HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/03/20 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY MARCH 20, 2007 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Michael Diaz
Alternates: Lou Munoz Richard Fletcher Rich Macias
CONSENT CALENDAR
(All consent items heard at 7 p.m.)
(Mike S./Shelley) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00719 - HECTOR RUIZ - A
request to construct two (2) single-family residences, each with a total floor
area of about 9,900 square feet (footprint approximately 6,000 square feet)
on parcels of 21,648 and 22,640 square feet in the Very Low (VL) Residential
District at Deer Canyon Drive - APN: 1074-471-26 and 27.
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.
7:10 p.m.
(Vance/Willie) PRJ2006-00094.- FOOTHILL AND GROVE MIXED USE - ARBORS AT
ROUTE 66 LLC - Office/SFR/Townhouse/Live/Work Master Plan project with
condominium map, General Plan Amendment, Development Code
Amendment, and Development District Amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2006-00223 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - A request to change the land
use designation for four parcels on Red Hill Country Club Drive from Open
Space to Mixed Use to be consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation at
the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue, to add these same
four parcels to Section 2.5.5.4 Western Gateway in the Bear Gulch Area and
amend associated Table 111-7 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units
from 231 to 304, and to establish a Master Plan Overlay District for this project
site on the Land Use Plan in accordance with Section 111.2.4.1 of the General
Plan - APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44 and 45. Related Files: Development
District Amendment DRC2006-00350, Development Code Amendment
DRC2007-00029, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179, Development Review
DRC2006-00341.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT DRC2006-00350 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - A request to
change the zoning for four parcels on Red Hill Country Club Drive from Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use to be consistent with the
Mixed Use zoning designation; Establish a Master Plan Overlay District for the
project site on the Development District Map in accordance with
DRC ACTION AGENDA
March 20, 2007
Page 2
Section 17.20.030 of the Development Code; at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Grove Avenue - APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43 and 45. Related
Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development Code
Amendment DRC2007-00029, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179, Development
Review DRC2006-00341.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2007-00029 - ARBORS AT
ROUTE 66, LLC - A request to change the table for the Bear Gulch Mixed-Use
area contained in Development Code Section 17.32.020.C.3 to increase the
maximum number of dwelling units from 231 to 304 - APN: 0207-011-35, 36,
41, 43, and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223,
Development District Amendment DRC2006-00350, Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18179, Development Review DRC2006-00341.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT18179 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - Condominium subdivision of
two lots with office condominiums in two office buildings on Lot 1, and
residential condominiums in 7 Live/Work units, 68 town homes, and
23 single-family residences on Lot 2 at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Mixed Use Zone of Subarea 1 of the
Foothill Boulevard Districts. APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and 45.
Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development
District Amendment DRC2006-00350, Development Code Amendment
DRC2007-00029, and Development Review DRC2006-00341.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2006-00341 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - Master Plan for two 2-story
office buildings, 7 Live/Work units, 68 town homes, and 23 single-family
residences at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in
the Mixed Use Zone of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts.
APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and 45. Related Files: General Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development District Amendment
DRC2006-00350, Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029, Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT18179.
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 9:35 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Mike Smith March 20, 2007
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00719 - HECTOR RUIZ - A request to
construct two (2) single-family residences, each with a total floor area of about 9,900 square
feet (footprint approximately 6,000 square feet) on parcels of 21,648 and 22,640 square feet in
the Very Low (VL) Residential District at Deer Canyon Drive - APN: 1074-471-26 and 27.
Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Very Low (VL) Residential
District and is included 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 size and configuration of the lot.
Design Parameters: The project site consists of two contiguous downhill lots located on the
south side of Deer Canyon Drive. The west parcel is 21,648 square feet in area while the east
parcel is 22,640 square feet in area. The parcels to the east and west are developed with
single-family residences. The lot to the north of the west lot is vacant while the lot to the north
of the east lot is developed with a single-family residence. The topography slopes in a generally
northwest to southeast direction. At the northwest corner of the project site, the existing
elevation is about 2,040 feet and falls to about 2,022 feet at the southeast corner of the project
site. The lower south half of each lot will not be graded.
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family residence with an attached
3 car garage on each lot. The architecture of both houses is identical with the exception of
minor details like trim and finish. Both will be consistent with other homes in the Deer Creek
community as they will incorporate the red tile roof and light tan stucco finish that is prevalent on
the surrounding houses. The proposed roof of both houses is truncated so that instead of a roof
that 'joins' at a peak, there is a flat roof about 2 feet below the top most edge of the tiled roof
(i.e. a parapet) The flat roof will not be visible from the ground level. The Deer Creek
Homeowners' Association has approved this design. The garage of each home is 'front loaded'
with the driveway onto the property located along the west property line of each respective lot.
The most prominent feature is a tower turret over the primary entrance. There are two stepped
pads in each house with about 3 feet between the elevations of each step. This will minimize
earthwork consistent with the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. At no point will
the depth of excavation ('cut') or fill exceed 5 feet. The maximum depth of excavation will be
1 foot near the northwest corner of each the house. The maximum depth of fill will be about
4 feet at the southeast corner of each house. A deck at the rear of each house is also
proposed. The overall height of both houses will not exceed 30 feet as measured from the
finished grade. Lot coverage on the west parcel will be about 25 percent, while the lot coverage
on the east parcel will be about 24 percent; the maximum permissible in the Very Low (VL)
Residential District is 25 percent.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: None.
Policy Issues: The applicant shall extend architectural features and treatments to all elevations
so that the home will have a uniform appearance consistent with the City's design guidelines
and standards. Incorporate additional stone finish on each house in equal proportions on the
DRC ACITON AGENDA
DRC2006-00719 — HECTOR RUIZ
March 20, 2007
Page 2
east, west, and south elevations to match the north elevations. Note that the use of stone
veneers is acceptable. However, the applicant shall limit the type of finish to one type of
material instead of combining different types, i.e. do not combine materials; use only one
material.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Diaz
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
The Design Review Committee continued the review of the proposed homes on Deer Canyon
Drive. The Committee found the designs for the new homes to be lacking in overall
architectural integrity. There were too many dissimilar and conflicting design elements,
including an unusual flat roof/parapet design for a residence, too many window shapes and
treatments, and an inconsistent mix and application of exterior wall materials (rock, quoins,
stacked stone) that resulted in an inappropriate design. The Committee recommended that the
design of the homes be significantly modified, including the possibility of a revised roof
plan. The Committee requested the revised project be brought back for review as a regular
project review.
o
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Vance Pomeroy March 20, 2007
PRJ2006-00094: FOOTHILL AND GROVE MIXED USE - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC -
Office/SFR/Townhouse/Live/Work Master Plan project with condominium map, General Plan
Amendment, Development Code Amendment, and Development District Amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006-00223 -
ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - A request to change the land use designation for four parcels on
Red Hill Country Club Drive from Open Space to Mixed Use to be consistent with the Mixed Use
land use designation at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue, to add
these same four parcels to Section 2.5.5.4 Western Gateway in the Bear Gulch Area and amend
associated Table III-7 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 231 to 304, and to
establish a Master Plan Overlay District for-this project site on the Land Use Plan in accordance
with Section 111.2.4.1 of the General Plan - APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44 and 45. Related
Files: Development District Amendment DRC2006-00350, Development Code Amendment
DRC2007-00029, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179, Development Review DRC2006-00341.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT
DRC2006-00350 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - A request to change the zoning for four parcels
on Red Hill Country Club Drive from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use to
be consistent with the Mixed Use zoning designation; Establish a Master Plan Overlay District for
the project site on the Development District Map in accordance with Section 17.20.030 of the
Development Code; at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue -
APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43 and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment
DRC2006-00223, Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029, Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18179, Development Review DRC2006-00341.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2007-00029 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66, LLC - A
request to change the table for the Bear Gulch Mixed-Use area contained in Development Code
Section 17.32.020.C.3 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 231 to 304 -
APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment
DRC2006-00223, Development District Amendment DRC2006-00350, Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18179, Development Review DRC2006-00341.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00341 - ARBORS
AT ROUTE 66 LLC- Master Plan for two 2-story office buildings, 7 Live/Work units, 68 town homes,
and 23 single-family residences at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in
the Mixed Use Zone of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41,
43, 44, and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development District
Amendment DRC2006-00350, Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029, Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT18179.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18179 - ARBORS AT
ROUTE 66 LLC - Condominium subdivision of two lots with office condominiums in two office
buildings on Lot 1, and residential condominiums in 7 Live/Work units, 68 town homes, and
23 single-family residences on Lot 2 at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue
in the Mixed Use Zone of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41,
43, 44, and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development District
Amendment DRC2006-00350, Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029, and
Development Review DRC2006-00341.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
PRJ2006-00094, DRC2006-00223, DRC2006-00350, DRC2007-00029, SUBTT18179, AND
DRC2006-00341
March 20, 2007
Page 2
Development Request Parameters: The overall project request aims to develop six parcels as
one mixed-use development. The project has several components which require discussion to
better exhibit the design issues:
1. This project includes six parcels which are proposed to be included in a mixed use
development. The four easterly parcels are now General Plan designated as Open Space
but within a Low Residential Development District and are outside the Foothill Boulevard
Districts. The General Plan Amendment and Development District and Code
Amendments, in part, would include them into the same Foothill Boulevard District and
Mixed Use land use designation and Development District as the other two parcels to
allow for a comprehensive development pattern.
2. The General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Districts Chapter of the Development Code
establish, through the use of a Land Use Mix Table, a maximum of 231 dwelling units for
the Bear Gulch Mixed Use area. The applicant is requesting to construct 98 dwelling units
in the proposed project, but 206 units have already been entitled for construction in the
Bear Gulch Mixed Use area on other parcels. The General Plan and the Development
Code must be amended to allow a maximum of at least 304 dwelling units for this
proposal.
3. A Master Plan Overlay District is requested to be established for the project site. The
designation and the Master Plan itself will allow flexibility in the site planning for the site to
address unique design-related issues where development policy may not provide the best
solution.
4. The project proposes a subdivision for condominium purposes across two lots: Lot 1
provides for the subdivision of office space in the approximately 12,600 square foot office
buildings; Lot 2 provides for the subdivision of the various dwelling units into 98 residential
condominiums - 7 live/work units, 68 townhouses and 23 detached single-family units.
5. Design review of the buildings and their relationship with the surrounding streetscape and
the requirements of Foothill Boulevard Districts Subarea 1.
The project site and the proposed development pose several challenges. The traffic issues with
relation to Grove Avenue, the Foothill and Grove intersection, and the impacts on Red Hill
Country Club Drive have raised the most questions from neighbors making inquiries to staff. In
addition, the Mixed Use and the Master Plan issues for reducing some of the development
standards are important for discussion.
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:
DRC ACTION AGENDA
PRJ2006-00094, DRC2006-00223, DRC2006-00350, DRC2007-00029, SUBTT18179, AND
DRC2006-00341
March 20, 2007
Page 3
1. Traffic -The proposed project has been analyzed by the applicant's traffic engineers, and
the resulting report has been reviewed and accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer.
Based on standard industry standards, the project will generate 1,130 daily trips if the
office buildings are medical. The project will generate 82 two-way trips in the a.m. peak
hour and 111 two-way trips in the p.m. peak hour, both significantly less than the 250
two way trips which would trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis required under. the county's
Congestion Management Program.
The project proposes two ingress/egress points. The point along Grove Avenue is full
access for all users and tenants in both the residential portion and the office portion. The
point along Red Hill Country Club Drive is for emergency access only and will be
gate-protected for that purpose.
The traffic generated by the project will access the site through the intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue. The daily trips and the peak hour trips will not
increase the Level of Service (LOS) beyond the acceptable LOS C that it operates under
today.
Substantial concern has been voiced over the traffic impact of the project on trips that will
use the local residential streets on Red Hill to shortcut up or down from Base Line Road.
The traffic analysis, based on industry standards, City-generated traffic counts from
April 2006 and other information provided by the City's Traffic Engineer, shows that the
project will generate an additional four (4) a.m. peak-hour trips and zero (0) p.m.
peak-hour trips with a total daily traffic increase of 0.6 percent over current levels. Part of
these numbers are based on the Central School District information that the district
anticipates the project to generate approximately 17 (total) children (K-8), some of whom
will attend Valle Vista School on Red Hill. Based on current information on the Central
School District website, enrollment for this school site is projected to drop.
The applicant instructed their traffic engineers to prepare analysis of alternate
development scenarios as part of their study. With the residential unit count and the
amount of either medical office or retail uses more in keeping with the mix anticipated in
the General Plan, the subject proposal would generate about 17 percent of what an
office-heavy scenario would generate and about 28 percent of what a retail-heavy
scenario would generate. Staff analysis of an additional scenario that uses the current
residential unit limitation of 25 single-family units and medical office buildings up to the
70 percent mix targeted in the General Plan, at the same efficiency obtained by the
applicant's proposal, show that the subject proposal would generate about 44 percent of
what this conservative scenario would generate.
2. Mixed Use - The General Plan designates large portions of the western end of
Foothill Boulevard as Mixed Use, including the subject site. This area is known alternately
as the Western Foothill Corridor —Western Gateway and as Bear Gulch. The discussion
for this area in the General Plan focuses on the mix of uses anticipated based on the
location, the anticipated uses, the (then) current level of commercial vitality, and the types
of activity expected to occur there.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
PRJ2006-00094, DRC2006-00223, DRC2006-00350, DRC2007-00029, SUBTT18179, AND
DRC2006-00341
March 20, 2007
Page 4
The mix of uses is shown in the following table:
TABLE III-7
WESTERN FOOTHILL CORRIDOR—WESTERN GATEWAY
• Acreage Range
Percent • Average Density(du/acre) Estimated"Most Case"
Land Use Range • Dwelling Units Acres/Dwelling Units(du)
Commercial—retail, 50 percent — 27.5—38.5 acres 38.5 acres
service 70 percent
Commercial,tourist
commercial,office
(commercial and
professional
Residential 30 percent — 16.5—27.5 acres @ 14 du/acre' 16.5 acres @ 14 du/acre'
50 percent 231 to 385 dwelling units 231 dwelling units
TOALS 100 percent 55 acres 55 acres
1. Indicates target density not a range. Actual density may increase up to 20 du/acre as long as the total of 231
dwelling units is not exceeded
As shown, the anticipated mix is skewed toward commercial uses rather than residential.
In addition, the broad ranges in the land use categories that were targeted for this area are
noted in the General Plan to "allow a high degree of flexibility and responsiveness to the
market." The applicant contends•that the market is such that skewing their project to the
most residentially heavy side of these ranges is still far from what the market will accept.
Retail uses are not appropriate for this location considering the nearby vacancies. The
applicant also contends that the traffic impacts if the site was developed within the
General Plan ranges would be too severe to be acceptable to the neighbors and to the
City.
In addition to market demands recognized by the General Plan, the limitation on the
number of dwelling units in the entire area creates a burden on the reasonable
development of the site. The chart (and a similar chart in the Development Code) shows
that there can be no more than 231 dwelling units in the entire area. This limit has been
approached by the cumulative entitlement of 206 dwelling units in Bear Gulch. The
remaining 25 units that would be permitted under this area-wide limitation would restrict
the developer to filling as little as 3 acres of the 10 acre site with these 25 units and the
balance of the land would go to commercial uses. The request is to increase the limitation
on the number of dwelling units by 73 units to 304 to permit the proposed project.
3. Master Planning - The General Plan and the Development Code both address the use of a
Master Plan Overlay District as a way to attend to the unique and special characteristics of
a development site to solve problems and address "issues that may not be readily
resolved through conventional zoning designations or site development standards."
(Section 111.2.4.1, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan.)
The proposed project is designed to seamlessly blend the several use types together
while allowing for sufficient segregation to prevent any incompatibilities. In doing so, the
applicant has been able to meet most all of the development standards for the applicable
zones and uses. However, the applicant is proposing that several development standards
be relaxed in order to provide a better site design.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
PRJ2006-00094, DRC2006-00223, DRC2006-00350, DRC2007-00029, SUBTT18179, AND
DRC2006-00341
March 20, 2007
Page 5
As provided on a comprehensive comparison table (attached), the applicant is requesting
the following:
• Average setbacks be allowed in lieu of the required discreet setback calculation for
units along Red Hill Country Club Drive and the office building at the corner.
• Height limit setback for the office building in the Foothill Boulevard District Parkway
designation be reduced along both Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue.
• The private open space requirement for the town homes and Live/Work units be
relaxed to allow an average calculation for the units for the ground floor and allow
the upstairs space to be counted.
• That the building separation measurement between the town home buildings and the
driveway curb be reduced to 11 feet for both two- and three-story portions of the
town home buildings.
The applicant justifies the reduced setbacks, reduced separation from the driveway curbs, and
the reduced ground floor open space for the town homes by explaining that the town home
clusters better effect the layout design for the site. By affecting the clusters of town homes, a
more autonomous relationship is made for each cluster and additional open space is provided in
more meaningful locations, not only in the large common open space areas, but also in the
court spaces enveloped within each town home cluster.
The applicant also justifies the flexibility for the office building by noting that the siting of the
building meets the overarching intent of the Foothill Boulevard-Historic Route 66
Visual Improvement Plan (VIP). This plan specifies the design requirements for the entry
gateways to the City on Foothill Boulevard including various street furniture and other accents.
For the Western Gateway at Grove Avenue, the plan states that this intersection "should
incorporate large accent setbacks" (Section III.A). The office building design provides a
symmetrical L-shaped arrangement with an attractive entry toward the corner that is set back a
significant distance. However, by locating and arranging the building on the site to achieve the
requirements of the VIP, it does require that some of the development standards be relaxed.
The Master Plan Overlay District would allow such flexibility.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The applicant has made a serious effort to comply with the architectural requirements for
the Foothill Boulevard Districts including compatibility with the community design palette
for the subarea. Staff finds the design mixture appropriate.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Diaz
Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy
The Committee recommended that a task force consisting of, at minimum, two members of the
City Council and two Planning Commissioners be formed to provide a broader opportunity for
DRC ACTION AGENDA
PRJ2006-00094, DRC2006-00223, DRC2006-00350, DRC2007-00029, SUBTT18179, AND
DRC2006-00341
March 20, 2007
Page 6
constructive design input. In lieu of this opportunity for correction to the project, the Committee
continued the item to give the applicant an opportunity to revise the project based on the
following comments:
1. Work on the office building design. A more substantial corner treatment that provides
critical visual focus for the entire project site is needed. An increase in the height of the
corner element may be an important change and allowable under the Master Plan Overlay
review. Also, the architectural cues given by the Magic Lamp and the Sycamore Inn
should be better represented in the design of the building, including the color palette, the
use of materials such as wrought iron, and other characteristic features.
2. Provide better exhibits to demonstrate the broad design aspects of the development:
more streetscapes, view line studies (especially as they pertain to the three-story
elements), perspective studies of the town home clusters, etc.
3. The Committee recognizes that the project exceeds the minimum parking requirements,
but sees a potential parking conflict between the office and the residential portions of the
project with respect to the use of the office parking area by residents. Clear and
enforceable language in the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) for both
portions should be included to resolve this issue while making allowances for off-hour use
of the office parking area by residents during non-business hours. Bring that language
back for staff and Committee review.
4. The live/work units have some potential to create conflicts with the office uses and the
residential uses: Clear and enforceable language in the CC&Rs is needed to control
these potentially incompatible uses and prevent unacceptable parking problems that may
result. Bring that language back for staff and Committee review.
5. The Committee accepted the traffic report conclusions respecting the quantity and flow of
traffic generated by the project. However, the Committee believed that southbound
Grove Avenue left-turn movements onto eastbound Foothill Boulevard would benefit from
a signal-controlled left-turn lane.
's
Z U Q
O O _
W v o 2 d d
Ln ad Co co cl� I I
LU (Q7 Q c-+e)O m U c7 O m CD
Q O 9 C, § 9 Q ;9[O Q O
zd =5 cli C,4 cj O O ppd Q
O
LL r
R
N Cj 7 N
v �S
C fn
O O yy U� N U C 8.7 O Q <T O
Q d U o O N 0 tM O p)•.-
W L S l0
g u-
g
U
V
LL
LL LM
W �"I O E N N O Z Z � L C:
a �� g g d�
d $ � o°
O S.
O� a
n H o
ts
z
C
a H C co m C14 Sao co LO vi
oN
g o 0 0 co --
0� O [1 N M
g m
w
A N =O
La
I ~w o 3�
b E W ti z z �# v o- E qz z g `�
CL
me o
o zo o
0 7a?ESE
o as
W
W o o
= a
_J
a
LL m w
L_ 10
C7 3 CO
¢ p Q
WE E z Z Z Z
M O O
O N E E E
O Q E V6
G = Ev E
L m
U5
O y C7 m-O
N �° _
s
4. c
co
N O = O Q O N (D
v rn m
o
> > i L
C/) (D ��' O O LL Y
E $� �� E E E C E E _D c> m
E _ E E E
go ¢ M.- m iY X m rA LL
6
Z Q N
0 O _
U `1+ c �°
o 2_ ai ai ai a
N W �°n ad ap co
W ¢ o m b 2 m m ¢m ¢ ¢ m w m
p o o CD
9 9 O
m E
O p O &y pC? O O ONN cOp �
O co � a('A � O O^ C-4 M O O
Lg'iao
iv
$-e o
1 ` ( E
Dc�
1Q � �c m co 2n
cam - co
J o z §•C8 �¢ ° z z z z z z
ct,w> ='a
ui C.0
Ll-
g
U
m C
0 V �
E
LLLL
O z L Q z Z N N O N Z Z
01
g @ - LA w
p
IF .
E
<n v n_ £d a3 z z z z z o ,�
W p 0 0 n• N N �-- LL
g 0-
O a N cri di
S >
W Q
t?
O O
=F-
m
OO z�
LU bo o >
> m Q c ¢ in o
.J.r m d� Z S m Z 'v O N u'� C7
a
t
p N
F N
C?
rn
N
y +
W
C d Z Z c N z Z Z
g a om m
O � ¢
in �
J
J
>
¢ ¢ m a� Q co ;o z
z N o Cn
$ >'
mC,> »�o
p N V
M D
rn c c c c Q
c ui tca � a o
z c V loci � d J dcN � o WO TL
0.o E $ > o f $ E � �"F' -,a
-6 w O -j �N�(( > Gl ��xC' s �j d O
CL
U) 'O 'L7 3 r LU m W O lL m L J t7 m y� N
LU _ aci o (D a� o 2-0 � o� o w c w X `o
p m m m ¢' U ¢ � c`c 'E aEi m c L� -Z5,9 m Z a!- Q
L t_o E chi E �m0 CL
8 a) W 6t
LL LL m 0 d'm 0 w Q� dU Q� Q V mNU. :al-
0
z Cl)
O c,
I.- z o�
w -d -d
ca
U) U co m
W W w W I W ¢ ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ m co
a vo ov °v E a
O o 0 CD $ fo(pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V O O O O > O N CV m O C O_ Oco CD O
l6
s y rn
tV0 � lOII (p O
O L O
¢ ¢ a ¢ (14 c °i E �`- E m ¢ ¢
z z LO c*� w o °' E o n z z
J x O 2--
_
Q d N W M O N
U EQ= °¢ m
N �
l7i v cU-p ca
U U E m a
W 3 o
O s
Z Z z Z t t.2 Z Z
Q p
O a J v
�
E wL L E E
CD
�
a'
b i o °
oar
o
�n m
I 7 M O m n
fu
LU
to C6 n
W O.
O O)o N
-
O
O U- ¢
�
N fn r
t f'
O H
ID
Z Y �
W C ^
_> 01 O In O f'N') ^ tf] O
N 7 N s pN
J � i tf) S
d
O ti,
0 <z
10 m
O Q
(� O- Z Z ¢ cli (D N Z y Z
w °
O
s
r
_J
U-
m
W p
J U
co E z Z ¢ N v O M lf]
C N
O
N
N
N NNN Y (p
3 C y U U V
spry� p N C
c " O O ' n N O Q
P n N Z (n T o o o `a.
w n T v m e (n
U o rn w
p _rn ac E t rn f $ c u`�
W .0 m g Qo n CL '-.9.
lU4 C1� U Y N N d. = C] C N N N
3 c 3 c`�-pnp v_S2� E v.o� y ° r, vp_ t w > o.CL
cp t y fn t m m 3 N.N m 2 N d !Z'd' CJ 2 c0 �i m O d p-
z °
V w `� -d d
CA6
w m m S C?LL -' ¢ w co
8 � � o �� Y d
8 o 00 1
e
Q
$ ¢ ¢ a ¢ o Q
Z Z Z Z N Z
isa`
a
w
8 m
v S
LL V
LL
O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ o ¢
O
m
}
m
O
y rn E m 3 U) N
Q m
yy d d � fn X X p Q1 r
N a. m S.� Q ¢ Z
a A
` 3 0 O¢I
= U
w V d U)F-U Z m LT O O 2 a
00 CN cn �co r- CV '
=N
O
E �' al
+C+ C pp N y
cm
X X C
�7n��Z EL
c g ti
'Or o N 2
D O co d
LL N
Of
C � N �
..(D. w N C In
E N c M
d $ v o c
C J
U) d L zzzz z e
a e, 0 3 '620
y < �s n
O �� J
r 0 m W m Cy O
�. CL NHUZmLL C
cn V'Ln co r-
LL m O
w c S
rn
m
a .... Q cu�... m d
m m zz�3 0$�� zz z z
(D a m
d
O o On
LL O
o
Z E �
U
a
V C m J
X ca {p CD
U) .y
0 0 C a t
E
0 N Q J
Arbors at Route 66—Tentative Tract Map 18179
DISCUSSION AND DESIGN JUSTIFICATIONS
FOR 8/21/06 INCOMPLETENESS COMMENTS
(January 16,2007)
(1) Office building Setbacks from Foothill Blvd. and Grove Avenue Ws H.B.2x. & e.)
-Development Standards:
--RCMC section 17.32.050.B.4. "Gateways" identifies the Foothill/Grove intersection as one of
the two Entry Gateways along Foothill Boulevard. It states that: "The specific design of the two
gateways is within the Foothill Boulevard—Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan."
("VIP") The VIP states that: "The Grove Avenue intersection should incorporate large accent
setbacks with a modified version of the City monument and a backdrop of large accent date
palms." (III. A. page 9)
--With regard to Foothill, RCMC section 17.32.080.A.8.e. contains a curb to building setback of
45', however that section refers specifically to Office and Residential Land Use, not Mixed-Use.
--With regard to Grove, RCMC section 17.10.040.B. contains a building to curb setback of 35 ,
however, that section applies specifically to the use of land within "office/commercial districts,"
and this property is mixed use.
-Design Justification and Support:
Applicant has provided large accent setbacks for the office building in relation to the
Foothill/Grove intersection. In dealing with the envelope of the building, the approach was to
break up its massing and create a smaller, pedestrian-friendly structure. To achieve this, the
building has many recessed areas along Foothill and Grove as well as at the building's front
entry area. The variety of recesses creates an eclectic, playful feel often found in Tuscan
architecture and brings an aesthetically pleasing symmetry to this corner. The Arbors has
borrowed a number of design elements from the Sycamore Inn and Magic Lamp. The roof
element has been broken up resulting in multiple, low-sloped roofs accented with a terracotta tile
and exposed rafters. The building creates a soft transition between the indoor and outdoor areas
through the use of colonnades, trellises, arched openings and multi-recessed design. Its
placement helps to screen the parking area from the streets and will help block sound from the
intersection for the residential units.
The result of this design is a dramatic 60' 8" setback from the curb at the Foothill/Grove
intersection to the building's front entry. In addition,the setbacks from Foothill average 49',
varying from 29' 8" to 80', and the setbacks from Grove average 42', varying from 25' 1" to 83'.
These average setback measures exceed any relevant standards and provide the large accent
setbacks required under the VIP.
Page 1 of 3
(2)Townhome Setbacks from Red Hill Country Club Drive if not vacated(#H.B.21.)
-Development Standards:
--RCMC section 17.08.040.B. requires a curb to building setback of 27' in the event Red Hill
Country Club Drive is not vacated.
-Design Justification and Support:
The Townhomes have been clustered throughout the site to create additional shared open space
for residents and is consistent with the project's overall design approach incorporating arbors and
trellises to help create an intimate"village" feel. In addition to their Private, ground floor open
space, Townhome residents can enjoy the Semi-Private open areas created by clustering their
units which include landscaping, benches, a low seat wall, and trellises. The varying setbacks
along Red Hill provide accents that break up the site lines and provide more interesting
elevations and visuals from that perspective. At no point are the Townhomes unbrokenly massed
along Red Hill, and the proposed setbacks average 31', varying from 21' 1" to 65'. Setbacks of
less than 27' feet occur at only five points of 36' each, or about 34%of the 525' of frontage
along Red Hill. At all other points along Red Hill the setbacks materially exceed 27'. Applicant
is able to strictly comply with this standard if the City desires, though adjusting the site plan in
that manner could reduce the project's central common open space area.
(3) Townhome Setbacks from curb (#H.B.3.):
-Development Standards-
--RCMC section 17.08.040.E. requires internal curb to building setbacks of 15' for the
Townhomes' two-story sections and 20' for the Townhomes' three-story sections.
--RCMC section 17.02.140 Definitions—Cluster Development
-Design Justification and Support:
The proposed internal curb to building setbacks vary from 11' to 12' as a result of clustering the
Townhomes which has been done to create additional shared open space for residents and is
consistent with the project's overall design approach incorporating arbors and trellises to help
create an intimate"village" feel. This design enables the Arbors to provide residents with
additional Semi-Private and Common open space, which is encouraged under the City's
development standards. In addition to their Private, ground floor open space, Townhome
residents can enjoy the Semi-Private open areas created by clustering their units which include
landscaping, benches, a low seat wall, and trellises. In addition, all residents can take full
advantage of the extensive Common amenities and open space. The project's total Usable
Private and Common open space exceeds relevant standards, as do the number of Recreation or
equivalent amenities provided to residents.
Page 2 of 3
(4) Office buildng Height within 25' to 50' of street curb (#II.B.2.d.):
-Development Standards:
--RCMC section 17.32.080.A.8.d. provides for a maximum height of 20' within 25' to 50' from
the curb, and allows heights of 40' at other locations and 45' for towers, however that section
refers specifically to Office and Residential Land Use, not Mixed-Use.
--RCMC section 17.10.040.A. allows for a maximum height of 40' beyond 35' from the curb,
however that section applies specifically to the use of land within"office/commercial districts,"
and this property is not within a commercial or office district.
-Design Justification and Support:
The office building was designed with its many recessed elements and two-story height of only
34' to create a smaller, pedestrian-friendly structure. The building is not large, covering 9,415
square feet, containing 13,000 square feet of leaseable space, and extending only 146' along both
Grove and Foothill. The roof element has been broken up resulting in multiple, low-sloped roofs
accented with a terracotta tile and exposed rafters. This design has provided the large accent
setbacks required for those streets under the VII' and are appropriate for the building's scale. It
is consistent with the more urban design specified for this property by the City's Mixed Use
development standards, while still retaining the"village" feel of this"dinnerhouse" district. Its
scale and placement help to screen the parking area from the streets and will help block sound
from the intersection for the residential units.
(5) Private, ground floor open space provided for Townhomes (#H.B.4.):
-Development Standards:
--RCMC 17.08.040.B. requires 150 square feet of Private, ground floor open space.
-Design Justification and Support:
The Townhomes provide an average of 164 square feet of Private, ground floor open space,
varying from 115 to 219 square feet. These design variations are a result of clustering the units
which is done to create additional shared open space for residents, help create an intimate village
setting and feel, as well as being consistent with the project's overall design theme incorporating
arbors and trellises. This design enables the Arbors to provide residents with additional Semi-
Private and Common open space. In addition to their Private, ground floor open space,
Townhome residents can enjoy the Semi-Private open areas created by clustering their units
which include landscaping, benches, a low seat wall, and trellises. In addition, all residents can
take full advantage of the extensive Common amenities and open space. The project's total
Usable Private and Common open space exceeds relevant standards, as do the number of
Recreation or equivalent amenities provided to residents.
Page 3 of 3
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
March 20, 2006
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
ReWctfflully e
Mica eaz
Senior Planner