Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/08/02 - Agenda Packet - (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ���GY TUESDAY AUGUST 2, 2011 7:00 P.M. % RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz . Ray Wimberly James Troyer Donald Granger Alternates: Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca CONSENT CALENDAR 7:00 p.m. (Mike/Jarrod) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00010 PTS FOR T-MOBILE AND PLANCOM, INC. FOR VERIZON - A request to remove an existing single-carrier Minor Wireless Communication Facility of 35 feet in height and in its place construct a multi-carrier Major Wireless Communications Facility of 75 feet in height on a parcel of 4.65 acres that is developed with facilities owned and operated by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) in the Very Low (VL) Residential District, located at 6615 Etiwanda Avenue — APN: 0227-051-29. Related file: Minor Development Review DRC2005-00762. 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. (Steve/Willie) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00047 - MERITAGE HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive - APN: 0225-161-65 and 71. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032, Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00871 and Variance DRC2007-00097. On April 9, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. 7:30 p.m. (Donald) MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00689 - PARLOUR ENTERPRISES - A request to modify the exterior paint colors, materials, and architectural design theme for a proposed Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour & Restaurant in the Community Commercial District within the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10742 Foothill Boulevard (formerly Macaroni Bar & Grill) - APN: 1077-422-85. 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 since it includes the installation of new interior equipment and the minor alternation of the exterior elevations for an existing building. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Related file: Sign Permit DRC2011-00749. DRC AGENDA August 2, 2011 Page 2 SIGN PERMIT DRC2011-00749 - PARLOUR ENTERPRISES - A request to review the exterior signs (wall and monument) for a proposed Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour & Restaurant in the Community Commercial District within the Terra Vista Community Plan (Uniform Sign Program No. 134), located at 10742 Foothill Boulevard (formerly Macaroni Bar & Grill) - APN: 1077-422-85. 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 since it includes the installation of new interior equipment and the minor alternation of the exterior elevations for an existing building. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Related file: Minor Development Review DRC2011-00689. 7:50 (Candyce/Willie) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00070 - MERITAGE HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for the build-out of 81 single-family lots on approximately 43.3 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northerly end of Wardman-Bullock Road - APN: 1087-201-01 thru 07, 1087-201-13 thru 40, 1087-191-01 thru15, 0226-792-15, 0226-792-20 thru 24, 0226-792-29 thru 38, 0226-782-01 thru 11, and 0226-782-12 thru 15. Related file: Tract 16324. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. 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 I, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 20, 2011, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. CONSENT CALENDAR DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Mike Smith August 2, 2011 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00010 PTS FOR T-MOBILE AND PLANCOM, INC. FOR VERIZON - A request to remove an existing single-carrier Minor Wireless Communication Facility of 35 feet in height and in its place construct a multi-carrier Major Wireless Communications Facility of 75 feet in height on a parcel of 4.65 acres that is developed with facilities owned and operated by the . Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) in the Very Low (VL) Residential District, located at 6615 Etiwanda Avenue — APN: 0227-051-29. Related file: Minor Development Review DRC2005-00762. Design Parameters: The subject property is a 4.65-acre parcel at the east side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 650 feet south of Highland Avenue. The overall dimensions of the parcel are approximately 333 feet (north to south) by approximately 662 feet (east to west). The property is developed with facilities owned and operated by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). The improvements include a 15-foot high, 265-foot diameter water tank, a 1,400 square foot building, and a . series of groundmounted equipment. Additionally, there is a single-carrier Minor Wireless Facility operated by Nextel consisting of a 35-foot high tower that is disguised as a monopalm and an associated equipment shelter (Related file: Minor Development Review DRC2005-00762). All of the improvements noted are located within the eastern half of the subject parcel — the western half of the subject parcel is undeveloped with only limited landscaping. The cell tower is approximately 350 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue and 95 feet south of the north property line. The tower is located approximately 30 feet northwest of the water tank. To the south and east of the property, are single-family residences . (Tract 16279), while to the north it is vacant. To the west across Etiwanda Avenue, are additional single-family residences. The zoning of the property and the properties to the south, east, and north is Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, while the properties to the west are zoned Low (L) Residential District, Victoria Planned Community. The applicants, PTS on behalf of T-Mobile and Plancom, Inc. on behalf of Verizon, propose to remove the existing cell tower and construct a new multi-carrier 75-foot high cell tower in its place. Subsequently, all three wireless communication providers will be co-located on this tower. In addition to the new tower, in its general vicinity two new equipment shelters of approximately 400 to 450 square feet each will be constructed and associated improvements installed to accommodate the two added carriers. The tower will be disguised as a monopine. In conjunction with the presence of the aforementioned water tank, its location relative to the nearby residences and the utilization of an existing wireless facility site, this monopine design will fulfill the screening and site selection criteria established in Section 17.26.030 of the Development Code and will be consistent with other monopine wireless facilities that have been recently approved. Furthermore, the equipment shelters will be constructed to match the existing Nextel equipment shelter and CVWD building. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior/Secondary Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. None. DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00010 — PTS FOR T-MOBILE AND PLANCOM, INC. FOR VERIZON August 2, 2011 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. The design of the tower shall mimic a pine tree. The arrangement of the branches and the density of their distribution shall match those shown in the attached exhibit. The coloration of the individual pine needles shall be varied to resemble a living specimen and the antenna panels shall be wrapped with green, needle-covered socks. The pole shall be cylindrical in section and wrapped with a faux bark finish. 2. The equipment shelters/enclosures shall be constructed of decorative concrete masonry units such as slumpstone or split-face block or have a decorative finish such as stucco. If a roof is required, the roofing material shall match the roofing material on the existing shelters. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Mike Smith Members Present: • ------- .__._..---..-_.- .__. .. __----- ---------- --.._---- _.I y W W N <8m ;c 61! °.'� k E E a ii i Y I- CLq _ r, Li 5 .QSi. a!I i . 8 8 8 13 w w1 °: i W iii '� COI @S _ o° k W ° ar , �.� °"` a xe"�V • Z 1225' rigs: m ° " gg a a4C°3 w N ` y �,g€ U 6[ 8 w 2 N `e r > "- I ' � � E;y e�ab ac \ \ � , f l 0^ a d ° 0 8 • a a a a s ^ ^ a a a A SNINNYId - 43N333I ; gr°°° C kA RN 50 lflf VONOWY0flD0NONVN:OA!IO z E H ig 11 Ri f ° Q .W as a = S N ° g Q Is a5 g o S y a p q qt . tVE all E :Y E q ° s E 0 Z °A'go V Z g 448 X ' la W a° LL ,T 0 011 F 8 %==aAS TY d� a ® O O ? sE i ^rc = W g ^ $ YI 14 C g W b$ g i kq V g i Llm a g 5 , J u-1 8 ' 7 ° z F L o E l a O zgig = °f O e 8 t t 25 g € o u ag 0§4zZ 2A-6H § rid °a €g n 68 s < =l` Eej r�//�� 0• ;g v/ gwu k U) c . a N g is 04 2 W K G b' ° F F fig t~7 = •- O b= W ggo W 1 nn o • n q ^ V 3� t 2 04! ##xn ° p fog a. 1- q'ram c 5�3 . ¢ :$ib t1 i Op ~ zcim- w vig!E u i'gbae 19§1 W $sg $6gip_ ��g a znzua m �„88� 6 i W H © y W z - o ° I 11111114:1 Z Sg: y O a b E Al g a E, CD grE O ° 6 7 z i® €a: aN c zogY)L4 a 8286 in ff g w am q 32s°Tgrmii Z `^$Op Attachment _,^. ^°,Z° L gbh w 7 wa r 1 • ¢ F m a a =U w d 6 a8m8 EB :EA >(0J J ^^ 4.) 'R ggN • e;-F a— tt m U �£s ®." n �0 cJ I J I :<"� o Nx o II a „ , v a a a o ” aw ° • O LPLZza way �'g so-fP-LUO WY e0-39P-LRO x � e9 Im-zar-Lao LUX a e • €€ a 3z'fra" € sm € g2 >§ Y I ..suom+ P Q 3E� s g 1 "gg Efa �0z ? ezzg I .° P II s c~i� ¢p • 1• is+> n •m. •m95• g • t • ie••¢ I . b IX LL LL $. 0e i..9y 88y5gg�g kzyy I g m y eg we i y� ym E ..� JX N Ili �z 9+ Jill 'la a U's C gY E 'E-gt gg ii,,�iypWW�\\\. ry/� Mq g• Egg, 0 € ' W 4 S 7' y 8 tlgp , a isEj' eel a€R° Bk �". M5 ' "� o q $$ N � 2 e Ea€4 ag& 4 1dk�,,g5 ' . en, n.. r R E {• ako ,k 9. 4g 6yz' C6g �'w FRI g , ;C. Y, * ilk N 222E,66 g :44A;34 fl-41 g 44�€E Eg x.0E£3 Sp a yep 0 O it .—. IIIII C z • 9888: 09 "k€AAieht ! 9111262 £ u In 69• a IAt 11_ a 3 mar m- A.il ly -: rq i!' " X It __ °€i !A A• ox x I. z IH:!Jpii k R k wF 6 3� & 4 q �;e �$ hh I ' I ----- T V a tl.�,k m 'i" € (n 11 °SAL O N_ k F- in PI .. �° a P '#R ,-,n;N J� n' 11 r F xg@4 a a ro � a9 EIS c o� is ii:R ea ERs 4E3, p1 oN 0 Ill.� r L I p ,E e o. 3 35. 9�s a d g = __Hr__ A . y . J na R °% m $§ ?y€n° ay z¢ g p E 5 € g g C3a y s E . 4; dolugaiIinuilmsgIgniheMoadhilhthaMESIM he1 L i..t.ngRcaozhseEnee .aEg saddRgx,r, ,thAtno • 6 s s I'/U >L'>- • m g¢ pp w 6 ma 'CT. w WQ I 1/l °- 6 Z m a z n_ ° o • IIHP4 a a - " A• co • g gggg s A�_9IA 9f; 2E �gi § g ?�i E E / gB 4lgj ggia d �gy>g 3 3 w 1- a f fi l@ `�7 v i`s 6 v Ai §gg 1 6a��agn g e!12 5,�} €A a10og ?1Ca�s sEV56€oa ,I I g g s g;u�.l e z l k : u 4 t. ggi®gam®e2Oie..0.Eg n?�_5=m a@`ue6�€°G•.9533vstan&ee'1eE6$liL�S93'sifg3te • I• e r o o .m. e a,c . Y • I • ¢e• op 2 I a 1 3 I ::r "s IVt., e. ' B / c_ k tl 9A Pd \\ 1 s �sv' x:.' a q .. • e " P I � ;FsE;FIEffIF• Its r 1 I. 4 IL . 1 ' _ • �; i ' .' d 2 j I'` II It 4 t K (y IY 5 I. ;Iv I 1 —• ear t • \Al - a : "- fig= R • n �} • ?@ 1 P a i n'"' / 0 ].. e • • ,:i r a),0,4 . Re •9 fly 1 I , 0 ... _ ,7,e4____ Ley, ______ Y V .1g . i iy'S 3 i. i. . 9 €, FLEE . a § -4Y ••.>.'. I i I g I " LI_ 3�vanv v nU13 s !r 1 _�_ __L I_ _ — — J w � : : : . N NI 1 cg"iC KE z _ so Lgega o\oX tl 1 4 4 3 a 1m m I1 9 J U1 " ^,-, a� ga =d _ ° ? _ 4n3Q •> D K t W III Ey hh a o00 0 ■I Yt L 5 Alt i j j r , , , , , . N. , , , z.----...,.. i , 9 . x , i, g Rp a s i ii N, ___ Y� a !LL Ij ,y7.,:c.,, 9 . d x, : ,• :, :g: in; , 1-1 6 I rig . .y _� e * 5 9Y le, - 9s E 1 1 q $ c q • Q 8j CtB7 98 Ett 1W r 41 lal �A v l R d 5 > < -! >g. Kitj 4\ J 1 0 in 8 5 j g�g a Fm 0E- 5;i p . $ R S: 8 8 8 oz b - W, C au C. i w 014 =C a U k $ "� a s b co 1 > -1 0 a ` eaoon a II 11 E "nn 358 S 6 Z • a a _ a w a a 'e I !!!. ee IWI, III Pw 0 $ 70 �' ' Iii 11 111 f L _ •1 �v i ®it-\ • ItJ1 i ig, # 1' ° q il ! • N - --F .. i1 'e ' 5 J li I 1 } f < e ' �'+� �\\� a••■e • . e 3k \�\ 'I �� C. 11 y j pM 1 Q 0 N I, ) \Q , w v \ 0 o 0 5 z w • ■• W W 8P121212 W W 06 W ] w H H 11 4 m > 'E s$$ O w i ,ap Rgt a 88o ia8n •Qg \'/LLI ppt� oa wg6, O Lea :„a° k s mi - VJ- ¢ '_•.d N a ` "p1q i9 moo:: m - a a a e 5`'`.6 3 G z z t G i.^ a a v ^ o s n a F> I - r� F ases L� a Q L If II i, 1 ! ... !L H , —,`—�m _,.h Ei s ii I 19 ,^ 1 0 IRA \ %I� d� ! Q a .' msvi�saoA:��v 3d ��o m lu 1, cc �' � J� s au 5$� m i • ■ Ilr Nr W � - w • W ' O 8 W =an ax e N g ¢ ._ - :7, 1.51 ,l] pp,E - ¢ E 888 of F O e3 Lit' gp O gaps _r E s �` 91 r G Q > = a u °'a en a w � I II El as g a 88 N w — d Y 1 :.___ yg :4 `gy g p 3 r:1 ) p� Y it '.o.[I i - g Ili m- [ Bggg ,? li: _y9- ' ; ice ' £ E I �i III ,I 4 t.i > a n . 'gig i mWn �: j a.�.` .. ` a W ! J F W do-. ` O N z w el • @ n .sue S. 1 S 4 I I � ate ow i ; l I i y33,N76s•uv(3) Li it . .9_Ma. ii 7 Y e i 7 IM N e Et, 1 1 tl/1 pip 044,:* pa co x 9 WS 3 t ;tia�:a3._r:,. o . : z 41 1 11 LI Mil a O 0 0 W M 3 I - , ° • k, :4?4•19; 4".r,'.51■,141-i. .. ik 44 'qt.'', ec:...^ Fr.' -I, •:' • ot,. 1:4 v...• ,.-•.• ty ix. .,f• C r , ,^.! Ps*-lc .:..„5:-- •. A:E .. , •.!"'...." -..1z.1" • ttilar,,0 _.•,* • • et ,, ' l' 4 • 1‘4,1 .1 4111.1fir .. ,1. 1‘,/r4 tie 1 t rk-r. 4.•••••, .,',,- ' . iy‘,4 ,- t j tir.z. 2-r. -411t ,,,k• frir `• •:::,-.A,,,ef -..:•..e.2„....L- . ,,,,,:q.-I-•./.• ... •, •S' 1,-C.44 •-‘40 , : 1‘"?` - - .. `41k,•11 ' -y- — A.44 * , ,i ..." 1'.X.L '1,--.‘? : ,. " • 7044 ..'• 4.1„, 3t-n•-Mit:s.i.v.t - -0.13%, . ifr.". 4, -44141, -.4‘4,‘4 Ne• • ...._ i. .- ,:.-..... ,..,,,,,, -.„,,gb -, .,--:, ,.....,;. r 't4.*.ta-tir.(4.,-;, 4 "‘..34 1, 4 'jot\ '..1".% 4,-;.), . iL. ,.• 4, • —#:-. ,4 - . i it, P t • ‘"t ,P tr •••• •••'N.4 1,Pfl .;••4 , . , re ••,-, ••• • ,c.. .b.“ tit 'LLS- e .? 4 c.• ..qt . c-r. ,4 at • -, ,4 . xi._ • VbilSeg."-•••1/4_ Lc*. 'An 1 "" f ,), -.• ; .4 oct". 4t-....A+,RAC I'' , *41:7.4 4 , 1‘ ' . . • ._71: ..-e-,4.4.",:- ..."` 'Ice Al 4 , i'• lis.-;ite ,044,71•1"4,,_,},-,e,,r44's,„0%•"fr.brr: '..,,,,E41914;i:SI j't\e7 r`i :;";:: ''''.-1,.'i'a(1--b-. ' '17--..tit -445,1--444 1... .-a. .-#/". "tallestigikrs, i , ,tfP7,er'jeal'e: % °tic' A....<1\ ' :-...' '1-• t r‘.4 •:- 47:1-' ''- - 7 ...:;11,4?.21i. .,t-t ...„--..'4,1,:"56',.•:)1.7. ,.5-:.' t. t,i iit,:,t,.. ,;gilt. 4" -1!. -as • 1 - PCI,;:.,1,-. 1 PIP7''' t :- • • .05 -P.-. ,-4;cstian... crp..; ;,.., -...: ....:.,-„, 5.4.....,.. 141, infl-1,1/4‘Irirse.H I 1•1‘,NI. •-••71•"'' ■•.,••• • '. •q'et "'le ,I ••,... il AI • "r-•• '.'r't'K ''7"-••• 'IA"P ii.,"..i,s,..t.r...„-, 7C:41-:1/4 .-5...a••• .47.8•:3/4" 1 e*SI PVIILP-orri. ;,‘ hr 04'11/ V,-:. i,,i,"t gct•2.._Atii...112- '\'''‘'.-,-.1' ., T... .1,q-'1-.)-• Ifr ;C•i. 'el ••'... ".-,.*-;;,-.-7,t,„„-4, it, ',. -rti - ,/,- li,A44i. :licir,.. tzt;',-.f,z,itkii„,.i...:,494-\.;r:-., -- ,,. -,-, -4,...,s a•••,:-,.... 4 .. "*".• -2--ZE,--' 04......51-Ci itith'S; ' &L..;-.1(it:Iii, ,,trci,a/„.....„,,,e:/:•%61, .(1111..,4,".1N:rot .....4.,-...01 fata: ,:II fit-'9.-4":4-14141C"--.-.." -'/•:"C"I‘e■I'ReHr It.- ktr:21.4 -. .-41.•:, - t-. \''' i - , .' t, ' .4 s. I* ii-A- •-, 4.• "WP` ' .1' •••• •I r• " ‘. 11' . .• •-• P -.. . P''"...1 i("",....544 4i4411.:Tie 1 ft. er" .x.•L. ,a...... ft.. -.1.4.;rt., .!,-. V• '''.. .. ,,.. -. . , 3-.30. e*? ;\isivi 4' -. }", k.:1/4 1 :t.I.Z-it • VI. it I p, :,..,,, a. ,,,,,, er ..:,74„,,,:fre4- -.!,..?4.: . ., ,...?-: . __.., ,_,,, .,,, - f ,, 46. , . ,,,,, ie• ...1.41. - ik!or. `....et n5fit.':,,l' ' ‘• . efo"'"`14414 • i ■9•,'ItY....-e 1.-", ,-t. 'd"04 ..‘I"' . i i• 1;..:%., ''Ix' , r s 'Z'''--C ` '' 4. 9 F '•?‘1 ' ii ,, tal.-, -0 % r1/41 1..4.. 4-:.- --e• ' - > ,•, - „, ' . (r....7(,)-ar..7....--,04-.7.,4,./.• .c.., , ,. , , 7(7 -r ' 4 — Q2.,,_, ,"r_.,. 1 AsIs ist,""ri? t‘",... " ' v•I A -..% 1/211P ,,1,•••„t a•••2•1 \/14. ' ....,•Appe4 ,..,,. 4.. to.,/,tS, '41 ( I en' " - - or,ir , . 1 I.4 -_,_ _,71 . , rtiliiiii7 I _, • - IP ? dodo \ ■ . I • e I Ari 4•\ . . , -.. • ...al.4.7.• t„..) / . ' •.. " ; •--..„ •_ • 'AT:- k":. i 4'4 . 1 - .144 ' ''• 4• t '':: .• w t• Nii,••• It , ... • , 4" i • 4 .. 41 .4‘ Ai 1 , - .•.I. .., ,_ ,f , *. ' r 4. 'W• - - c , -• e I elhle _ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Steve Fowler August 2, 2011 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00047 - MERITAGE HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive - APN: 0225-161-65 and 71. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032, Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00871, and Variance DRC2007-00097. On April 9, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. Background: On July 5, 2011, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project and noted several deficiencies in the design of the project. The applicant was asked to make revisions and bring the project back to the Design Review Committee for review. At the July 5, 2011, Design Review meeting, the applicant was advised that the Committee's concerns were regarding the Bungalow elevations, the open space between the garage door and window on the Plan 2 left elevation, and the staggering of the plotting of the homes to create a better street frontage. The applicant agreed to move the garage door towards the rear of the house to close the gap, and to revise the Bungalow elevations to reflect more elements found in the Bungalow style. Design Parameters: The applicant is required to develop within substantial compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) Day Creek neighborhood, incorporating the architecture and design details of the Etiwanda area. Requirements include side-on garages, recessed garages, and exterior siding. The specific architectural styles shall include enough materials, elements, and details that reflect the character of the style. This project includes 23 homes. The Day Creek neighborhood has its own unique architectural design guidelines per the ENSP and requires that a mix of architectural styles be used. Design Changes: One of the items the Design Review Committee requested was that the applicant enhance all of the Bungalow elevations in each floor plan in order to convey true Craftsman Bungalow style. The applicant has revised the plans and has added shake siding to all elevations of each plan. The shake siding is being utilized as a major second material on these new elevations. They have also changed the horizontal siding at the gables to vertical siding and added brackets. The brick veneer has been changed to stone veneer and reduced to approximately a 24-inch to 30-inch wainscot on various sides of the plan. The porch posts on the Plans for 2 through 4 have been changed to better reflect the Bungalow style by utilizing battered posts atop stone veneer wrapped bases. On Plan 3 the front porch was redesigned to better represent the Bungalow style with a front facing gable. The floor plans did not change; the project still meets the 30 percent side-on garages and the 25 percent single-story house product ratio. The staggering of the houses was studied but not changed because the configuration of the street provides enough variation to give the street frontages interest. All coach lights are decorative and match around these rest of the house. The garage man doors to the rear yard will be decorative with raised panels. DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00047 — MERITAGE HOMES August 2, 2011 Page 2 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. None at this time. 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 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. 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. The driveways shall be colored and scored in a diagonal pattern for additional entryway detail. Staff Recommendation: Staff is pleased with the revisions and recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Steve Fowler Members Present: A F. g= c C QW 3 2 S Er , --- _ o o[e i _ _ / C �- .� "'" c I / a•I ! Wain- / _ i -FA, ' . ,. ,:',-Ti .' irigiliti, I :4 \- y"i • T ❑cn t Ali' j .,4.::.'t :, i.t Al 1II ®� �h c r 7I 7..I I- ItL" ;0.< '\ 9 E 0 E at:..��J a s., O OC fibW 4 .P y1 di � O mm a .� {�1 i�.4 L a u Ali h Y w < U G uI ®r 4I* \'/c Xr_. t - 1: �a o : filth sex h nn i o : 6 W _ L g u .' O T' . Attachment • i E hilt G %io a.) •-2: CV 1•111.-". • ? ! 1 • • ' • W I— 2 -7 . II li II ' -,r4„:14, .2`3,..a.,-;47, > • !i t n ,. ... !,: WO: itt,:' ;t–iii..1,1 f.-1:- -. ' t .,5.11staili Ilk ' •Agl 1 a icii .44 ; 4- ■ ;', 11; ' -liil ir 1 -17 I friri,' Lari t 4 , 'ii 3 ,_ , i- :41-•-willEll!I. 4'?, .• \ atizgh ••,,! r —--1— III Thi,' , ,..;,:i., r.. i'lt•.Yle ill-Ii!,19 z :4, II; ..ANtel: i IIL---nit ik.,s •P',0. o , r... . :1:1•22:!..iii 1,4 - -- .._ ..4 . c r 4., —. 4; . .1- , c,■cl t1/2-44,..k • 1/1 - ".. . / 1 aIle IT "§ u I. • e"..- 0•Ziir •tEr.-r..M Thr l / .2.2„ _ . . :, • :‘otii, • ltif.ia4fpt.rz•ti•i r l' 1 ' . u) lift ---• E417.F. 2 tgd .. It t.11 z o 6 \67,:E.'"- - . L.) < • z Ile.4-i '7.',- ` i.V..4.: 432.1.-.'i> I 3 g 9> I— <ILI V4..Z."• •e''.1.--•-• :• .- — ••.' / rF• C p 0 It 'At, \.,._ A.S. , .114. '• 7 iitki, 41-j • • a 6 Z C 11 -CFO 8- -e . - tIsii 2 - u ti I ' c — — ....-.. ..,?. -. ni- ii t. g 7.41:•■ 4if A - - N t \ . 4 ,E 1 ? , ..... /3 Sri kk ty, - 1 ,, Fr 0 [ . \ it. • ;3 lk Ta a l \al al V-4 tit (J: C2, ..e .1 j ,P2m , i 1 0 Of^ C). a;: c_ , t T..... (.1•••,.. ID? el, .8 "E o i t 2=; c) i c,.. o.; r`■ E'. u . - 5 a o 11)et C rs'...• , II lilt ,cg, i 1 -c o Q, 1,4 , • • . OC sa) > /a f HI . nrIA5 •.1 . 7 0 , . , pt. r_2.3 II Ili _ IS li i li -- ''''-'•-_,>-",. • ..` .....‘•;.....„,,_ 14111g 3 ' isms , t . yoke .... .49.... 44r1 • , sWzg/t1IIIRC, $.4 I/ ' 17:1111 i .-1117114/14.74 Ilici lntril kii 1 4 c...isot up, i = 7-a,T. irisusim#5.., I. 11 - I - " '0,1, I .r•tbr'll 1 ''''” 1., - ‘11-1.43' tib fil ,t.r. --7= :. i: 11 _ wil a I i -,-. 'IMF P / \ .„ A . . _ _ Or/ =1,01451 N 1 L' 1.—al w •• 11 7-7 se-a „ •!,\,-.?7,:z..-r...... ‘ =Yr, = 1 t yr c-=-579: TittailL4t,9 2 HE Ile el . _,_ 7 4, • T P.1 \ , -z , , ,.7.4 _ II IP 5 /11e5 . _ if' .a---11,—IL 0 1 I 'i ,/ rrimirat i \\PI --I• iu p LI-I L) < Irbil.- _ Jele IZ"2".• CC c O., = 0-.Cu ll'ir:' ...=< - z .—c god ez- O -m a " 1:1:1::::;11 1 1 • 0.0 u o -c- F I., z u B 4 , r• 0 11 it • 0 & r r, Iti A ' tY 1 114; li\ il 41 \- 4 -th o• 0-- o 15 - o 71> 4 ' 11444, •r•-• z '5 [Pdg I, P o „,_ • 1 i o ' ? o • • • o o * 3 tow it o = c o W u N0 w _ r i- O az O ICI I i q • -_ It i 'S 8 �a rib la ;,, s# / E � ` I _ ..4.'... '1' \i' /// : o c lI∎11tH 1I 1, • f 1.,\ X101 Fj E1 •_ �r "] 3� ���� i1 �I�li:27.,S: > ' �e L'Slgq ! - tr3% I' �� 1 ti� � rcr- a� r hi r , r ,Irm /� + o IIe � !, Ifi —1 IJ y O j� I�P t CR pd�` _ 2 'I C Ti u �.i . 1` C LrLp-.., - Fir, I.7/ U t� w II i V o • +di; %. s: t C b_ 0 i V NJ ,' j• it 1 � �v z U7 3 Y b h U:c t U 0' >.• N Or` • 3 ,• i ■ I if I � In I n _ 61 : _ • AtltL_I �!/ = ILt SIIMPIIIIM I= VII \ OM i II'" -;- - i_!I III rig in laim. i MOP I lit - , ; i' j r=_ �i i�i Imo! �1 ''t 74 i�■ � = r ;I \ I Av i ..-"I I-111 1 N r 1.12 lain I 1 • 1 1 _� t vi �� - ` _ t to % . 1 I I 1 o 1 , . I rill /A _ , N• . -- l a I , - 1 d .—• 11 ICI, ; J 1i■ .11. \\ j�_ i� I i i / i� /= iii / t� i to \\ _ � :' ! I +;kt nom= cvl 0 I \\I ISI I \\ ¶t4ss 1 ��r rail 1 II1E [. Iiitill . 1 • MU I I I. iilj \ c WIt loam. .. Ini�l 7 II I I I HI .■r � ! --� � \ 1 ; \ i5 I ■ I \\III \ 1t ``` 1 ' - \\ 1 IS �YIY DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:30 p.m. Donald Granger August 2, 2011 MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00689 - PARLOUR ENTERPRISES - A request to modify the exterior paint colors, materials, and architectural design theme for a proposed Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour & Restaurant in the Community Commercial District within the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10742 Foothill Boulevard (formerly Macaroni Bar & Grill) - APN: 1077-422-85. Related file: Sign Permit DRC2011-00749. 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 since it includes the installation of new interior equipment and the minor alternation of the exterior elevations for an existing building. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act. SIGN PERMIT DRC2011-00749 - PARLOUR ENTERPRISES - A request to review the exterior signs (wall and monument) for a proposed Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour & Restaurant in the Community Commercial District within the Terra Vista Community Plan (Uniform Sign Program No. 134), located at 10742 Foothill Boulevard (formerly Macaroni Bar & Grill) - APN: 1077-422-85. Related file: Minor Development Review DRC2011-00689. 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 since it includes the installation of new interior equipment and the minor alternation of the exterior elevations for an existing building. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Background: On June 14, 2011, Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour submitted a Preliminary Review Application (DRC2011-00617) for a workshop with the Design Review Committee. The applicant presented several color schemes and options to repaint the exterior elevations of the former Macaroni Bar & Grill. The Committee reviewed the applicant's proposals, colors, materials, and design theme and provided a • significant amount of direction regarding acceptable color layouts, accent colors, and design elements. The applicant received the Committee's input and concurred with the direction given. Below is a summary of the direction given by the Committee: • The applicant shall select a color scheme that compliments and blends with the existing design scheme at the Terra Vista Town Center. The Committee directed the applicant to use an off- white/cream color for the majority of the wall planes. The Committee instructed the applicant to avoid the use of bold red and blue colors, but indicated that a muted rose/burgundy color could be used as an accent color. • The existing tile roof shall remain; the Committee will not support a painted metal roof. The applicant agreed to leave the tile roof. • The chimney stack will be painted a single color, not striped. • The existing Bahama shutters can be painted a muted rose/burgundy color. • The entryway element on the south side that fronts Foothill Boulevard can be somewhat bold in order to capture the iconic imagery of Farrell's, and the pop-out element on the north elevation can mimic the entryway on the south side with respect to colors. • The Bahama shutters on the north elevation pop-out can also be removed and replaced with vision glass. • Blue awnings on the south and west elevations are acceptable. • DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00689 AND DRC2011-00749 — PARLOUR ENTERPRISES August 2, 2011 Page 2 • The applicant expressed a desire to paint the existing base tile element gray, but the Committee reserved the right to review the final rendering prior to agreeing to the color change on the base tile. • Accent light bulbs should be used sparingly. Single-element decorative sconce lights are acceptable at the entryway and on the side elevations. • The arches on the elevations will be studied by the designer. The Committee was willing to review the use of arches at a later date when the applicant returns with renderings. • The use of Americana and iconic graphics will not be permitted. • The signage must conform to Uniform Sign Program No. 134. • The use of fun, garish elements such as ice cream cones and other elements shall be eliminated. • The painting of lampposts fun, playful colors is not permitted; the lampposts shall match the existing lampposts. • The Committee was open to the modest use of murals that use a Route 66 inspired design. • The applicant will file a formal application and the Committee will review the revised Farrell's design at Design Review Committee and color palette at a later date. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Design Parameters and Analysis: The applicant has taken the direction given at the June 14, 2011, Design Review Committee workshop and modified the proposed exterior changes to be in substantial compliance with the direction given by the Committee. The applicant will be making a presentation at the meeting explaining the rationale behind the design themes and color selection. The entire building will be re-painted with the Farrell's paint scheme, including the trash enclosure, and all overheard trellis elements will be refreshed with a dark stain, The applicant has designed the building with cream color base, a red earth accent color, and a cornice incorporating both the base cream and red earth accent colors. The south elevation incorporates a blue awning, tivoli lights, decorative lights that frame the entrance, and painted columns. The east elevation employs use of the classic Farrell's decorative Americana arch, tivoli lights, two painted murals, and Farrell's signature corner trim. The north elevation makes use of a Route 66 mural, decorative light fixtures, tivoli lights, and painted quatrefoils. The west elevation features the outdoor patio area and modest use of tivoli lights. All elevations propose the painting of the shutters, except the north elevation, which proposes painting the shutters and opening up the one bay of shutters for a window installation. Indicated below are proposed modifications by the applicant that are either 1) a variation from the Committee's direction or 2) the applicant's architectural interpretation of a study area that the Committee indicated a willingness to permit some latitude with the requirement to formally review at a later date. Staff requests that the Committee provide input and direction on the following design elements: DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00689 AND DRC2011-00749 — PARLOUR ENTERPRISES August 2, 2011 Page 3 All Elevations: • The Committee should review the proposed painting of the base tile a grey color with a bold red accent stripe. South Elevation: • A Route 66 icon is located within the quatrefoil element under the gable. East Elevation: • The size, design, and placement of the two Route 66 murals. North Elevation: • The size, design, and placement of the Route 66 mural. Farrell's Sign Review: The governing Uniform Sign Program the Terra Vista Town Center (USP) is #134. USP #134 permits a significant amount of design latitude for colors, style, area, height, and length for restaurant tenants, provided the applicant receive approval from the Design Review Committee. Additionally, the following technical constraint regarding the number of signs is applicable: Quantity: 3 signs total (wall and monument) As noted above, with the Design Review Committee's consent, restaurants tenants are permitted a significant amount of latitude for signs in order to be sensitive to corporate colors, styles and design needs. The Sign Program offers the following benchmarks as a gauge, but these can be exceeded with the Committee's approval: Design Guidelines: Maximum height: 36 inches Maximum length: 70 percent of store frontage or 25 feet, whichever is less. Farrell's is proposing a total of 4 signs (3 wall and 1 monument); accordingly, one sign will have to be eliminated. Farrell's is requesting approval of their standard corporate identity, which utilizes a 3 line copy using white, old fashioned font on a red background, surrounded by tivoli lights. The sign design is a combination canister and raised letters. Staff finds the design, colors, length, height, and area of the wall and monument to be proportional with the building and appropriate for a commercial zoning. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All signs must conform to Uniform Sign Program No. 134 and the City Sign Code (3 maximum signs). • DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00689 AND DRC2011-00749— PARLOUR ENTERPRISES August 2, 2011 Page 4 Staff Recommendation: Staff finds the proposed exterior modifications to be in substantial compliance with the direction given by the Design Review Committee on June 14, 2011. Staff recommends that the Committee review the proposed exterior elevations and signs and provide input and direction on the identified study areas as interpreted and proposed by the applicant. With the study areas and signs addressed to the satisfaction of the Committee, staff recommends approval of the project. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Donald Granger Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Candyce Burnett August 2, 2011 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00070 - MERITAGE HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for the build out of 81 single-family lots on approximately 43.3 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northerly end of Wardman-Bullock Road -APN: 1087-201-01 thru 07, 1087-201-13 thru 40, 1087-191-01 thrul5, 0226-792-15, 0226-792-20 thru 24, 0226-792-29 thru 38, 0226-782-01 thru 11, and 0226-782-12 thru 15. Related file: Tract 16324. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Background: On August 24, 2005, the Planning Commission approved the design review for 123 single-family homes on lots previously approved with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 (June 16, 2004) for Granite Homes (Ironwood Estates). Granite Homes has constructed 42 homes ranging in size from 3,731 square feet to 5,482 square feet and included five architectural themes: Santa Barbara Revival, Country, Ranch, Bungalow, and Monterey. Additionally, the site has been rough graded and prepared for development, including the horse corral locations for Lots 25, 97-119, and 120-123. The project was developed consistent with the approved Development Agreement for the site. A Community Trail along the north boundary of the project adjacent to the Henderson Creek channel and along the perimeter of Lots 121-123 will be required to be installed with the project. Meritage Homes acquired the remaining 81 lots for the construction of the Whispering Ranch project. Design Parameters: The applicant is required to develop in substantial compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which has extensive design guidelines and development standards to promote a high-quality development. The Specific Plan area is divided into distinct neighborhoods, each with their own standards and guidelines to create a unique character. The project site is located within the Etiwanda Highlands (Subarea 6) neighborhood. Design requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan demand a varied arrangement in site layouts by the use of different garage locations and the skewing of houses relative to the street. The Etiwanda Specific Plan also requires eight footprints with four elevations per footprint/floor plan, which the applicant has provided. Plan 1 is designed as a single-story house and is plotted on 20 lots (25 percent). The "Etiwanda Highlands" neighborhood has its own unique architectural design guidelines per the ENSP and requires a mix of the following primary architectural styles to be used for at least two-thirds of the units: Ranch, Monterey, San Juan, and Santa Barbara Revival. Up to one-third of the units may use Secondary styles: Victorian, Country, and Bungalow. The proposed homes are consistent with the required architectural styles and include floor plans that range from a 3,227 square foot plan to a 4,049 square foot plan. These plans provide a large yard area to meet the demand of the current housing market with lots ranging from 14,025 square feet to 45,755 square feet. A total of 20 (25 percent) of the proposed house product will be single-story. There are 3 two-story floor plans and all plans have four architectural styles. The proposed architectural styles are San Juan, Santa Barbara Revival, Country, and Ranch. The San Juan elevation incorporates recessed decorative details, decorative shutters, wrought iron details, S concrete tile roofing, gable end and shed roofs, and arched patio/entryway on the Plan 1. The Santa Barbara Revival incorporates S concrete tile DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00070— MERITAGE HOMES August 2, 2011 Page 2 roofing, stucco finish, decorative shutters, metal and stucco pot shelves, decorative clay vent detail, and decorative finials. The Ranch style incorporates louvered shutters, lap siding, shaped wood beam rafters, flat/shake concrete tile roof, stone veneer, pot shelves, and front porches, The Country style incorporates flat/shake concrete tile roofs, 6:12 roof pitches, decorative shutters, stone veneer, pot shelves, simple wood surrounds, and covered porches. All plans have variation in the footprints and a modest amount of wall plane articulation, thereby, avoiding "box on box" building forms. All of the plans have been designed with roof planes that have strong variations. Each of the four plans feature covered porch entries which range in size dependent upon the style. Plan 2 has a recessed garage and Plan 4 has a side on garage to meet the 30 percent requirement that houses have side-on or recessed garages. Although the proposal is to construct a smaller housing product than the existing development, and the proposed architectural styles are not identical to the Ironwood Estates; the project has been designed to be compatible with the architectural details, massing, scale, and materials. Staff requested that the proposed architectural design and scale match the existing development so that there is a seamless transition from the existing project to the proposed project. 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. None at this time. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Decorative trims around the windows on the side and rear elevations on the San Juan plan should be enhanced to match the details shown on the front elevation. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide minimum 5-foot landscape planter between the fence/wall and the sidewalk on the corner side yards. 2. Provide minimum 5-foot double wide access gates from private equestrian trail to horse corral to accommodate vehicles and horse trailers. Code Standards: The following items are standards of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. The 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. The driveways shall feature a variety of decorative treatments with brick or other masonry bands and varying concrete colors and textures per Specific Plan Exhibit 33. DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00070 — MERITAGE HOMES August 2, 2011 Page 3 3. View fencing shall be used along the Etiwanda Creek Wash (west tract boundary). The design shall include beige tubular steel with brick pilasters at property lines per Specific Plan Exhibit 27(C). The minimum height shall be 5 feet 6 inches. 4. Interior private lot view fencing shall include beige tubular steel with brick pilasters at property corners per Specific Plan Exhibit 27(C). The minimum height shall be 5 feet 6 inches. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Candyce Burnett Members Present: •