HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/08/17 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA
TUESDAY AUGUST 17, 1999 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Nancy Fong
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
7:00 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 -
RANCHO SUMMIT - The proposed subdivision of 132 acres of land into 358
single family lots and 3 lettered lots for common open space/parks totaling 28.7
acres in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock
Road, north and south of Summit Avenue - APN: 226-102-17.
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.
7:15 p.m.
(Rebecca) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38-PUBLIC STORAGE-A request to review the
color striping issue on the previously approved public storage facility on 2.96
acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 8)of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, between Utica Avenue
and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82.
8:00 P.M.
(Rebecca) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-34- MAR VISTA HOMES-The design review of
building elevations and detailed site plan for the eastern portion of recorded
Tract 13812 and the southern portion recorded Tract Map No. 14120 consisting
of 88 single family lots on 71.51 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
located approximately 1,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Highland
Avenue, and south of Summit Avenue -APN: (lots in Tract 13812) 225-411-01
through 18, 225-421-01 through 12, 15 through 16, and 19 through 27; and
APN: (lots in Tract 14120) new numbers not yet issued by Assessor's Office,
prior APN: 225-171-02, 08, 11, and 16.
DRC AGENDA
August 17, 1999
Page 2
l
8:40 p.m.
(Nancy/Donald) MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-22 CHAUNG CHOI - A request to
remodel an existing storefront to accommodate a 99 Cent Only Store totaling
23,000 square feet within an existing shopping center (previously Ralph's
Grocery Store) including a wall sign, parapet extension, awning, new windows,
and paint in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 9640 Base Line
Road - APN: 202-161-40.
9:15 p.m.
(Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-38 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS -The design
review of elevations and detailed site plan for two buildings totaling 7,500
square feet of a previously approved Master Plan (Conditional Use Permit 95-
11) for the Terra Vista Promenade, within the Community Commercial District
of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard westerly of Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-040.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 12, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic enter rive, Rancho Cucamonga.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count August 17, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14759 - RANCHO SUMMIT - The
proposed subdivision of 132 acres of land into 358 single family lots and 3 lettered lots for common
open space/parks totaling 28.7 acres in the Low Residential District(2 to 4 dwelling units per acre)
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road, north
and south of Summit Avenue - APN: 226-102-17.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: - Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:15 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren August 17, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38-PUBLIC STORAGE-A request to review the color striping issue
on the previously approved public storage facility on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 8)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route,
between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82.
Background: In April of 1998, the Design Review Committee agreed to entertain a field test for the
proposed color striping on the office cornice of the Public Storage building. The building is near
completion and a test panel has been prepared. Staff is requesting that each member visit the site
(next to Cowboy Burger) to see the test striping at your convenience, prior to the meeting. At the
meeting, the Committee will discuss the matter and come to conclusion.
Attached are Design Review Committee comments and background information from April and May
of 1998.
Staff Recommendation: Pleasure of the Committee.
Attachments
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee stated that multiple color banding on industrial buildings is contrary to architectural
objectives and may become unwanted precedent for other projects. The Committee acknowledged
the proposed band reflects the corporate colors, but stated that corporate identification is made
known by building signage. The Committee approved a single color band, plum-color,
approximately 5-inches wide within the cornice reveal, to accent the architecture of the office
building.
C I 7 Y O
N C H O C V C A O
May 5, 1998
Jeffrey Matzek
151 Kalmus Drive Suite B-200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 (Public Storage)
Dear Mr, Matzek:
The Design Review Committee reviewed your letter dated March 31, 1998, requesting afield test
for the proposed color striping on the office cornice of the above project. The Design Review
Committee agreed to entertain a field test with the following requirements:
Prior to final inspection, the south or east elevation, as directed by Staff when the building is further
along in its construction, shall be used as a test panel. The striping shall be removed if denied, or
completed if approved, prior to occupancy. The applicant shall provide a letter to the Planning
Division agreeing to the requirements stated herein, prior to performing the test striping on the
structure.
Please find attached a copy of the Design Review Committee comments. It will be necessary for
Public Storage to notify Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, in the Planning Division when the
building is nearing completion to coordinate site visit timing and to schedule the matter for Design
Review Committee.
If you should have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call at (909) 477-
2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
`eC CCc, c
Rebecca Van Buren
Associate Planner
P,V&mlg
Attachments: Design Review Committee Comments
-1-
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 28, 1998
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to revisit the color
striping issue on the previously approved public storage facility on 2.96 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow
Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82.
Staff Comments:
Background:
The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the Public.Storage project on three
occasions: December 16, 1997, January 6, and January 20, 1998. The original proposal had the
purple, orange, and yellow color banding on the entire building. At its last meeting, the color banding
was reduced to the office segment. The Committee expressed concerns with the color banding
throughout the process and recommended the color banding be removed.
On January 28, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the development proposal and discussed
color banding alternatives with the Sign Program. The Commission approved the project with a
requirement that the color striping and Sign Program be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
On April 1, 1998, staff received a letter from the applicant, see attached. The applicant advised staff
they have explored alternatives and do not feel that any accomplish the desired effect.
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting they be allowed to paint the colo.r bands on the office building for a field test.
The matter would have to be deferred for 6 to i 2 months while the building is under construction.
If the Committee entertains a field test, staff, recommends the southern elevation be used as a test
panel, prior to final inspection. The striping would have to be removed (if denied) or completed (if
approved), prior to occupancy. If the Committee feels a field test would not be productive or beneficial
to the process, the Committee may forward the matter to the full Commission for action.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications
as recommended above.
Attachment: Letter from Applicant
Design Review Committee Action;
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee agreed to the applicant's request for a "field test" subject to requirements:
Prior to final inspection, the south or east elevation, as directed by staff when the building is further
along in its construction, shall be used as a test panel. The striping shall be removed if denied, or
completed if approved, prior to occupancy. The applicant shall provide a letter to the Planning Division
agreeing to the requirements stated herein, prior to performing the test striping on the structure.
.I �I
�\ 9r
JEFFREY A. MATZEK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING PUNNING 0:SIGa1 n7a AP7 f J Q
IiNlarch 31, I99S
Brad Buller, .associate Planner
Rebecca Van Buren, City Planner `
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Building and Safety Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730
Rc: Development Review 97-3S
Public Storage, Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Brad and Rebecca:
Thanks again for the approval of our Public Storage Project at %,our meeting on January ?S, I993.
As expressed in your approval le;ter dated Janua;-,• 29, I99S, «e have one remaining issue %pith
the: Dcsion RcvIcw Committee «hieh we are anxious to resolve, i.e.. the "color striping on the
ot*tice cornice element" referred to under Resolution S.?. As documented in your approval lett_r.
the Commission has empowered the Deslgn Rcvicw Commiucc to work directly with us to
r_solvc this particular issue.
"• bile ��c feel we have been ver-.• eonscicn;ious and acconinnodating o( staff suggestions during
the course of our Design Review Committer: process. our client fccls strongly about the precise
location of the color striping on their building. In this case. we h:i\c been unable to find a
solution vyhich would satisfy both the needs of our client, and apparend,--, the needs of the City.
As we left this issue at the January ?S meeting, altcmate suggestions included color striping: I )
on a monument sign. ?) around the recessed sign at the office corner. 3) just above the glass lint-,
or ;) to lose the color striping altogether.
2.t this point, we agree wli h the client that color striping, if it is going to exist at all, is the most
a_sthetically pleasing, is contextually correct• and spccificall..• ser,-cs the clients needs in the
location in which it %vas presented Januar- 2S. 1993. To this :end, our client, feels their only
options are to have- the striping app:ovcd as is, or ch ninat: it.
'%s a point of negotiation, v.-t.- proaos:: ;.our approVinZ the: color band as is, allo,-�,• our client to
paint the color striping on the building and invite the Design Re•ic:v; staff to rcvicw it
I,. its completed form. If the Uesign Rt-•ie��' Com, ,ittcc finds it to be o enslvc In any way, or
out of context with its surroundings• our client will kindly (at their cost) paint the striping, out to
march tht- field color of the building prior to oc:upancy to the satisfaction of the Dcsion
i
B Bl Ili;
n
CcCC'' Van
%[:!rcn 31, 1995
p�7 Two
Review Commiuez-. We are quits contidcni and hopeful, however, that once the project is
complete, the Committee would see the color striping as an appropriate and aesthetically pleas in;
C.lurre oCthe building. N is our hope that you will accept Ellis proposal as a viable solution.
Please te-el free: to contact me directly to Curther discuss our position. %tic loo: forward to hear'
n
Cram you at your __r(iesE convenience and t0 1 sUCC-;SCII r�solutio i to the color strip' issue.
Since;el�•
A �I.ATZEK &C ASSOCIATES, ENC.
A. :Nl1tz_k
P;esidcnt
�.�.! 4!o
Jim r itzo:::i:::. ?ubli:
loc Linden. HBI
Crain Combs. C-'C
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren August 17, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-34 MAR VISTA HOMES The design review of building elevations
and detailed site plan for the eastern portion of recorded Tract 13812 and the southern portion
recorded Tract Map No. 14120 consisting of 88 single family lots on 71.51 acres of land in the Very
Low Residential District(less than 2 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located
approximately 1,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue,north of Highland Avenue,and south of Summit
Avenue - APN: (lots in Tract 13812) 225-411-01 through 18, 225-421-01 through 12, 15 through
16, and 19 through 27; and APN: (lots in Tract 14120)new numbers not yet issued by Assessor's
Office, prior APN: 225-171-02, 08, 11, and 16.
Background: Tracts 13812 and 14120 were originally approved in 1988 and 1991, respectively.
Panda Development recently recorded the tracts and commenced construction of the 113"smaller
lots" in the western portion of the site (lots within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan). Mar Vista
Homes purchased the"half-acre"lots in the eastern portion of project site, which are 40 of the 153
lots in Tract 13812(lots within the Etiwanda Specific Plan)and 48 of the 68 lots in Tract 14120(lots
south of Summit Avenue). Mar Vista is proposing new house designs on the recorded lots. The
lots in this development review application are entirely within the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Design Parameters: Mar Vista Homes is proposing 4 primary floor plans. Plans 2 and 3 have
variations in garage locations and Plan 4 has a second-story bonus room,which create significantly
different architectural massing and roof lines to qualify as additional floor plans. Each plan includes
3 architectural styles: Traditional Country, Early California Ranch, and Bungalow consistent with
the Etiwanda Specific Plan guidelines. All plans have 4-car garages broken into various
configurations as follows:
Plan 1 is single story, 3,467 square feet, and features a pair of 2-car garages in an auto
court.
Plan 2 is single story, 3,801 square feet, and features a 2-car straight-in and 2-car side-on
garage. Plan 2x rearranges the garages to form a pair of 2-car garages in an auto court.
Plan 3 is two-story, 4,102 square feet, and features a 3-car side-on and 1-car straight-in
garage. Plan 3x rearranges the garage to form a 4-car side-on garage.
Plan 4 is two-story, 4,384 square feet, and features a pair of 2-car garages on the side
elevation.
Mar Vista is offering a detached pool house and detached recreational vehicle garage as options
to home buyers. The pool house is 484 square feet, and may be converted to a home office or
casita. A casita is a second dwelling unit which requires a Conditional Use Permit. The RV garage
is 645 square feet. Both emulate architectural details of the main house.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. Additional architectural enhancement is needed on the side and rear elevations of Plan 16
"Early California Ranch" style.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-34 - MAR VISTA HOMES
August 17, 1999
Page 2
2. At the intersection of Vintage Drive and Countrywood Place, two lots have 4-car side-on
garages facing Vintage Drive. Additional enhancement or offsetting of garages should be
considered to soften the long wall plane; i.e., frame garages in stone veneer, add dormer
to roof, offset portion of the garages.
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.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project
subject to the modifications as recommended above.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee concurred with the applicant's proposed architectural revisions to address the two
major issues above (side and rear elevation enhancement, re-orienting 4-car garages to break up
wall plane). The Committee requested the applicant enhance other side and rear elevations on
Plans 1 and 2, increase covered porches to 8-foot minimum depth, and explore courtyard details
on single story plans. The Committee continued the project to the Consent Calendar on
August 31st to allow the applicant to revise elevations.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:40 p.m. Nancy Fong/Donald Granger August 17, 1999
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-22 CHAUNG CHOI - A request to remodel an existing
storefront to accommodate a 99 Cent Only Store totaling 23,000 square feet within an existing
shopping center (previously Ralph's Grocery Store) including a wall sign, parapet extension,
awning, new windows, and paint in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 9640 Base
Line Road - APN: 202-161-40.
Background: The applicant applied for the subject Minor Development Review on June 23, 1999,
and staff issued a complete letter with recommended design revisions. The applicant disagrees
with staff's design comments and requested an appeal. An appeal of this nature will require action
by the Planning Commission with a recommendation from the Design Review Committee.
Design Parameters: The applicant wishes to establish a corporate theme storefront through the
use of standard 99 Cent Only Store colors and materials. Staff believes the proposed colors and
materials are inappropriate and not compatible with the established architectural theme in the
center.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project:
1. Provide screened, long-term cart storage area in arcade using decorative masonry or other
decorative material.
2. Eliminate translucent awnings. Awnings are inconsistent with existing architectural style
of the center.
3. Provide the same wainscot treatment for the storefront windows consistent with the existing
design. Addition mullions patterns at the top of the storefront windows would enhance the
design. Use the same color of aluminum mullions for the storefront window and sliding
door. A blue color for aluminum window or door mullions is inconsistent with the existing
center.
4. Paint the roll up doors at the north elevation with the same consistent building stucco color
instead of the proposed 99 Cent Only Store standard Divine blue.
5. Proposed modifications to roof, building fascia, and curved parapet wall over the building
entry to accommodate a 6-foot tall sign are not consistent with the architectural style
established in the center.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Any proposed signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance and the approved Uniform Sign
Program for the center. The Sign Ordinance requires that the colors be compatible with the
existing building architecture and states that the use of garish colors are inappropriate.
DRC COMMENTS
MDR 99-22 - CHAUNG CHOI
August 17, 1999
Page 2
It also requires that signs be proportionate to and visually balanced with the building
elevation. Proposed 6-foot sign letters are too large and should be reduced to 36-inch
maximum.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised based upon the above
comments and return to Design Review Committee.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong/Donald Granger
The Committee requested that the project be revised and recommended approval subject to all
of the following conditions:
1. The translucent awning shall be eliminated.
2. Provide wainscot to the store front windows immediately next to the solid building wall
and as shown in Exhibit "A."
3. The 99 Cent Only Store wall sign shall have a maximum letter height of 4 feet and shall i
consist of the following two colors: red and blue.
v�
t
FILE NO.: MDR 99-22
(COMPLETENESS COMMENTS)
NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package complete
for processing. Additional information or comments may be necessary based upon a more thorough
analysis during the Development Review Process.
I. Tips for a Successful Process: (Project Planner should insert tips tailored to the specific application)
A. Address Design Issues as early in the process as possible.
B. Identify one person for overall coordination between your professional design team and to serve
as the key contact person with City staff.
If. Planning Division (909) 477-2750:
A. Design Issues - The following are preliminary design issues that are recommended to be
addressed in the revised plans:
1. Provide screened, long-term cart storage area in arcade using decorative masonry or
other decorative material.
2. Eliminate translucent awnings. Awnings are inconsistent with existing architectural style
of the center.
3. Provide the same wainscot treatment for the storefront windows consistent with the
existing design. Adding mullion patterns at the top of the storefront windows would
enhance the design. Use the same color of aluminum mullions for the storefront windows
and sliding door. A blue color for aluminum window or door mullions is inconsistent with
the existing center.
4. Paint the roll-up doors at the north elevation with the same consistent building stucco color
instead of the proposed 99-cent standard 'divine blue.'
S. Any proposed signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance and the approved Uniform Sign
Program for the center. The Sign Ordinance requires that the colors be compatible with
the existing building architecture and states that the use of garish colors are inappropriate.
It also requires that signs be proportionate to and visually balance with the building fascia.
Staff recommends that the proposed signs be a maximum of two colors, in one fine and
not exceed a maximum letter/sign height of 3 feet. Signs are subject to separate permit
application and review.
6. The development plans dated July 14, 1999 showed that the roof, building fascia, and
parapet wall over the building entry are proposed to be modified into a raised (in height)
and curved parapet so as to accommodate a 6-foot tall sign. The proposed modifications
are not consistent with the architectural style established in the center because there is
no such architectural element existed.
AuG 2 - 99 PION 2 : 20 P _ 0 1
CHAUNG CHOI,AfA
t Assoekstss S07 North Fuller Avenue, Los Angeles.CA 90036
Architect and Ptonnars Tel 13231 939-6112 Fox (323) 653-9M2
August 2, 1999 R E C E i y E D
I
1 Nancy Fong
Planning Division AUG 0 3 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga,Ca 91729 City of Rancho Cucarrtons
i'rannino Division
Re:Minor Development Review 99-22
99 Cent Only Stores T.I.
9640 Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga.Co.
Upon telephone conversation with you last week,regarding to Design Issues recommended
In your letler,dated July 19, 1999,for the subject project,The applicant will follow some of your
recommendations and wish to appeal to the Planning Commission for the rest of other Issues
at the earliest date of the Committee schedule.
Followings are the applicant's responses to your recommendations, and will be reflected on
New revised proposed plans,which is yet to be submitted to the Planning Commission.
Item 1: Cart storage- Cliff Cpl.
The store will not allow carts t stored outlidje in a do area
No screen will be needed. a, i'(, 7
Item 2; wnings-
The applicant wish to address to the P.C.
i-F4)
Item 3; oretronf windows-
Color of new aluminum mullions will be matched with the other storos in the shopping
center.However, the applicant wish to address to the P C. to ove increos window
area and eliminating oxisfing bulkheads (wainscot). d�Y
Item 4: Point roll up door- µdu.
New paint color will be matched wilVucco color.
Item-5 SiAn-
applicant wish to address appropriate size,color,and visual balance in regard
to the sign.
Item 6: Parapet-
The appricant will not seek the proposed circular parapet extension.
If you have any questions in the applicant's responses or assistance regarding to the earliest
appeal schedule (Sep.B.1999),please call Choi at (323)939-6117.
Sincerely,
gr-hog Chcl. orchiteqV
cc: Brad Buller.City Plonner
Jeff Gold,Vice Prosidont,99 cent Only Stores
UOIJUAa« - UjdU-UgUIV - 4UUUO,L juju
�• `i�;,11C1 JNINNt id
'SJ!:L'13:� �i.U!1Jai.•It•UJ� DUI'? IfIC C:3s.,..� �1 /�
.1 I, 1C.JJVJ4U ?UJ U:{.J�Jo U`
iIICj:.SIiCCJi31 S,lUU �.7 aUI 0"'31; a1 IOU S,3CP J&AO1CUE I"!l(J.
UOIJJJd UI IEUr; �; UG(^•!nr J .�UIL'UG'Id 'OUI:roo as2aid u
Ul( n 0Z)u_id aolc-i j oc:.lcu:pj(r) UFO- aL,l
•p?JIC11lIC1:� ''� $::�IU:1 lUF'� F�1Ofil! �J l!SIiI'.Fi � �
F : ',�
J
/
c r�
/
t!'i
V = —
r w1
v 3
r O �
!
I
i
a I
6 � a r�•
1
} - ----- -- - -
NQ
. I
I j �
p'd W 39 to U-It l 82:21 16. i I I DO
+r r s ..__40c.Y G•a .tu LM W4K3 0 0.0 Gw�1!$l9 O•.ti .c i '
VTV Pk,D ounotZo rl-s3ao.ls ,k
l +
+ ijiiil'lIC v �ililll iil � I i Ali^ 1
_I..'��II �,: �� I °o° III�II►II11 > I IIIIIIIII F! '
� f 1111 . . I -_ - J • J �' ., i .
1 �FIT1 lli I�i r� IIIIIIIIIII w J i 1111 I II r7�i 5` i
I�III11111 �', I _ �I
< Q �
II III1II�I = ' F I) IIIIIIIII' _ s -
r
o 11 'S
I I I III'
1 ! _� i• `:
IIIIIIIIIII! ► � ' ° �3 �= � 1
El-Eni
;I I� v �a
"Illlllllli ---� W, 'I I 1 N iiinl ii 19
� iillll � ___.. - 'I ; I � � j I�II!!IIL..III � Z �lir!.� �''g G•=�
I!Ili!II:
ER I ii,
02
- - IIIIIIIIIII � t
0 Y
r�
• � t e
6l .1 �1 �,�: .�' 3 � : t � �� r t r• 5 S :i T � � rt
l G G C S I-D C-) c r uz L
t' -
= .7 l_: : 1 7
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
9:15 p.m. Debra Meier August 17, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-38 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS -The design review of elevations
and detailed site plan for two buildings totaling 7,500 square feet of a previously approved Master
Plan (Conditional Use Permit 95-11) for the Terra Vista Promenade, within the Community
Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard westerly of Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-040.
Background: This item was reviewed by the Committee (Stewart and Fong) on August 3, 1999,
and previous Design Review Committee comments and action are provided for reference. The
architect has appropriately responded to the Committee's concerns regarding building elevations
for Sprint PCS, landscaping and Master Plan orientation. The focus of the discussion for this
meeting is the Discount Tires building elevations, particularly the north elevation.
Staff Comments: As noted above, the focus of the discussion for this meeting is the north
elevation of the Discount Tire store. The architect has addressed previous comments of the
Committee with regard to shade/shadow by expanding the furring details from 16 inches to 32
inches. The column between garage bays canters from 32 inches at the top to 36 inches on the
ground. The cross-section of the building at this location provides a detail of the furring design.
The Committee should discuss and consider whether the additional details provided by the architect
meet the full intent of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission policies regarding
screening, shade/shadow, and function of the auto service oriented building.
Staff Recommendation: Discuss and determine the appropriate design solution for the north
elevation of Discount Tire.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following modifications:
1. Locate the trash enclosure at the northeast corner of the Site Plan.
2. Provide enhanced landscaping along the west side of the entry drive aisle, as well as along
the south side of the on-site circulation isle, to provide screening of the automotive service
bays.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Debra Meier August 3, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-38 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS -The design review of elevations
and detailed site plan for two buildings totaling 7,500 square feet of a previously approved Master
Plan (Conditional Use Permit 95-11) for the Terra Vista Promenade, within the Community
Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard westerly of Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-040.
Master Plan Approval: Terra Vista Promenade Master Plan was approved under Conditional Use
Permit 95-11 (Resolution No. 95-140) by the Planning Commission in September 1995, and the
City Council in October 1995. Since that time, development within the Promenade has included
Home Depot, Spaghetti Factory, Arco Service Station, and Carl's Jr. restaurant. The development
approval of the Spaghetti Factory included modification to the Master Plan pertaining to Pad A, and
the restaurant at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue and as shown in Exhibit
"A." The proposed project is within the area identified as Pad C of the Master Plan, which showed
a single building pad. The applicant proposes two building pads that are planned for Sprint PCS
and Discount Tires stores.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major/Secondary Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of the Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. Site Plan: The overall circulation pattern on the site is not significantly affected by this
modification from single to two building pads. However, staff has identified the following
issues that need to be addressed:
a. Based on the total floor area of 7,500 square feet and the parking ratio for retail and
auto repair uses, the required number of parking spaces is 34. A total of 30 spaces
is provided on-site. Although there is reciprocal access and parking required for the
master plan, the applicant should provide a cumulative parking accounting of the
developed portion of the Terra Vista Promenade to ensure that it meets the parking
requirement.
b. The landscape planters adjacent to the main driveway spine need to be widened to
provide sufficient car-stacking distance..
2. Building Elevations: The building design incorporated many architectural elements
approved for the Master Plan such as but not limited to towers, the use of columns, inset
wall-mounted lattices with vines, and varied parapet heights to create interest along the
street scape, etc. Staff believes that the building design is consistent with the architectural
program established for the center, however, they could be improved with the following:
a. The Discount Tire building features three roll-up doors on the north elevation, as is
typical of similar auto-related facilities. The applicant has proposed the use of
decorative pavements that will be carried across the entire north elevation, extending
from the plaza at the northeast corner of Discount Tires to the westerly property line
at the Arco service station. However, the roll-up doors are set back only a few inches
from the building face, creating very little shade and shadow along a portion of the
elevation. The Planning Comm ission/Design Review Committee have consistently
required these auto-oriented uses to recess the roll-up doors for providing a greater
degree of shade and shadow at the building face in order to de-emphasize the auto-
related work area. Examples are: Montgomery Wards's Tires, Batteries, and
Accessories store and Oil Max.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-38 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
August 3, 1999
Page 2
b. The west elevation of Sprint PCS building needs additional treatment with storefront
windows and colonnade because it is visible from Foothill Boulevard.
C. During the development of Home Depot, the applicant has agreed that the horizontal
trellis members would be increased in size from the 6-inch and 2-inch diameter to fl-
inch and 3-inch diameter members.
2. Landscaping: Provide continuous shrub rows, except for a single 4-foot wide opening to
the sidewalk along the driveway, to soften the 70-foot long edge between plaza hard scape
and driveway to the east, and create a more pleasing outdoor space.
3. Conditions of Approval from the Promenade Master Plan: Various Conditions of Approval
from the Promenade Master Plan approval from Conditional Use Permit 95-11 and
Resolution of Approval 95-140 are applicable to this proposed development. Specific
pertinent conditions are noted below for reference and discussion as warranted:
a. All back sides of the enlarged storefront entrance features for all tenants and
buildings shall be treated architecturally identical to the exposed front sides, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
Refer to comment provided under Building Elevations item number 2.
b. The final design of the sidewalk connections from Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the
pad buildings shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee as part of each
design review application for development of the pad buildings.
The sidewalk connection from Foothill Boulevard runs along the west side of the entry
drive and enters the plaza at the northeast corner of the Discount Tires building. A
concrete walkway with decorative bands extends west along the north elevation of
both Discount Tires and Sprint PCS. With Committee concurrence, staff is of the
opinion that this sidewalk connection to the plaza satisfies the intent of this condition.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approved the proposed project
with the above identified design issues placed as conditions of approval.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Member: Debra Meier
The Committee directed the applicant revise as noted and return for further review on Consent
Calendar.
1 . The Committee requested that the roll-up garage doors be recessed to increase shadow.
The existing 16-foot access is not sufficient. The Committee suggested increasing the
column depth between doors, or consider use of trellis or other overhead element.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-38 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
August 3, 1999
Page 3
l
2. Because Discount Tires has requested additional storefront glazing and display area facing
Foothill Boulevard, Sprint PCS building will have similar additional glazing in order to
balance the design of the two elevations. This will address concerns regarding the west
elevation of the Sprint PCS building.
3. Widen the landscape planters adjacent to the drive aisle shall be widened to allow more
efficient circulation.
4. Prior to City Planner approval, provide a commutative accounting of parking on the
developed portion of the project.
5. The Committee stated that the landscape hedge between the sidewalk, adjacent to the
entry drive, and the courtyard in front of Discount Tire should have an opening
approximately 10-15 feet for pedestrian access.
• i 0 �
rcz
pis]
cz
�D4 cz
Val 7
U?
7„M IA - ` -- ,I tl i]1174tl I 'Ti - ... _-- •�• ..
j •�_� ��. 1�3�, ',� :�� l � ......, � yam_
1 s: •r�cr-�� � I
I I i I
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
August 17, 1999
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bra Buller
Secretary
r