 8 to the
Flores property should be looked at more closely. He stated, if you look
closely at cul-de-sacs, you will see the garage fronts are 30 feet further
apart than other garages on the street. He wondered if it would be
appropriate, in the future, to diminish front yards on the cul-de-sac to
c back up to one another and also to put
create more space between houses that
the space in the back yard where people use it. He felt that should be
considered in this case even though it is not before the Commission th'-s
evening.
April 22, 1992
Planning co-,=. ission Minutes -7-
Commissioner Valletta agreed that the side and back yards should be larger, as
she had expressed at Design Review. She remarked that she aid not think it
was appropriate in this area, which is designated low residential, to have
such small back yards.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented he thought Commissioner Melcher was
referring to the Minor Exception process which would allow the front setback
to be moved to 29 feet rather than 32 feet. He stated the commission could
initiate a Minor Exception for whichever lots they deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher asked if a Minor Exception was already granted for this
tract, and if so, which lots were affected.
Mr. Coleman replied Lot 2 had been chanced already.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the homes on Lots 8 and 9 can be moved forward
to the minimum front yard setback and also be granted a 3-foot Minor
Exception.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
Barrye Hanson stated that there could be some grading differentials created by
shifting the setbacks, which in turn may cause the need, to increase the height
of the back retaining wall.
commissioner Tolstoy asked if the retaining wall could be "stepped" to suit
everyone's needs.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher suggested continuing the item and asking the applicant to
move the homes on Lots 8 and 9 as close to the street as possible (including
an application for a Minor Exception for the two lots) .
Chairman McNie1 reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Wilson if
Commissioner Melcher's suggestion was acceptable to him.
Mr. Wilson stated he preferred to move ahead with an approval tonight and work
out the rest with staff.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner vallette stated that the Commission should start to consider
addressing the preservation of view corridors. She also stated the
possibility exists to introduce a different product type to address the
concerns of the residents and her prior concerns regarding back yard setbacks.
commissioner Melcher suggested moving Lots 8 and 9 to the south to meet the
minimum front setback and further suggested that staff, with the applicant's
consent, apply for a Minor Exception permit to reduce the maximum allowed
under that permit. Additionally, he felt it would be acceptable in this case
to increase the vertical separation of these lots from those to the north even
Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 22, 1992
if it meant lowering the property grade and increasing the retaining wall on
the north side.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstov, to adopt the resolution
approving Tentative Tract 14509 as modified. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
Commissioner Vallette stated she voted no for the reasons previously stated.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated she abstained because she was not present for
the first discussion on the project and she did not feel informed enough to
vote either way.
Mr. Buller pointed out there was no discussion at the first meeting except
discussion between the Commissioners.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-14 - FORREST PERRY - A review of the revis
aster plan for the Perry's Shopoing Center in the Community Comme a1
Di -ict of the Foothill Boulevard Soecific Plan, located at the s Othwest
corne F Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue - APN: 208- - -119, 20,
22, 37 thr h 40, and 56.
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, istant Planner, presented the st report.
Chairman McNiel opened the ublic hearing. Sin there was no one there to
address the item, Chairman Mc 1 closed the p is hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he h c terns regarding the project. He
expressed concern that the parking 1 oesn't work properly because there is
one-way traffic in places that uld a., ommodate two-way and there is a
mixture of one-way and two- _ y traffic i areas where he felt it is
inadvisable. He did not a ee with the phasi plan with regards to the
upgrade of the market's cade, the streetscape im vements along Foothill
Boulevard, and the p ing and driveway improvements ' n the rear of the
building. He commen d that the back street and yard areas f the project are
in need of impro ent and better maintenance. He questio if Hampshire
could be turn into a cul-de-sac street so traffic from the ear of the
shopping cep r will have to use Helms rather than going through t fragile
older nei orhood surrounding Malachite and Ham?shire. He felt_ perha. some
of the concerns should be referred back for further study.
issioner Tolstoy asked if the storefronts were being upgraded.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 22 ; 1992
LZ
7- ED
zZ=
7i
LJ
ci <
Li
r > < <
I
� ` a
rf
if
i
_ :uawCOlana4 uno,(==g d!J
W !*!1
cz
J �
' •'ht---y� ` 2 e 1 � i
iT
aim - i
Fuel!-
i TE
I 'E�
a
W
7
=i
`s L
i�� III
�I.
i 3
.r
:1
a, i i
a �
F)LUC:0fGAaG uno,i?=a �J
c" 1
}
? I <
I ItN
LLJ
l;
l P
I - i
P
i it .I
i= U
d
a � •�I��� ,^ate
ml
r
\Ll
1
. ...........................
1 �
I 1
_ I
, I I
i
I
i
r - o
I
I I I Ci I
;71! li
IP
I I _v i Ni tl]l:
� I I
I J -
Lj
I
El
Z2
�_� -' I
i
---�--
F i _ it i .,
I �I
I '; i I I
�- � , I /I
�-__n I i I
� _ I � I � I `j I II
j I I i I
I i � i I
i I 1, I
I I .
> j i i i I i
�.�r
I
_ — I —C' �-
C_I — i I —�u; ��"
I -1,1 =� 8-' I �r' � I
I ^�I==! �� I � i � =! I i s I .
__1� ,�i
I �_. - I _ I : ::
! u�� I I p �-=_ _ O_
P i - U
I I J �-_ i x'10 j ^�'I � � ��i
I � j % j �J i i
I I I I i I � ��
it I i �I � I ! �.I 'I �i �'I1 i
I I I I I �
i i i i
i I I I ' �I
� ; ! !,
- .
� � _ _ -- -
':�
. � � I , �;
� ��, �_---; �I
_-
!/i 1
. � �,:
,- � = �
�` i 3E .
��
'i
j it I
I
I
II ' I�� f � � i � i
i � I i _ � -
II � � I � el I I
T— I I
I I '
i i
i ! �� \� � i � i �I i
.I ii I I I .
j
' � I � i j I_i- !
� I � I � � _
i
� I I �`� --
i ! I �� � !
�� I I I =�^ice! i
� 1
I =� —'= � i ' e-=- I i
� !
� ; __= I i i f o'i I
-1 yl_Y� !° o�•_ i I ° _�
i �.� VIII __��-�_ �� � -;
i I it i i I ��=-J-i
i � � � i � i
� i i
� . � � � i � i
��
' i � I I
i 1
i
j I
I .
I
I
�I �
I I � i t
i `i .
I '
� � �' � I
j � �I I
�' �
1 i ,
�.
: i 1
-, I it I
I � i ; = =
� � � ; o
� ; I I i
o ' I I i
I
—I, I
I � � �
I
i �'-.�
� ' I � '
J l
l � -�
_�'
°�?� ;:: i
�� o
.' . -�I=,
_-._�—
��� ;i
I =1 i ��
� G�i I
I I�-�
� I �r=�
�� � ', � �I
I i
.1I
i
i
I
� �
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren September 1, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15875-LEWIS HOMES-The proposed
subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 165 single family homes
on 32.6 acres of land in the Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)and Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) zone of the Victoria Community Plan, located east of Day Creek
Boulevard, between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-351-65; 227-393-01 & 02;
227-401-78; and 227-091-41. (Continued from August 18, 1998).
Background:
The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on August 18, 1998, and directed the applicant
to address design concerns and technical issues. The applicant will provide revised plans at the
meeting.
Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments dated August 18, 1998
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Design Review Committee reviewed revised plans and recommended the project return on a
consent calendar basis with the following modifications:
1. Add an architectural feature(cupula or dormer)to the roof area above the garage on the single
story plan.
2. Add brackets to Elevation A of the single story plan.
3. Provide additional enhancements to rear elevations facing Day Creek Boulevard and side
elevations on corner lots to replicate distinguishing features on front elevations, such as the
half-round window shapes, shutters, and exaggerated window sills.
4. Provide decks on approximately 50 percent of the houses backing up to Day Creek Boulevard.
5. Provide a street scape vignette to show mixture of elevations along Day Creek Boulevard.
6. The Committee reviewed the site plan,which was revised to address technical issues(minimum
lot size, lot width, setbacks, and secondary access issues) and approved modifications.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:10 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren August 18, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TENTATIVE TRACT 15875-LEWIS HOMES-The proposed
subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 165 single family homes
on 32.6 acres of land in the Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) zone of the Victoria Community Plan, located east of Day Creek
Boulevard, between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-351-65, 227-393-01 & 02;
227-401-78; and 227-091-41.
Design Parameters:
The subject site was formerly the Edison utility corridor located on the east side of future Day Creek
Boulevard from Highland Avenue to Base Line Road. The corridor is 330 feet wide yet over 4,000 feet
long, totaling 32.6 acres. Lewis Homes will be constructing Day Creek Boulevard to access the tract,
and extending Sugar Gum Street, Victoria Park Lane, and Silverberry Street. Lewis Homes is
proposing 165 single family lots, ranging in size from 5,200 to 11,000 square feet. There are 5 floor
plans with 4 elevations each. Dwellings range from 1,829 to 2,920 square feet.
The site also includes a remnant parcel north of Highland Avenue, south of the future Route 30
freeway. This parcel will be used for the next several years as a temporary construction staging area
while the freeway is under construction.
Background:
The Edison Utility Corridor was recently the subject of a General Plan and Victoria Community Plan
Amendment (GPA 96-03 & 97-01 and VCP 96-01 & 97.01), approved by the City Council in April 1998.
The General Plan and Victoria Community Plan Amendments changed the land use designation of the
site from Edison Utility Corridor to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) between Highland and
Silverberry, and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) from Silverberry to Baseline.
The Tentative Tract Map was designed following the Low-Medium standards for the entire site. As a
result, the northern cul-de-sac between Silverberry Street and Highland Avenue, which is designated
Low, is inconsistent with the zone.
Lewis Homes is cooperating with the City to pay for a consultant to design the special Day Creek
Boulevard parkway, the landscape edge treatment, the residential and community entries design, the
sound wall, and the plant palette, as required in the Community Plan, for Planning Commission review
and approval at a future date.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Technical Issues: The following technical issues will be addressed at the Technical Review Committee
meeting and will require substantial revisions in the Tentative Tract Map and design review application
in order to comply with the Victoria Community Plan, as amended:
1. The northern cul-de-sac between Silverberry Street and Highland Avenue will have to be revised
to provide a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and average lot size of 10,000 square feet to
meet the density range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre.
2. A street scape setback of 25 feet is required alcng Highland Avenue between the curb and
perimeter wall. (See attached page 156 of Victoria Community Plan).
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15875 - LEWIS HOMES
August 18, 1998
Page 2
3. Side setbacks must total 15 feet. Lots 9, 11, 12, and 33 must be revised accordingly.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. The intersection of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road is designated as a "Major
Residential Entry" by the Victoria Community Plan. (See attached pages 152-153). Special
landscape treatment should be provided.
2. The southern cul-de-sac between Base Line Road and the railroad right-of-way abuts a public
storage facility where buildings are constructed on the property line. Rear yard landscaping
should be required to soften the appearance of these existing storage buildings.
3. Although elevations have been revised significantly from the original submittal to include
additional architectural enhancements, staff recommends brick and stone veneer treatment be
expanded on front elevations, particularly on the single story plan (Plan 561).
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Revisions to the northern cul-de-sac to increase lot size should also include lining up the rear
property lines with the tract east of the site to avoid offset yards and the sense that more than one
house backs up to existing lots.
2. In order to facilitate a viable trail system with maximum use opportunities, slopes along the Day
Creek Boulevard are to be avoided wherever possible, and minimal, when necessary. The Tract
grading should attempt to balance grades with this objective in mind.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Developer should make a good faith effort to work with adjoining residents to eliminate double
wall conditions along east boundary.
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, per Planning Commission policy.
3. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be
composed of a decorative block material.
4. Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme walls.
5. Taper driveways down to 16 feet if they exceed 25 feet in length.
6. Perimeter walls and landscaping shall be consistent with established theme for the Victoria
Planning Community.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the project be revised and come back to Design Review Committee.
Attachments
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15875 - LEWIS HOMES
August 18, 1998
Page 3
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee recommended the project be brought back to the Design Review Committee with the
following revisions:
1. Redesign the single story plan.
2. Revise the rear elevations of units along Day Creek Boulevard to provide a more interesting
and enhanced view corridor. A combination of various techniques should be used, including
but not limited to, adding balconies and patio trellises as standards instead of options, adding
window pop-outs and bay windows, a variety of window shapes and decorative shutters,
brackets, breaking up the horizontal roof line, and adding those architectural embellishments
that were depicted on front elevations to the sides and rear elevations.
3. Revise Site Plan, Grading Plan, and Tentative Tract Map to address technical issues identified
in staff comments.
4. The developer agreed to do the following: help soften the appearance of existing public
storage buildings constructed on the property line with rear yard landscaping on impacted lots;
line up rear property lines more closely with the abutting lots east of the project on the northern
cul-de-sac; provide textured and/or patterned driveway paving; provide decorative block wall
returns between houses; and address the Policy Issues listed in the staff report.
5. The Committee acknowledged that it is not feasible to eliminate double wall situations along
the majority of the eastern boundary due to grade differences. Where double walls are
necessary', the design should be sensitive to aesthetic and maintenance issues.
TYPICAL EDGE CONDITIONS
NlILLIKEN, HIGHLAND, BASELINE, FOOTHILL
Section at Residential Land Uses
Plan
Section at Commercial Lend Uses
-r >
r
c=� s
Li
7, 7
131)
L!i
-tL
cr 0 o
LLI u u
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
8:10 P.M. Nancy Fong September 1, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-45 -MASI - The
development of three auto service buildings totaling 20,400 square feet on 2.23 acres of land within
the Masi Plaza in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located
at the southwest side of Masi Drive and Sebastian Way -APN: 229-011-56 through 60.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
The Committee reviewed the revised elevations and recommended approval with a condition that a
recessed area at the projected roof parapet be provided to the south elevation of Building 20 and west
elevation of Building 21, consistent with the design of the existing auto service buildings.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Tom Grahn September 1, 1998
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-19(MODIFICATION)-LUCKYS: The development of a commercial
shopping center consisting of a 68,355 square foot grocery/drug store, two satellite buildings totaling
5,000 square feet each, and two drive-thru pads totaling 3,500 square feet and 2,500 square feet on
9.82 acres of land in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 2)of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -APN: 207-102-03,
05, 08, 09, 15, 20, 21, and 49.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
The Committee reviewed the revised elevations for Luckys and approved the proposed modifications
except the potshelf element at the base of the windows on the mezzanine. The Committee
recommended revising the elevations to provide a trellis element at the base of the mezzanine,
between the tower elements.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
September 1, 1998
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjoumed at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary