Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/09/05 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Lou Munoz Richard Fletcher Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR (All consent items heard at 7 p.m.) (Louis/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - DRC2006-00262 - ROCK PITT, LLC - A request to develop 4 single-story office buildings and 4 two-story office buildings on a vacant parcel of land totaling 52,250 square feet on a 3.13-acre parcel in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located at the southeast corner of the Pittsburgh Avenue and 5th Avenue - APN: 0229-263-73. 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. 7:05 p.m. (Louis/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18033 - WEINBERGER - A request to subdivide 9.62 acres of land into 13 lots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street and east of East Avenue APN: 0225-191-09 and 17. Related file: DRC2006-00039. 7:25 p.m. (Doug/Cam) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00261 — ROCK-HAVEN, LLC — A proposed 8-building office park in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of Sixth Street at 9393 Haven Avenue—APN: 0210-081-14. 7:45 p.m. (Donald/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00381 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a 136-room hotel, including a bar, totaling 65,292 square feet on 2.92 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), within the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Center Avenue - APN: 0210-391-21. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17303 and Development Review and Master Plan DRC2005-00458. This action includes approval of an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration by the DRC ACTION AGENDA September 5, 2006 Page 2 Planning Commission on November 9, 2005, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15164. 8:05 P.M. (Vance/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510 - F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES - The development of a commercial center totaling 41,292 square feet on 5.12 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 4), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related file: Variance DRC2003-00511. 8:25 p.m. (Rozalynne/Mark) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00744 - CHRISTIAN VARELA - A request to construct a single-family residence and three-car garage of approximately 5,778 square feet on a 1.01-acre lot in the Hillside Residential District (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on Inspiration Lane - APN: 0200-441-38. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Louis Le Blanc September 5, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - DRC2006-00262 — ROCK PITT, LLC - A request to develop 4 single-story office buildings and 4 two-story office buildings on a vacant parcel of land totaling 52,250 square feet on a 3.13-acre parcel in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located at the southeast corner of the Pittsburgh Avenue and 5th Avenue - APN: 0229-263-73 Background: This project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on August 1, 2006. The Committee requested revised plans. The applicant has proposed a decorative pavement along the entire entrance of the driveway to enhance the overall appearance of the project. The applicant has also demonstrated that there is sufficient parking on-site for the proposed use. 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. Is the amount of form-liner concrete adequate to satisfy the intent of a second primary exterior material? The Committee did not accept form-liner concrete as one of the primary building materials. The Committee asked the applicant to add another type of building material and recommended natural stone or tile. The applicant has redesigned the elevations adding tile as one of the primary building materials. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide canopy shade trees within the parking lot between Buildings 5 and 6 and Buildings 7 and 8 at a rate of one tree per 3 stalls. The Crape Myrtle is a small accent tree that will not provide shade. Most of the other trees are not broad canopy shade trees and are too far from the stalls to provide effective shade. The Committee indicated that the entryway needs to be enhanced with shade trees (not Crape Myrtle). The applicant has provided a revised Landscape Plan that meets minimum Code requirements. The applicant has added additional trees to the parking areas and has replaced Crape Myrtle trees with Evergreen Elm shade trees. The overall Landscape Plan has been revised to provide more interesting and colorful plantings. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. The project shall meet all Development Code Requirements. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2006-00262 — ROCKPITT, LLC September 5, 2006 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the project with all major issues resolved and recommend review and approval by the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Munoz, Coleman Staff Planner: Louis Le Blanc The Committee recommended approval of the project as revised. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:05 p.m. Louis Le Blanc September 5, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18033 - WEINBERGER - A request to subdivide 9.62 acres of land into 13 lots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street and east of East Avenue - APN: 0225-191-09 and 17. Related file: DRC2006-00039. Design Parameters: No homes are proposed at this time. The site is undeveloped and there are a few surrounding residences. Further to the north is Summit Intermediate School. The properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned Very Low Residential. The vacant land to the east is approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17651 of 56 single-family lots in the same cul-de-sac configuration. The applicant has prepared a conceptual master plan of vacant properties to the north and south which demonstrates logical development can occur. The project site is located within the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Equestrian Overlay District. The Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a minimum average of 25,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum lot size of 20,190 square feet and a minimum average of 28,671 square feet. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18033 meets all the development standards called out in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Development Code, and the Equestrian Overlay District. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18033 provides local feeder trails within the project to connect to a future community trail to the east. An arborist report identified 101 Heritage trees to be removed. A majority of the trees are very mature and declining in health and expected to be grossly impacted as a result of the proposed development. The trees will be replaced on site at a 1:1 basis. A new windrow will be planted along the northerly tract boundary per Etiwanda Specific Plan standards. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee iscussi on Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve all major issues. Secondary Issues: There are no secondary issues at this time. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. The project shall meet all Development Code Requirements. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Munoz, Coleman Staff Planner: Louis Le Blanc The Committee recommended approval of the project as presented. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:25 p.m. Doug Fenn September 5, 2006 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00261 - ROCK-HAVEN, LLC —A proposed 8-building office park in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), located on the east side of Haven Avenue south of Sixth Street at 9393 Haven Avenue —APN: 0210-081-14. Design Parameters: The site is located on the east side of Haven Avenue, generally south of 6th street and is the former Haven Building Material (masonry sales and supply yard) business. The site has remnants of that business such as, the 1,800 square foot metal building, a small amount of concrete and asphalt paving, and landscape area. The partial improvements and building will be razed for the proposed project. To the east is vacant land and to the south is the recently completed Palmae Business Park office center. Across Haven Avenue to the west is vacant land. The land has a subtle southerly slope. The project consists of a master planned development of 7 freestanding office buildings. Buildings 1 and 2 are two-story buildings that front along Haven Avenue and total 21,000 square feet. A large, outdoor landscape pedestrian plaza area is east of Buildings 1 and 2, and the other remaining buildings of the proposed project on are on the perimeter of the landscape plaza area. Buildings 3 and 4 are two-story, Buildings 5 and 6 are one-story, and at the eastern terminus of the plaza, is a two-story building that anchors the plaza. These buildings total 59,000 square feet. The buildings are basically rectangular in shape with recessed primary entryways. The buildings do have a rich 360-degree architectural material, but the form has a standard cookie-cutter look and lacks stand-out architectural boldness. The buildings are proposed as concrete tilt-up with material details of recessed blue reflective glazing elements, porcelain cultured stone (which is a good departure from the prevalent ledge stone work that has been common over the past several years), shaped roof cornice over primary entryway, and reveal cuts in the concrete tilt-up panels. The project will have a decorative enhanced vehicular entry drive aisle that is accented on the driveway edge with date palm trees; this drive aisle also bisects Buildings 1 and 2 and terminates at the main .plaza area. The plaza area has accent paving, meandering sidewalk, and two circular planters to add an aesthetic feel to the project. The associated parcel map is to subdivide the property into building plots with a landscape and parking lot common area. 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: DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTT18033 — ROCK-HAVEN, LLC September 5, 2006 Page 2 1. All of the buildings need a substantial amount of second primary building material, particularly Buildings 1 through 4 and the anchor Building 7 and 8 of the plaza area, which will be visually prominent from Haven Avenue. 2. The following enhancements are recommendations to improve the following two-story buildings: Buildings 1 through 4: a. Add a smaller scaled cornice element overhang on the secondary entryway point as designed on the main entryway. b. The glazing on the second story should extend up to the reveal cut above the window; spandrel glass in place of vision glass is a suitable alternative. C. The porcelain cultured stone should be expanded up to the first reveal cut on the second story level and along all sides of the buildings. d. No mechanical screen is permitted as proposed. However, the applicant can incorporate a decorative screen element wall that is offset and around the entire parapet or raise the parapet high enough to screen the HVAC equipment. e. The subtle recesses of the buildings are negligible and need to be at least 2 to 3 feet in depth; they are too small in relation to the mass and size of the buildings. Buildings 5 and 6: a. Add a smaller scaled cornice element overhang on the secondary entryway point as designed on the main entryway. b. Except for the stone material on the main entry way, the porcelain cultured stone should be expanded up to the first reveal cut on the other building elevations. C. No mechanical screen is permitted as proposed. However, the applicant can incorporate a decorative screen element wall that is offset and around the entire parapet or raise the parapet high enough to screen the HVAC equipment. d. The subtle recesses of the building are negligible and need to be at least 2 to 3 feet in depth; they are too small in relation to the mass and size of the buildings. Contiguous Building 7 and 8: a. All of the referenced items described above should also be incorporated in this building. b. Provide a modern art sculpture or similar like item at the entrance of the pedestrian landscape plaza area. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTT18033 — ROCK-HAVEN, LLC September 5, 2006 Page 3 C. The parapets should be high enough to screen the HVAC equipment, and the proposed mechanical screen area is not permitted. d. Revise the building footprints on parcel map, Site Utilization, Landscape, and Grading Plans to match the footprints as depicted on the Elevation Plans. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. No exterior downspouts are to be visible from the public right-of-way and the project site. 2. Incorporate illumination bollards along the pedestrian pathway of the main central plaza area. 3. Distribute bicycle storage racks throughout the project by providing separate racks for the buildings. 4. Provide a decorative design for the wrought iron fencing around the perimeter of the project. 5. Provide more half diamond tree planters as shown along the perimeter landscape planter. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Paint roll-up doors to match the building elevations. 2. Double strip parking spaces per city standards. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the above-mentioned comments. Note: For easier review, 8-inch by 11-inch attachments are included in this report, such as the: grading, landscape, and building elevations. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Munoz, Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The Committee recommended that the elevations be redesigned per staff's recommendations to provide a bolder design suitable for the Haven Avenue Office Corridor. Also, the Committee recommended revising the landscape design to be very creative and to delete the Liquid amber trees because of a local viral infestation. IL _ C � kk£.ABca YPYY/YYt x. :Ye i gY 5 EG N 6 i]Yiiii] g py '= e96 NBN 0 8i p ;6 . Y ,CO'S9£ M.Ct,6t.0ON Mill Y h _ Boe Y a •� ' I O W o ° �` as � ¢ N � R• Y < d s � w `tY e _ R ..m •.e. ..o. tl3�'151 N3- ..ai— •_ '. X63 3S A IS X3 A d H'-------- -ltl7 Jtl3wwOJ 9NI1SIX3 I/■ en Z Y ¢ n r+ LLI U m -° 0 0� Ws C 1A L I E S j Q n W J a Lll O \ I \ �W Li 1 1 1W: 1 ow U ( $ 40 X 't —r 1rI � J�= N I * U U t W z LL LU qo jje --"-� _____ ___ _ -------- _ g i e . ell gu ry ftT4Yyy • Ell SCE li T �y � dli� •�, ✓ n emu. a+ .. Y 3�R a� Vii., i7 tj Em Al W.0 �� I % a t., \ •1 �ya• � , . IttI ddN}r*� f� 1 e Sa31131 XVW ,l U LU -9 o'ul Z o J Z > W w O m O z Y m U O _ U ^ O s I z N e m MJ LLI I i of x ° z e o yay z a N Q < J { m dI w O o <3 U $ ` c; > O ry pp x a' O s vi a- 'XVW ,z Y $ Z g W QM z W iz -7 a rug —7,x sm.x W W o 0 a wo 77 z. �e,. 7. � m r 4 19 x °z LL Of 0 LL O a z M 1 c J o U Ww >U w Q lMgJY p �^ E 5?MFi'npRBC' sR lu..t4'--12 li bi ZL &�� P �. 25 c� a N LL ad z 0 0 0 O p ° 6m8 77 b�"gz iygb ,i f� 8 An b: s ��=a W � a a mmi n � �3 00 O x 6�p'y11190'150�WS.Otl\P']t\6S\^9icwea^F'o�ti'+ew 01'IMNOb\%Itl\O-9012'(1 b^v+lf �1�l, SN31131° 9 w W > J F Q LU 2 W w Q = m Z Y I Z Z 9 ti w �1 ; z W c H K x Z W o W ySy z 0 <w VK 1 .14 1 xvW Z �1 r Z cW N Q C Z a 9 �. 0-0 m s w wUZ 0 aa s F E.1 If 7 0 77 '97 FLO z „r y LJL(D g ^a 7' O a' U aac r, Era z „.a q s LLJ U r pax wcs ZW aU I..JW = z \\U w uMa - /O a t 09 1\y m V WW ¢F N Nbi 4 1.1. 4 L SOO OffO o x H oC am sus e.:z nzm mY o o GY k' zd- Fwc3 All ��- a H ij n f e ! 00 O ' �09p[�Po-7TO�tW Wtl\m�vad\uwo'a�e.\auan\w\\-9C0E'll tlM1 Y � Sb31131° XVW ,lr� m8 U ° ° z W U J > O O an Y I > Z h Z uuff a' e m W Z E 2 v N E J E uwi K rJ I U aw 71 - 1I 2 S N�1� Z XvW ,z g Y LU V/ZZc G Z �o 9 < Lu z LLJ W 00 WFW a xu, <ree e y Z �x iaatiaaa s: LL Ur Z 5 W MD oU 0O z sc a rda aead .., dR t� z W > _ &# ? Ww � Y 9 >0 w � 2a m W g b"d' ''� Ynx spa:t Maxn ,zt I �U ,n^ 7 , E p a` fC O O O E ^ i p' R•,e: � a TT bde ff Fua� $ f xf sXyVa3i13W ,1 g 0 `N U � J W F W ¢ O 02 O R Y a> z o a z w s = K Z — < Q w s 0 o 9 0 O o GS � IN OQ I�npOJJ^^ V� � I 6 V 1I Z U¢ Q ZvVi Z I Wz z W Q� Z d � � 1 m3 W m z %�. � 00 . : Ins. . . . _ W P: LL tdei 9 fs4 k Q j J m7 j Ua , < 7,. ,4 <�. �„ � tt —� oa 0 AM Z ISIS IS LL < O . a aya: LillU' S � IaPS " O� GV a r L1j 7 o0 O LL = low �� UJ LL L1.1Y � >U w Oa � � 1 I„ S 09 cez � o� x o ZL Jim O a 5 �W I 5 CO O O) CN Lo om � . B !Ell osouw�raraawn�en..mend.,Dw...,UyU-vaax'u e.. +u . m0 S2J31131° XVW ,lN U w II J m LJ F Q W Q .9 O Z a Y m U Z N a O Z I W s o ft x Z W g N G Q Waw �� U Q. III > � I 'IQ m L� xvw ,z Y �W N <0 z T z 0-0- , > � ma > wizz WW o0 _a w � w to �� o r- C7 g ¢ LLJ Z W > v T2 wW zZ • C � CL ---------- U w o Z Q � m y `W yFON V NV '� t a O � 2. 2. amp e (D LL o zns yy gg �- { 6'4 o sg = p 5jg 8 G G90[l90'T�O��WxOtl\4ol4vp\wiea'alen\uam\Inp\\_9M2'[� v vptl °� sa3ii3�" m XVW ,l U a r o Z 9 F Q W W 0 = M U Lr x 2 io- xvvi> U O o ,z Y T F W QCz CL > �L .i - 0-0 m Q W z z x Ww ' o Vo ; < a w U —:D o < a an v Y LL0 Z �a Zo zmw 77 UL g xnz VA5 aw O W O V O z� w zZ ui Uw to a � 2 m _ f FN�n < C� Cpp W pp ' FaF A �O _ lug a� � & 9 zz a _ E) (2) ' 6 o Sp(IYO ITOi�W»]tl\m�'A�4\wwo�1e1\Y^n\IY\\-WOL'f 16M a!1 sXVa31131 W ' } U b w K W J 2 J Z Z e m O o I � N I U O(n1 ' Z R I \I _yr � � >_ J w I L a w i I n few �Wzc r OZ a no a - L z W o0 w LL EL w d wU oI z e_ wS::IF Is r e€a s w+ Q a �C7 5a a Ow aU J o }III _ J - 0 LLJ LL 114,1 P' I ' r 1€ i II >U w O � s 7 z €axe 50 2g 3 5°' 2� .zs O OOP r LL ° R8� aea Rmg 00 O •o wuvo trorimwu\m�..o\Wpe'nwx•+•^��..q-voox'u ee.-•u XVW ,lN / W U W w p �X a 0 Z NnI' Y z N of Q s V ° Z 8 N z % E ° U ¢ Q W 0 II ,� K b I � V O/nl - 'I W �yfi I O O I Ii I WI _Z7 !f3& Q � I a BIR 3t-& �W Y xvw ,z I I H J % I a I O - J m Q LU> w 0 W 0 W LL � I [ ¢ Q < ! 0 o < "I O < � z � > ; • mme Q' wU Z 2 ra ra U` a ¢ O W Jrc 0 0 O �, LL --4 f111.[_t Man ZLL U Asti a J z � t we � Y � _� >C w T F _nsr a rre a -` K a S se. , FNN E a W>3 w Z s+a r om ! I G° G G LL iT k k ED ° CS Q .t .. bqi fir: _��JJ mS Fes= o a I le a gF°N WNW res aaur. ! ! lam L" C � ,x (yY •p rNg jai} }e':s::� _ � � so SP • U '��:_ °t 53F 00000000 • '"°""••""' ) - i F q i n =• r��°�I \ �� :fit ��w a °e�J :9 Y \ '1 ILI �� � • O 80 � 31 �� z 8E } IIr z Z o to 1 o I S i• .Y a .� Y i a 0 tv - {{ 630N3M1Y ek�e�.N.eBvA��YN... i }15h � r t- _ III : g t I r. �y 9 t Y wF eeE CC H I • ; i >_ a m � Lt I � I I I I i Tl- oz —A I I; n; p fee @96 EY i ev c�A • AAA ae � RB RR ' �"_se3 IE I Re E y e: a J } H J eR Q ee I AF EI a I z 1 I J a tl 1 EeE 0 0 G 1 eA I — =s0N3AV `N3AVH e �. qLL, 1 m —77—T CL Zi L) h to N qo t t W z X)ONUIM FL ----------- - ------ --- t <LU C) C -0 0- < z w 0 w < L) z LLJ LLJ O Xu< (D<L) w >< C) Li LL 0 LU >L) /At?L o I i L It L ------- N IJ —--------- k-4 t Wl - ------- ------ ------- ------ -------- ----- - --- - ---------- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:45 p.m. Donald Granger September 5, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00381 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a 136-room hotel, including a bar, totaling 65,292 square feet on 2.92 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), within the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Center Avenue - APN: 0210-391-21. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17303 and Development Review and Master Plan DRC2005-00458. This action includes approval of an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2005, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15164. Design Parameters: The hotel site is Parcel 6 of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17303, which was approved on November 9, 2005, as part of the master planned Haven Park office project (Development Review DRC2005-00458). The Haven Park office project included the conceptual location of a future hotel as part of the master plan. The Haven Park office development is located in the Haven Avenue Overlay District, which requires exemplary, sophisticated urban office architecture. Architecture that makes strong use of glass, rich materials (granite, travertine, etc.), metal, recesses, openings, and portals is highly sought after, and vertical and horizontal articulation in the wall planes is required. The corner of 4th Street and Haven Avenue has been identified as an "urban center" and a major gateway into the City. The applicant is proposing to construct a 136-room, five-story, business class hotel at the western portion of the Haven Park office development, which is presently under construction. The hotel has been designed to compliment the approved Haven Park office project. The previously approved primary office buildings at Haven Park have been designed utilizing generous of amounts of tinted vision glass and anodized aluminum panels. Accent materials include dark hardwood and honed and cleft sandstone. The architecture of the Aloft Hotel takes its inspiration from urban lofts and makes a strong use of vision glass, metal panels, and accent light on the elevations and roof plane. The scale, form, fenestration patterns, materials and colors of the hotel will complement and enhance the presence of the two primary office buildings that flank Haven Avenue and Fourth Street. Staff is pleased with the design concept and recommends approval of the proposed architectural concept of the Aloft Hotel. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Technical Issues: The following technical issues are Code requirements, which must be satisfied before the project can be approved. As City Ordinances, they are not negotiable design elements. The applicant was formally informed of these issues in a letter from staff dated May 30, 2006. 1. The Aloft Hotel is proposing two wall signs that are approximately 190 square feet each; hence, exceed the allowable 50 square feet maximum in office-zones per Sign Ordinance Section 14.20.110. The Aloft Hotel is part of the Haven Park office park with an approved DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2006-00381 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 5, 2006 Page 2 Uniform Sign Program. One of the wall signs is located at the porte cochere on the south elevation and utilizes 7 to 8-foot high letters. The other sign is located on the roof at the east elevation and incorporates letter heights of 5-7 feet. The applicant contends that the signs are an integral component of the architecture of the building; however, that is irrelevant because the Sign Ordinance establishes a maximum sign area of "10 percent of building face, not to exceed 150 square feet." The two large three-story office buildings in Haven Park, buildings A and B, have signage that utilizes a maximum letter height of 3 feet 6 inches, with an area of 49 square feet (see attachments from the Uniform Sign Program). The Committee should review the proposed signs and provide input and direction as necessary. 2. Along all four sides of the Aloft Hotel, the 3-foot wide planter should be increased to minimum of 5 to 8 feet in order to provide a planting area of adequate depth for trees, at a rate of 1 tree per 30 lineal feet of elevation per Development Code Section 17.30.040.E.b. that will provide an appropriate level of landscaping and buffering for the five-story building: "Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of the building dimensions, particularly to interrupt expansive horizontal and vertical surfaces. Tree clusters may be used to satisfy specific design objectives." Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. None. PolicV Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. The monument sign location for the hotel will be required to adhere to the architectural requirements and site locations indicated in the existing Uniform Sign program for Haven Park. Note: The Uniform Sign Program for Haven Park limits the total number of signs for the hotel at three: two wall signs and one monument sign. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the issues outlined above, and provide input and direction as appropriate. Staff recommends that project be redesigned prior to being scheduled for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Munoz, Coleman Staff Planner: Donald Granger The applicant presented a revised Site Plan which satisfied the landscape planter issue discussed in the Design Review Comments. The applicant agreed to plant dwarf trees 10 to 12 feet tall around the perimeter of the hotel. Concerning the sign issue, the applicant felt their signs were integral and structural to the design of the hotel. The Committee indicated that the issue is non-conformity with the City's Sign DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2006-00381 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 5, 2006 Page 3 Ordinance regulations; hence, whether the signs are integral and structural is not relevant. Further, the Committee said that it would not be possible to make the five legal findings under California law to grant a variance for the signs because any hardship is self-imposed by their design choices, not something unique about the physical characteristics of the property. After the reviewing the colored renderings and architectural plans, the Committee directed the applicant to revise the proposed signage in order to be compliant with the height and square footage requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Concerning the building design, the Committee did not recommend approval. The Committee indicated support for the materials which match the adjoining office complex under construction; however, the Committee directed the applicant to enhance and modify the elevations to include significant articulation and pop-outs that create relief and visual interest that matches the caliber of the two primary office buildings that which Haven Avenue and Fourth Street. The Committee encouraged the applicant to modify the wall planes on all elevations to include undulation and add elements that create relief. Using colored elevations of the proposed hotel side-by-side with the approved colored elevations of the adjoining office building, the Committee highlighted key differences in their design concepts. The hotel, which is two floors taller than the office building, lacks the strong pop-out forms and vertical elements (glass extending between floors). The Committee added that the hotel elevations are flat and need to be bold. Mr. Charles Buquet indicated that their architect was not in attendance. The applicant stated that they had abandoned a bolder six-story concept because of Fire District requirements. The applicant stated that they could not extend glass between floors for a stronger vertical element, as done on the adjoining office building, because of the air conditioner vents. It was noted that the colored elevations showed the primary wall color as gray; however, Mr. Jack Hilemann, the developer of the adjoining office complex, said that it was his understanding that the hotel intended to use the same primary wall color which is a light beige. The Committee requested that the applicant make the revised changes and that the project be scheduled for review at their September 19, 2006 Meeting. The applicant agreed to revise the plans in response to the Committee's comments. Imp 600 CL J i l l w a , v A r l�. U _ Y r. O e � i i I :R IiiaEir �: 1 4v9�6 pirsi' f Ir�i9 s�� i I! 7 i 9��I I�!1 I I i j sl: aIo II ��a co G 1 7 is �tll 009 p j �� i o�W (� p t� _ — ,� F 1111 i_ it 6E t6�l�g�iit Iw9° o r i : w 5 T T e; ii Zi F77 g� s 3q T > F 7,15 R dd L + :: tlP + th iE kx,' z y i a rr sr� � 1— h § rr y, yg�c 7.7 ` EEY vw �'• x � �t j j U x +" hg _ , x jji�k at - IH9B;O'JOLm41T -- ,io, N , 'kM9E i`•i-5—� � X0 00© 0 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:05 p.m. Vance Pomeroy September 5, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510 F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES - The development of a commercial center totaling 41,292 square feet on 5.12 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 4), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related file: Variance DRC2003-00511. Design Parameters: This project was last before the Design Review Committee on April 4, 2006, after some re-design from the July 6, 2004, appearance before the Committee. The April 4, 2006, appearance was intended to allow the applicant some feedback and direction on the re-designed site. At that time, the re-designed Conceptual Site Plan included a gas station building with a drive-thru automatic car wash along the northwest corner, an approximately 6,000 square foot retail building at the northeast portion of the site, and an approximately 30,000 square foot retail building across the entire rear of the site. The applicant understood the potential conflicts presented by the carwash and eliminated it from the project in a version of the Site Plan presented the night of the April 4, 2006, meeting. The Committee stated at the time that this latest Conceptual Site Plan was a positive move in the right direction. The applicant now presents the entire project for Committee review: 2,900 square foot gas station building (A) at the northwest corner with three pump islands (no car wash) • 8,636 square foot freestanding retail building (C) at the northeast corner • 29,756 square foot retail shop building (B) along the south boundary line The Committee should review the appropriateness of the site design changes and mix of uses, as well as any design that would best accommodate the uses with the Route 66 Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan design guidelines. The proposed design has incorporated the following Route 66 Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan "Activity Center" design treatments: special parkway treatment and historic bus shelter. 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 gas station, Building A, should incorporate the Carolina Ledgestone product along the base of the four elevations in addition to the entryway in a manner similar to the other two buildings. DRC ACTON AGENDA DRC2003-00510 — F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES September 5, 2006 Page 2 2. Building C should incorporate the Carolina Ledgestone product along the base of the east elevation. 3. Provide "icons" within the Foothill Boulevard parkway per the Route 66 Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan "Activity Center" design standards. 4. Provide special artwork or Route 66 District identification at the corner. Technical Issues: The following technical issues are Code requirements, which must be satisfied before the project can be approved. As City Ordinances, they are not negotiable design elements. The applicant was informed in writing of these Code standards in July 2003: 1. Provide 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building elevation per Development Code Section 17.10.040.0.3: "Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures, at an equivalent of one tree per 30 linear feet of building, which has public exposure." For example, Building B is 494 feet long; therefore, there should be at least 16 trees along north elevation (but only 7 are shown). Building C should have at least 4 trees along the west (front) elevation. 2. Provide 1 tree per every three parking stalls per Development Code Section 17.10.040.0.2: "Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of 1 tree for every three parking stalls." Parking rows along the north and east sides of Building B and south and west sides of Building C do not comply. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the revisions described herein. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Munoz, Coleman, Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following: 1. The gas station building should incorporate the Carolina Ledgestone product along the base of the four elevations in addition to the entryway in a manner similar to the other two buildings. 2. Building C should incorporate the Carolina Ledgestone product along the base of the east elevation. 3. Provide "icons within the Foothill Boulevard parkway per the Route 66 Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan "Activity Center" design standards. DRC ACTON AGENDA DRC2003-00510 — F. J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES September 5, 2006 Page 3 4. Provide special artwork or Route 66 District identification at the corner. 5. Provide 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building elevation per Development Code Section 17.10.040.C.3: "Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures, at an equivalent of one tree per 30 linear feet of building, which has public exposure." For example, Building B is 494 feet long; therefore, there should be at least 16 trees along north elevation (but only 7 are shown). Building C should have at least 4 trees along the west (front) elevation. 6. Provide 1 tree per every three parking stalls per Development Code Section 17.10.040.C.2: "Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of 1 tree for every three parking stalls." Parking rows along the north and east sides of Building B and south and west sides of Building C do not comply DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:25 p.m. Rozalynne Thompson September 5, 2006 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00744 - CHRISTIAN VARELA - A request to construct a single-family residence and three-car garage of approximately 5,778 square feet on a 1.01-acre lot in the Hillside Residential District (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on Inspiration Lane - APN: 0200-441-38. Design Parameters: The project site is irregular in shape with an overall depth and width of approximately 340 feet and 148 feet, respectively. With the exception of a parcel to the east, all of the surrounding properties are developed with single-family residences. There is minimal vegetation on-site. A Southern California Edison Easement encumbers approximately half of the lot area. A 15-foot drainage easement also traverses the southern portion of the property. The applicant proposes to construct a single-story, single-family residence with an attached, side loading, three-car garage. The proposed residence will be setback approximately 72 feet from the curb face. The existing topography of this downhill lot drops 42 feet north to south from about 2,246 feet to about 2,204 feet. The front half of the lot proposed for development drops 26 feet. The finished floor of the house is broken up into six distinct floor levels, with finished floor elevations ranging from 2,225 feet at the master bedroom to 2,231 feet at the foyer. To accommodate the side loading garage, the project requires an elevation change of 14 feet from the front property line to the face of the garage (approximately 57 feet). The remaining five pads of the residence will have a total elevation change of 5.5 feet over the natural grade. The project will require 1,553-cubic yards of cut, 1,423-cubic yards of fill, and a retaining wall 66 feet in length to the rear of the residence. The proposed home is of a modified Ranch architectural style with some formal elements. The formal elements include quarry stone window moldings, quarry stone balustrades, stained-glass doors and windows, a cupola, decorative chimney arrestors, and limestone veneer at select areas of the fagade. The general height of the residence is 16 feet (with the exceptions of the chimney and cupola over the vestibule area) with a 4:12 pitched, clay tiled, hipped roof. Earth-tone hues comprise the color palette. Given the design characteristics inherent to the Ranch architectural style (low-pitched hipped roofs, rambling fagade), the structure fits well within the 30-foot hillside building envelope and has a lower profile relative to the neighboring structures. The six steps in the building pad at different elevations allow the structure to terrace with the natural terrain which breaks up a potentially large roof area. The building materials used (limestone, wood, quarry stone) and muted earth-tone color blends with the natural terrain. All elevations are well articulated, and wall planes have been treated using a variety of elements such as limestone veneer, columns, window moldings, and balustrades. 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. Grading: Per section 17.24.060 A. of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, structures should be located in such a way as to minimize necessary grading and to DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2005-00744 — CHRISTIAN VARELA September 5, 2006 Page 2 preserve natural features. The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Although grading for the proposed home meets the guidelines through the use of multiple stepped building pads, the major concerns are the amount of grading in the rear yard and the height of the associated retaining the wall to achieve a flat pad area. Specifically, a retaining wall, up to 10 feet in height, is proposed in the rear yard to accommodate fill for the structure and the proposed rear yard. As a result, the rear yard area will be approximately 56 linear feet from the rear of the structure, where 15 feet is the maximum. Staff met with the applicant to discuss alternative designs of the rear yard area. Staff concluded that the 15-foot usable rear yard area limitation is unfeasible because the Southern California Easement proscribes use of approximately half the property. However, staff directed the applicant to either reduce the height of the retaining wall to the 4-foot maximum or to introduce the terraced walls with a maximum height of 3 feet and a minimum 3-foot separation. The applicant has agreed to the former. Another design solution suggested by the Hillside Development Ordinance is the use of raised decks to create a flat usable area. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. A Conceptual Landscape Plan should be provided for staff review prior to issuance of Building Permits. The plan should provide a high degree of erosion control by use of appropriate plant materials to bind the soil. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Munoz, Coleman Staff Planner: Rozalynne Thompson The Committee recommended approval of the project as presented. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS September 5, 2006 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9: M. L tfully s bmi d,D an Principal Planner