HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/11/14 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 14, 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.)
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.
(Tabe/Cam) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2006-00131 - HOWARD NGUYEN - A request
to construct a two-story 6,908 square foot house and attached garage on a
26,247 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per
acre), located at 5074 Cartilla Avenue - APN: 1074-121-11. The Planning
Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 which covers the construction of a limited
number of new structures. This includes the construction of one single-family
residence in a residential zone. Because the project only proposes the
construction of a single home in an established residentially zoned
neighborhood, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. CONTINUED FROM
OCTOBER 17, 2006, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEEITG.
7:20 p.m.
(Emily/Cam) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00554 - VAN DAELE - A request to
develop 70 single-family homes on 2.89 acres in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwellings per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located near Indian Wells
Place and Melbourne Drive - APN: 0225-071-048. Staff has found the project to
be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse #88082915 and #98121091 certified by the City
Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental
impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
November 14, 2006
Page 2
7:40 p.m.
(Mike S.M/illie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2005-00831 - VIC R. HIZON FOR ELIZABETH AND DIOGENES CORPUS -A
request to construct a two-story medical office building of 8,000 square feet on
multiple parcels (combined area = 1.1 acre) in the Office/Professional District,
located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Road -
APN: 0208-091-09, 32, 60, 74, and 77.
8:00 p.m.
(Doug/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTPM17818 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide
12.66 net acres of land into 6.parcels for commercial and professional office
purposes designated as General Commercial and within the District of Industrial
Park (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-021-31 and 32. Related Files: Conditional Use
Permit DRC2005-0001084 and Development District Amendment
DRC2005-01008. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2005-01084 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a
master plan for an office and commercial center consisting of one bank with
drive-thru at 4,500 square feet (Building A), one drive-thru restaurant at
2,430 square feet (Building B), two restaurant buildings totaling 13,000 square
feet (Buildings C and E), one retail multi-tenant/restaurant building at
5,100 square feet (Building D), and a two-story 39,400 square foot medical office
(Building F) on 12.66 net acres of land in the designated as General Commercial
and within the District of Industrial Park (Subarea 7), located at the southeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-021-31 and 32.
Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17818 and Development District
Amendment DRC2005-01008. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
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
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Tabe Van der Zwaag November 14, 2006
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2006-00131 - HOWARD NGUYEN - A request to construct a
two-story 6,908 square foot house and attached garage on a 26,247 square foot lot in the Very
Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5074 Cartilla Avenue -
APN: 1074-121-11. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 which covers the construction of a limited number of new
structures. This includes the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone.
Because the project only proposes the construction of a single home in an established
residentially zoned neighborhood, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Background: The lot is in the Hillside Overlay District. The intent of the Hillside Development
Regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural
features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and
profile of the slope, and give consideration to the 16size of the lot and configuration.
Recommendations by the Committee will be forwarded to the Planning Director for review and
action.
Design Parameters: The project site is generally diamond in shape and is located at the end of
a cul-de-sac on a parcel of about 26,247 square feet. The uphill lot has grades varying from
4 percent to 13 percent with an average grade of 10.71 percent. The lot rises 21 feet over a
distance of 220 feet, as measured from the curb face to the deepest point of the rear yard. The
lot is last to be developed on the cul-de-sac and is bordered by single-family residences to the
south, east, and west and by a San Bernardino County Flood Control District channel to'the
north. The proposed 6,165 square foot two-story residence is setback 65 feet from the curb
face and meets the height limits, setbacks, and lot coverage requirements of the Hillside
Overlay District.
The project design, while meeting the general architectural requirements, does not conform to
the intent of the Hillside Overlay District to minimize grading and ensure that the mass of the
house is designed to blend with the natural terrain. The proposed grading design requires
nearly 5 feet of cut at the rear of the house (north) and the removal of 830 cubic yards of earth,
and 140 cubic yards of fill, over the entire site; therefore, is exporting 690 cubic yards. The floor
plan of the house includes a single step of 18 inches at the entry foyer, while the majority of the
floor plan is flat padded. The finished floor in the garage is 2 feet below the finished floor of the
main portion of the house and 2 feet below the natural grade. The additional cut in the garage
area was necessary in order to reduce the maximum grade of the driveway to 15 percent. The
Development Code requires Planning Commission review and approval for projects with 5 feet
or more cut or fill, or 1,500 cubic yards or more of total grading.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
November 14, 2006
Page 2
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding the project:
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 preserve
natural features. The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the
intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Staff finds that the proposed design is contrary to
the following guidelines and standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance:
• The house, except for the garage and entry foyer, is designed with a flat floor "slab on
grade." In contrast, the existing landform rises 6 feet from the front to the back of the
house. The 5 feet of cut directly at the rear of the house is caused by the flat floor design
of the house. The intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance is to "conform to the
natural landform by using techniques such as split level foundations of greater than
18 inches, stem walls, stacking and clustering" per Section 17.24.050 and the requirement
that "the form, mass, and profile of the individual buildings and architectural features
should be designed to blend with the natural terrain and preserve the character and profile
of the natural slope. Some techniques, which may be considered, include: a. Split pads,
stepped footings, and grade separations to permit the structure to step up the natural
slope" per Section 17.24.060.C.i.a.
• The proposed grading design exceeds the 15-foot maximum usable rear yard area and
the 24-foot by 24-foot corral area allowed by Hillside Development Ordinance
Section 17.24.070.G.6: "Lot padding is limited to the boundaries of the structure's
foundation, a usable rear yard area (residential only) of 15 feet adjacent to and between
the structure and top or toe of slope, and a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area. If it is physically
unfeasible to design a reasonable usable yard area because of conflict with other grading
standards, then other forms of usable open space should be considered such as`. decks,
patios, balconies, or other similar forms of built structures designed to fit the natural
topography." The majority of the lot is proposed to be graded, including approximately
5 feet of cut in the backyard 65 feet away from the house. The plan is most deficient in
meeting the intent of this Code section in the flat padded corral area, which is larger than
the minimum 24-foot by 24-foot requirement. The applicant has not filed a variance
application to request relief from this Code standard.
Grading could be minimized by adding additional steps to the foundation of the house. Staff
recommended that the applicant incorporate multiple steps within the foundation, each at least
18 inches. The applicant's architect feels that he has stepped the house and that the proposed
design meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. He wishes to make
his case for approval of the current design with the Design Review Committee.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised to incorporate additional
steps in the foundation with the goal of reducing the amount of grading at the rear of the house.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Stewart, McPhail, Coleman
Staff Planner: Tabe Van der Zwaag
DRC ACTION AGENDA
November 14, 2006
Page 3
The Committee indicated they did not see how a variance could be granted; hence,
recommended that the applicant work with staff on revisions. The Committee did not
recommend approval of the project. The applicant was advised of their right to apply for a
variance and proceed forward to the Planning Commission without the support of this
Committee.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Emily Cameron November 14, 2006
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00554 - VAN DAELE - A request to develop
70 single-family homes on 2.89 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwellings per acre) of
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located near Indian Wells Place and Melbourne Drive -
APN: 0225-071-048. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered
by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #88082915 and #98121091
certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental
impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report.
Background: On August 1, 2001, the City Council approved Development Agreement DA01-01.
This agreement is for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates, a 632 lot Master Planned Community
encompassing approximately 249 acres at the top of Day Creek Boulevard. The Development
Agreement requires the applicants to develop within substantial compliance with the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan, incorporating the architecture and design details of the Etiwanda area.
Requirements include side on garages, recessed garages, exterior siding, and specific
architectural styles.
The Development Agreement required the Low Residential requirements for all lots within this
tract. The property was rough graded in June of 2004, and infrastructure was installed. The
master developer has agreed to install the main access of the gated community, as well as the
decorative perimeter walls. These walls will be consistent throughout the entire master planned
community. The site is bordered by Etiwanda Avenue to the west, Stillwater Place to the south,
and the Southern California Edison Corridor to the northeast and northwest.
Design Parameters: The project site is located within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood,
which has its own unique architectural design guidelines per the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
(ENSP). The ENSP requires that a mix of the following primary architectural styles be used for
at least two-thirds of the units: Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. Up to one-third of
the units may use these styles: Country, Victorian, or Santa Barbara Revival. A total of
70 homes are proposed, with 9 single-story homes proposed. The proposed names for each
architectural style varies slightly from the Upper Etiwanda area but are considered the same.
The names 'Spanish Colonial (Monterey), Farmhouse (Ranch), and California Bungalow
(Bungalow) are the primary styles along with Early California (Country). The two-story plans
have been designed with 4 floor pans and four architectural styles. The single-story plans
provide 4 floor plans as well and four architectural styles.
"Upper Etiwanda" Architectural Styles
Primary Styles per Secondary Styles per Proposed Styles
ENSP ENSP
Bungalow California Bungalow(27 percent)
Ranch Farmhouse 19 percent)
Spanish Colonial 24 percent)
San Juan
Country Early California 26 percent)
Victorian
Santa Barbara Revival
DRC ACTION AGENDA
November 14, 2006
Page 2•
The Spanish Colonial elevation incorporates, wrought iron detail, as well as recessed windows.
The architectural details include front courtyards with gates and pop-out elements. The Early
California style incorporates shutter detail, s-tile roofing, and brick accents. The Farmhouse
elevation uses the same level of detail with stone veneer and two styles of siding. The
Bungalow elevation incorporates many traditional Bungalow accents such as oversized timber,
stone accents, and Craftsman style windows.
The majority of the homes have optional porches only and are recommended to use these as
standard porches. Staff is recommending that some homes incorporate decorative garage
doors and chimneys to match the architectural style of the home. The developer is proposing to
build the homes in 4 phases with four model homes.
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. Articulate all sides of all houses to avoid two-story "box-on-box" appearance. Staff
recommends adding horizontal movement of wall planes to the single-story plans
(left side) to incorporate pop-outs in all elevations.
2. Provide chimneys with rock material (to match) on the Farmhouse elevation and the
California Bungalow. The rock work should begin at ground level and extend to the height
of the chimney.
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 a row of open "windows" on the garage doors of the Farmhouse elevation.
2. Porches shown on the elevations presented shall be a standard feature, not an option.
3. Provide balconies as standard on approximately 40 percent of the homes. This should
include balconies on corner lots, major streets, and any other rear yards that may be
visible from public view.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Etiwanda North Specific Plan standards,
Planning Commission policy, or previous conditions of approval and should be incorporated into
the project design without discussion:
1. Boulders from the project site shall be utilized and integrated as part of the front yard
Landscape Plan per the Master Plan Resolution of Approval.
2. Driveways shall be scored in a pattern for additional entryway detail. Provide a diagonal
score pattern on 25 percent of the homes.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
November 14, 2006
Page 3
3. All corner side walls shall be setback 12 feet from the curb at the sidewalk if the property
line is adjacent.
4. All courtyard areas within the front yard shall be planted as a requirement of front yard
landscaping.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend
approval of the project subject to the above revisions.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Stewart, McPhail, Coleman
Staff Planner: Emily Cameron
The applicant presented the revised plans addressing staff recommendations. The applicant
agreed to add porches on two more lots in addition to those show on the revised plans. The
Committee recommended approval.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Mike Smith November 14, 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00831 —
VIC R. HIZON FOR ELIZABETH AND DIOGENES CORPUS - A request to construct a
two-story medical office building of 8,000 square feet on multiple parcels (combined area =
1.1 acre) in the Office/Professional District, located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue
and San Bernardino Road - APN: 0208-091-09, 32, 60, 74, and 77.
Design Parameters: The subject site is about 140 to 160 feet deep (north to south) and about
330 feet wide (east-west) with an overall area of 47,950 square feet (1.1 acre). The project site
is vacant. Vegetation on-site is limited to low grasses; there are no trees. To the north, west,
and east of the project site are single-family residences. To the south is the Thomas Winery
Plaza. The topography of the site falls about 10 feet from north to south. In relation to the
elevation of the project site, the finished floor of the single-story residences to the north are
about 10 feet higher while the two-story residences to the east are about level. As the project
site is comprised of five (5) parcels, the applicant will be required to submit a lot merger
application as a condition of approval.
The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) single-story office buildings, linked together by a
common roof system, with a combined floor area of 7,620 square feet. The buildings are .
situated on the western half of the project site, while the parking lot will be located at the eastern
half. As the applicant contemplates multiple tenants, he proposes multiple offices with
independent entrances via a courtyard between the two buildings. The site has one vehicular
access point from San Bernardino Road. Pedestrian access will be provided from both
San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue.
The buildings will be constructed of wood framing (or similar) and have pitched (5:12),
concrete-tiled roofs. Building materials used include stucco/plaster, river rock, and glass; these
materials are applied evenly on all elevations. On the south side of the south building, the
applicant has incorporated a tower element that provides a focal point as seen from
San Bernardino Road. Physically connecting the buildings will be two decorative roof structures
that will visually 'unify' the complex and define the courtyard/breezeway area. The paint
scheme is comprised of different colors that further define the above noted elements.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: None — The applicant has worked diligently with staff to address all major design
issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. In the arched area of the tower element, enlarge the windows provided so that they 'fill-out'
the space. Also, eliminate the three wood elements (which appear to 'support' the rock
arch) and the trim that outlines the bottom edge of the arch as these features are
superfluous.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
November 14, 2006
Page 2
2. Increase the depth of the lower half of the exterior walls of the buildings so that they are
projected about 6-inches from the upper half of the exterior walls of the buildings.
3. Provide a reveal, wainscot, or equivalent physical feature that enhances the delineation of
the 'upper' and 'lower' halves of each building. This 'line' is currently delineated only by a
change in paint color.
4. Provide more landscaping in the breezeway/courtyard area.
5. Delete one parking stall at the northeast corner of the parking lot, and replace with
landscaping.
6. Provide 'indents' in the landscaped area along the east perimeter of the project site to
facilitate backing-out of parking stall 26 (see attached).
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. Decorative paving shall be provided at the vehicular access point to the site and courtyard
area.
2. All access doors shall be painted to match the adjacent wall.
3. All ground-mounted equipment shall be adequately screened from view with landscaping,
berming, or both.
4. The trash enclosures shall be constructed per the City's design standard for commercial
projects. This enclosure shall incorporate some of the design elements present in the
buildings (such as color and material).
5. All walls (including retaining walls) shall be constructed of decorative block such as
split-face or slumpstone or decoratively finished with stucco, stack/ledgestone, or real river
rock.
6. The decorative rock finish on the building shall be real river rock.
Code Standards: The following items are required by Ordinance; hence will be conditions of
approval:
1. Provide a bike rack adequate for a minimum of three bikes at the east and west ends of
the courtyard area.
2. One tree shall be provided for every 3 parking stalls (especially along the north and east
property lines).
3. A minimum 1-foot candle of illumination shall be maintained across the surface of the
entire parking area. Light standards in the parking lots shall not exceed 15 feet in height
and shall be architecturally compatible with the building. Light standards shall be a low
profile design and must be shielded to not cause glare on the adjacent properties.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
November 14, 2006
Page 3
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved with the suggested
revisions listed above and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Stewart, McPhail, Coleman
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
The applicant agreed to all staff recommendations. The Committee requested clarification of
the colors. The applicant indicated they will use the colors shown on their building materials
sample board. The Committee recommended approval provided they use tile roof and add
plants around the foundation to soften the edge between the hardscape and the building.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 p.m. Doug Fenn November 14, 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17818
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide 12.66 net acres of land into
6 parcels for commercial and professional office purposes designated as General Commercial
and within the District of Industrial Park (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-021-31 and 32. Related Files:
Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-0001084 and Development District Amendment
DRC2005-01008. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-01084 -
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a master plan for an office and
commercial center consisting of one bank with drive-thru at 4,500 square feet (Building A), one
drive-thru restaurant at 2,430 square feet (Building B), two restaurant buildings totaling
13,000 square feet (Buildings C and E), one retail multi-tenant/restaurant building at
5,100 square feet (Building D), and a two-story 39,400 square foot medical office (Building F) on
12.66 net acres of land in the designated as General Commercial and within the District of
Industrial Park (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-021-31 and 32. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM17818 and Development District Amendment DRC2005-01008. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Site Parameters: The site is rectangular in shape and is comprised of two parcels. It is vacant
with sparse vegetation and weeds covering the majority of the site and has evidence of discing
for weed abatement purposes. To the north of Foothill Boulevard is the recently-approved
commercial center DRC2005-00365; to the east is an Edison Power Line Corridor; to the south
is vacant land with a professional office project that will be reviewed for entitlement by the
Planning Commission on December 13, 2006. To the west/north are the Aggazzotti home,
formerly a winery and designated Historic Point of Interest (not a part of project), and the
Masi Plaza commercial center across the street of Rochester Avenue.
Design Parameters:
The proposed master plan project, with its mix of office, retail, and restaurants, will have a
synergy consistent with the commercial/office corridor of Foothill Boulevard. The five retail/
restaurant and bank buildings front along Foothill Boulevard. The two-story office building faces
Rochester Avenue. There is one main entrance off of Rochester Avenue for the professional
office building (Building F), and two ingress/egress accesses are provided off of
Foothill Boulevard; first one just east of the Aggazzotti residence and the other at the eastern
property line. The eastern Foothill Boulevard access will line up with the new signalized median
break that was recently approved for the northerly commercial project DRC2005-00365. There
is a plaza area between Buildings C, D and E that is visible from Foothill Boulevard.
The property is designated as a "Suburban Parkway Enhancement Area" by the Route 66
Visual Improvement Plan. ' The proposed Landscape Plan reflects these required elements,
including special parkway and street pavement treatments.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTPM17818 AND DRC2005-01084
November 14, 2006
Page 2
The applicant has also included two decorative pilasters that are visible from Foothill Boulevard
and two decorative Route 66 monument pedestrian gateway structures on the north and the
side of the multi-retail and restaurant Building (D). Building D is also flanked by an abundant
amount of Date Palm trees, many are aesthetically designed in front of the building.
The multi-retail and restaurant Building D is the only building that was submitted with an
elevation plan and will be the architectural standard by which all the other commercial buildings
will have to comply with. The exterior building skin of the commercial buildings will contain
Dalitle Grigio ceramic wall tiles, clear anodized aluminum window frames, Grey tint Pilkington
storefront glazing, Vintage wood Madera concrete tile roofing, and Tumbleweed Ledge stone
veneer (which has been changed to a rounded smooth veneer - a sample will be available at the
Design Review Committee meeting). The two-story office building is a rectangular shaped
building with subtle recessed arch elements at the base and protruding vertical metallic
rectangle shaped columns that exceed the height of the primary roof line on the east and west
sides of the building. Metal silver colored, trellis-like sun shade canopies are over the entry
ways. There is also interplay of a concrete arch that is designed with reveal cuts on the north
and south side of the building. Materials of the building are blue/green tinted reflective glass,
clear anodized aluminum mullions, Pietra Di Luserna. ceramic tiles, and a complimentary color
schedule of grey, desert and off-white paint finish.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Map and Design Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee
discussion regarding this project. As noted above, the project site is located along
Foothill Boulevard, the City's primary commercial corridor. The building architecture, site
planning, and landscaping must be of the highest quality and sophistication. To meet this goal,
staff recommends the following enhancements:
Map
1. The proposed tentative parcel map appears to be the old version as opposed to the
revised version that reflects the required on-site parking spaces. Additionally, this map
does not depict the correct building pads. Please revise or clarify how you intend to
subdivide the project.
Design
1. Access/Site Plan - A driveway is proposed adjoining the existing Aggazotti residence and
could create noise, light and glare problems. For eastbound traffic on Foothill Boulevard,
this will be the first driveway into the project. Will the 10-foot wide planter and the existing
fence provide adequate buffering between two very different intensities of land use?
2. Parking/Site Plan - Since the project was deemed complete, the applicant has made some
changes that now must be analyzed for Code compliance. There appears to be some minor
inconsistencies of the modified Uniform Application, Site Plan, and other related plans.
Below is a table that depicts what is required and what was proposed.
• The data on the following table assumes that the property lines shown on the Site Plan are
correct as opposed to the proposed property lines of the submitted Tentative Parcel Map.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTPM17818 AND DRC2005-01084
November 14, 2006
Page 3
Type of Bldg. Use Required Parking Provided Parking Inconsistent or
and Square footage Amount deficient Required
Parkin
Bldg. A Bank with drive-thru 18 parking spaces @ 18 parking spaces None
4,500 square feet 1/250
Bldg. B Drive-thru
Restaurant '2,430
square feet. 32 spaces @ 1/75 25 parking spaces Deficient 7 parking
However, the Site Plan spaces
depicts 2,400 square feet
Bldg. C Restaurant 6,000 60 spaces @ 1/100 61 parking spaces None
square feet
Bldg. D Multi-tenant Unknown Not Available Not available
Retail/Restaurant The number of parking
5,100 square feet spaces can not be
correctly determined
parking because the
amount of retail vs.
restaurant is not
provided.
Retail would be 1/250
and a non-fast food
restaurant will be 1/100
Bldg. E Restaurant 7,000 60 parking spaces 78 parking spaces None
square feet @1/100 and 18 @ 1/55
Bldg. F Medical Office Bldg. 197 parking spaces - 158 parking spaces Deficient 39
39,400 square feet Medical office is @1/200 office @1/250 parking spaces
To make the parking Site Plan to easier to read and understand, please provide a sheet that
depicts a Site Plan with the proposed property lines and parking spaces. Any changes to the
parking layout will affect the parking lot design.
The applicant also proposes a valet parking pick-up and drop-off area that is off-set from the
drive aisle, which could possible impact the required parking. Assuming that valet service will
' be in the evening hours, the applicant will need to identify where such valet parking will be
located, and will it be separated and cordon off from the rest of the parking lot. Additionally, the
applicant shows outdoor patio dining areas. These outdoor dining areas must also be included
in the tabulation of required parking spaces.
Staff recommends that an on-site parking analysis be provide to clarify the above reference
parking issues shortfall. The applicant also depicts community seating on the south side of the
multi-tenant retail Building D. If these outdoor seating areas are part of the plaza area and not
intended as out dining areas, then they should be dispersed and clustered throughout the plaza
around the landscape planters to help strengthen the plaza area ambiance.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTPM17818 AND DRC2005-01084
November 14, 2006
Page 4
3. Architecture
a. Retail Buildings: The multi-retail and restaurant Building (D) is the only building
submitted with elevations. The applicant will submit elevations of the other buildings
once a tenant has signed a contract, and a development review proposal will be
processed for approval. Staff has informed the applicant that the first approved retail
building will set the standard and design criteria for the other buildings. All of the
buildings must be designed to reflect a fluid architectural theme that appears as if all
of the buildings were entitled at the same time with the same architectural design.
Staff does like the rounded tower element that is designed at the center of the
Building D; however, the rest of the building reflects an overall design that is "typical'
of an uncreative in-line retail center.
b. Medical Office Building: The multi-story medical office Building F is an architectural
style (two options are presented) that is not reflective of retail Building D design but
has a similar color palette to match the retail colors. This will make the two different
uses appear uniform.
Staff recommends the following to give the office building a finished professional
look:
Except for the vertical metallic elements, a cornice should be added on the
primary and secondary roof lines.
• On the east and west side of the building, the top roof line screen element shall
extend out to the next reveal joint point.
Increase the height of the glass on the second story (may be spandrel glass)
on all sides of the building.
• On the north and west sides of the building, cover the entire arch type element
with the Pietera Di Luserna ceramic tile. It may be a good idea to make the
color of the tile a bit darker, to be in concrete with the darker stone material on
the retail buildings.
4. Landscaping
a. Provide a more creative landscape palette.
b. Route 66 Suburban Parkway Enhancement Area — Provide the required elements per
the Visual Improvement Plan (see Attachment A): 1) Repave the street with "Street
Print" accent paving material and a Route 66 logo imprinted into the pavement
surface; 2) Install post and cable barrier behind the curb; 3) Add special artworklicon
both in the parkway and median; and 4) Add mosaic murals or state decal tile-work
inlays. Revise the sidewalk design to match the Visual Improvement Plan standards.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTPM17818 AND DRC2005-01084
November 14, 2006
Page 5
5. Lighting Plan
a. Revise the proposed light fixtures to include proper shielding to prevent spillage and
glare onto the adjoining Aggazzotti residence.
6. Miscellaneous Items
a. The trash enclosures must be decorative to match the architecture of the project and
delete the split face block.
b. The pedestrian pathways shall have illuminated bollards to help strengthen the
pathways at night time for aesthetic and safety purposes.
C. Provide trellis over the pedestrian pathways flanked (where possible) with landscape
planters.
d. Extend the decorative paving along the entire distance of the flanking landscape
planters and terminate at the crossing drive aisle.
-e. The oval shaped planter in front of the medical office building should include a
decorative pilaster as provided along Foothill Boulevard.
f. The decorative pilasters on Foothill Boulevard should be located as to not be blocked
by the proposed Date Palm trees.
g. Two additional pilasters should be located on the south side of the plaza area in front
of Building D and shall align with the two north facing pilasters.
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 will require review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program.
2. All outdoor furniture (tables, benches, trash receptacles, bollards, bus shelter etc.) shall be
uniform and reflection of the Route 66 theme (see Attachment B).
Housekeeping Item
1. Provide full size color elevations and Landscape Plans.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee direct the applicant to go back
and work with staff to address inconsistencies and revise the project as listed in the Design
Review staff report and bring the project back to the Committee for Design Review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Stewart, McPhail, Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTPM17818 AND DRC2005-01084
November 14, 2006
Page 6
Staff gave a brief overview of the project to the Committee members. Staff informed the
Committee that the project (especially the retail portion) needs to be revised and reviewed by
staff.
The applicant came prepared a written response to the Design Review Committee Staff Report.
The applicant gave a presentation regarding some changes they made to the Site and
Landscape Plans and an overall history of the development of the elevation submittal.
However, no new changes were made to the elevations that were recommended by staff in the
Design Review Staff Report.
The Committee did agree that the professional office building did need a cornice, and that the
color of the stone material was appropriate and the elevation screen like element could be
reduced in size.
The Committee recommended that the remaining outstanding items such as parking and the
retail building redesign be worked out with staff and that the project should come back as a
Consent Item once all issues have been addressed.
a^V 1sE3 •
•
v M kr"
; q a', o • f •
W {I
2nd EpUeMl13 _
s
di.
� J
ft
LW ,P uyiu
lam ^
a +.
•`
Frr
' any aaisayDON
4fp{ 4
^ie
:
NUNN
anyua1!p!w
O
LL
L,
any UaneH
M
4.1 su
,F
any,esowaaH
2^V PIe9!4aaV
6".i k; `
C•
J
any uewllaH
caT`y4
�8
w
y
Q
any PJeAaUin a
w rs E
"JIM
LU
ro _
oU $
u
o
L L
E e
o
any @AOJE) Q v°
0 0 ® Q
' 1
y v c 3 3 0 • i�
oOn ^�, �v 3 •
u v o v ° N v M
>
CL ra vL.. Y N .v v � � � u Q
.O.• ¢ 3 c 3 ) Tw - - ro v c y w
s v E u v O ° ro n:
w
ce
a) -0 c E
Z m o w v u C � N m ro O sue, to N
V W wa ' Unty v ° _0 3
•� w X O L o > c i F
za0 QC) oo � ° Gi ai0-
¢ v 3 c p v y v u a ° ro
Z o ° O G 7 a ro u o �
Q) ro v 3
u ' c � u E umt so � E ro
¢ 3 v A c N c
"� `l .j V ro v i0 V N
n
Q u v '- ° ° E u �p n E .s v c
0 ACC w
L 4 N `m o ro E c ro u a ro v e D b-0 pp Y
u 0 -C V In a) aJ u _M a) u b .0 to C C U 7
v M ocn @ o v u E ro ro n I
ZD
Y O
(=A Z • 0-:F u-) Ou w a • ° .� w o_.0 w w n p
'V/�0
� r I ryY� rywF
+ e "
e
r I
ti� M nl� t�r etiyt es: f� CI x� r S � I t
F 5 bt t°! ti 6ztY°d� (44
alt IYn tv Fl�1 t"i ft ,ly. J
IR
`a yex >o e "t a t s
} z"f s I'nixsJ. ,tY'"Y u •y .
t'�`IJ,I
Y
aavnii-n-W nlHloo
��R.yi�� y c y y reA s fr z t
F.
;t tfn tl6Ae str Js �� is i i A re.
1
{ i
• I
Y
1 J
ce Y Sass trillii xte r wi � . i `d:.:
I
kd
:� a d I 317�tBhl hn�{wIW n� � 1 i a Si'J� .i�s tt zl �� '.,• ' I `.dr-,
i
' 'At.
_ n ��.�}Xt➢. ~ ear' h�-.. ® p �S� �?S.M�1 2 T S I a. .I.
�?',�„ { � v '��,•�}air '&�S'..- 0 x{r rya N s S .
a _:dr CI IT�z
€ yY�q i Jf�t 4�rye.G� f � r I S IS+�• 'v x� r
CvA,i id h 7 F i
f t i tir�`1�T� 42a1 t��•t £ti e u t r
n
F ^h.
I- C YO YO O
0. u C:
fp aY1 ;n C = V O U C
O o C O
ly -o v v
T ro C � a) E-
C a1 Q) L >1_O 0) O N Q) U
c i i ai . on .° — ° Q E a u o
JL- N C •L C r0 L f0 v Y C C
u .> ,Y > O.. N � u '-p V tv -u E C > Y u N p
tViS N d ° 11 E m C c -O m a) v rp rp — U J
j L C O �[ p CL '� O m rCp T _� C �° c0 N d O . � 0 c
ro
M b •'= N o v cJJ L v N Y O Y > E r` ro 'O
fL_ w 3 u m E O to ° ,u d 'N `� 7 CCat
bD bA 1 Q Q) ,o O . >..;� m d m v w O N � 1 V L
tYif N .Q -O V U C j rU0 d u u O m u 3 C .N C U m vii U bD
X X N C a fO O O 7 Q u �' O `° O O ro w m H Q w
{ w wcn m NFU C4 U) UN Q 2 � aQ m � U �
C . • •
o • �
a — °
° u •
c m -o m
= m -p in — `° O OC .o b UD bCA 00 5 c
Z U N m T.ro y) C - `J rC C v C L C
v > � � o Q > � °
Z u �E C: a) mo U c
V H- ° 3 ° o a �U - - v v v °_ o Y u u c
Q a Q o > v u o
•i �_ ro V c > c p ... >_ u p� oq > Q
Oc W m c .� m c m _
F- U ro ° 2 o a u u s e s c _ - L a. O _0 F` o_0 LE Q c O p 3 o a) o a) m W w c
h v v U v Q) u c ° O > p v m U
T c m a j u L L Y c v o a o a 0 >_ c
1 W no H U f4 W = Q s O m �_ vS v C p -' L �O .L- O V 'p j >
mia 3 0 > c v o u v L W
N O J 3 rn 0 3 j d �) .R1. O m C Q) .L U a)
M c = ¢ *N- ;n `n °
oe� O l �bD o _o N 'C N
o v a,
LLJ Q)Lu � -a 3 -O `C a) (n � y a) O O U CJ O = 'O a) C .0 C Y
{� W O v 7 U Co L U Q) U C O d '�-' •«- b Q)
W b V 'O v O _cn .c ° °c° c �° Q j v V u .L O ° a c a) y
.y = u Z .O-� N -0 is m U L v i .b u ° O_ O C ry d ,� V GJ
V v O m O U °- v m O s Q `° m O Z ° V O N cn ii d
C93 a)v rn M -0 v
N a) Q) v b ` 7
• K 3 u C a0-: u -O O — O
0 Q - p m CO v m U v 0_
Oa) O as Lj .0 .L. a _ .� W , K 0
LAft Q)
y k_ o:�o.. w .. O t.t�
C
° w
v ° > m
u
Q) ° v Q,` c p 2 m i � � w o
Za N U T Aryl `O p O w
CC O
y
U
y �
o 3s > o
s 1i, eau
Mar,
w l
s &{ 3nN3nd H3lS3N:)OH
4 a
a
f-
u
T •� Ff fy ,' f"
w_ x an Y
Qu
� Q w `oFa `S Q an
p w QaQ u
W eyl.. ?4 T4 •lI. C X
rn y, r
£ ° a 3
ro
Q. V
.: ..� ' � `�-•v ' . apt m�. _F> 7 Z •
=O C _0
w
M t f
Zo
'41w,
Q9
10 �1 1151 iik
zrl
10
Pill,
WE 01
t, it 14 I.j P
0 '
f
tji�.�111 Vh
I At .il51'.41
VV
l°i
t`5
it
;i 6 t�,�-Wpl J
{ 1I Sri 0 "U'
.111
it I
I P
l'k I I
Z1.F 1 11 1
q I
il;d;;$W4 pp
I "k III';
lk ...... ..... ......
40 k
......... ...... 11"
)qt
:I G ISM 1041
T-il)l
Syyt I l�
:i; '�R
0-0 •
�- 0 • • .
so
CL � � • 6
u •
U N w u
Z
O 0 o
C
LU
W
= iJ u in b.0
L = r ° .-
o Y
p V > 'X
W ` C V
Q
Y_
s� m vt m m
,f t'J j a §r-gf r b ryi 1 d6Lffi}Pr43FFXG]tY zTK+
akv
cc
�I ell'
Pts F r t i.(t yvl a
LU
LU
Lam
O 3 My Q ` _ + FfAk' �pr2.a"�Yy i LU
s�ij1 Fared r, p
1 k :
I ITT
r
r 3r 3.. L - da."" v Y v � fA � ,g• e .. . .. -
c
- �F ak �" v trr'. rr d 1 q�r!1 .4rdoS.J'J'�is.rr su}.yr� m L cur in v i
-
s
f a t k c W W
W_
LA
rq
ks de Y N 7 FM VI
X
W
?�µ rl�1IJ'ta{s9i'ytfirI��.s W ce
1A{ 1 f 11`i'ht r f f di fii�. '..KU�'�M .mYYYMM�C 1uuv5
i4r� ;`
t77 F 17
t N.s a 61fA'fu r k.l
it
x1i �- Z i A4R L41 4 r b�6�6fr u�k-0Yr � ��t'?�JV�R Orf{�b.l Z
t � I V.0 p
M1
t;rl
rvr y 1 e. " fi t`r
i
Y � '�R`t`
-
-
al d,t?r f rz'r ., i: ���i �' -x�� ' f � `�rt���� ��K� )�`r• me"mJ��
S'1 P� t£7Sx 7 S .J .��yS 4fi •� _
' tlIl y r tC5
jjjj"� !A. .l f1 •.. i
>F x q
x � �
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
November 14, 2006
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
espectfully s bmi d,
Dan eman
Principal Planner