HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/08/20 - Agenda Packet THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Si, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
L% J AGENDA
C C'`oNG, AUGUST 20, 2013 - 7:00 P.M.
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Rains Room
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL To ORDER
Roll Call
Regular Members: Richard Fletcher_ Francisco Oaxaca
Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger
Alternates: Frances Howdyshell_ Ray Wimberly
Lou Munoz
II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives.
Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to
20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues
and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design
Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission.
Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as
applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although
the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2012-01202 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - A review of
291 single-family homes that will be constructed in conjunction with a
proposed subdivision of a parcel of about 3,047,614 square feet
(79.67 acres) within the Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda
Specific Plan (South Overlay), located about 525 feet east of
Etiwanda Avenue at the north side of Arrow Route -APN: 0229-041-09.
Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18870 and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2013-00483.
1 of 2
fj . DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
L°•••J AUGUST 20, 2013
cRANCHO
UCAMONGA
B. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR2013-00283 — BICKEL
UNDERWOOD ARCHITECTURE FOR MCDONALD'S - A review of
modifications to the site and architecture comprised of revisions to the
exterior elevations, the drive-thru lanes, the parking lot, and an expansion
of the floor area by 390 square feet of an existing fast food restaurant of
3,670 square feet an exterior within the Financial (MFC) District, Terra
Vista Planned Community, located at 11198 Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 1077-422-53. Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00498
and Uniform Sign Program Amendment DRC2013-00590.
C. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT DRC2013-00590 —PERMIT
PLACE, INC. FOR MCDONALD'S - A request to amend Uniform Sign
Program#134 in conjunction with a review of modifications to the site and
architecture comprised of revisions to the exterior elevations,the drive-thru
lanes, the parking lot, and an expansion of the floor area by 390 square
•
feet of an existing fast food restaurant of 3,670 square feet an exterior
within the Financial (MFC) District, Terra Vista Planned Community, •
located at 11198 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-422-53. Minor
Development Review DRC2013-00283 and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2013-00498.
III. 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.
IV. ADJOURNMENT 1
The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with
the consent of the Committee.
I, Gall Elwood, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga,hereby certify that a
true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 7, 2013, at least
72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic
Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
2 of 2
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Mike Smith August 20, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2012-01202 —
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - A review of 291 single-family homes that will be constructed in
conjunction with a proposed subdivision of a parcel of about 3,047,614 square feet (79.67 acres) within
the Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located about
525 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue at the north side of Arrow Route - APN: 0229-041-09. Related file:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18870 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00483.
Background: The proposed project was reviewed by the Committee on April 30, 2013. At that time the
subdivision application, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18870, was accepted as submitted and
recommended for approval to the Planning Commission. However, the application for the review of the
design of the proposed homes, Development Review DRC2012-01202, was not accepted. The
Committee determined that the certain details of the architecture of each house model/plan needed to be
revised before they could forward the application. The applicant was directed to revise the proposal for a
follow-up review by the Committee (Exhibit A).
Staff Comments: Staff has conducted a side-by-side comparison of the original and revised plans and
has concluded, in general, that the applicant has completed the revisions as discussed at the Design
Review Committee meeting on April 30, 2013. The applicant has made the following changes identified
in italics. Note: Staff will provide a set of both the original and revised plans and show the changes that
were made to the Committee during the meeting.
1. All themes (all Plans) — Where a decorative stone veneer wainscot and trimcap is provided at the
front elevation, add a decorative stone veneer wainscot and trimcap to the entire width of the rear
elevation to match it. Alternate solutions such as adding stone veneer to an entire section of wall
plane may be considered. Note: At the corner of each house, where the side elevation intersects
with the rear elevation, the veneer shall wrap around the corner and terminate at a logical point
along the side elevation. At the corner of each house, where the side elevation intersects with the
front elevation, the veneer shall wrap around the corner and terminate at the return wall.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
• Added stone or brick veneer to part of the rear elevation in the area,at the sliding door and/or
rear windows. The veneer will correspond with the veneer that is proposed to be on the front
elevation of each house. Where no veneer is proposed on the front elevation, such as on the
Santa Barbara Revival, Spanish, and Italian themes; no veneer has been added.
• For Plans 70-1.2 through -1.5 and 70-2.2 through -2.5, the applicant has articulated the walls
around the patio cover at the rear elevation so that this area slightly projects from the primary
wall plane.
• For Plans 55-2.2 through -2.5, the wall plane at the right elevation has been articulated in the
area near the second floor window. However, on some other plans, the articulated wall plane
was eliminated. Staff recommends that, where applicable, these pop-outs that were originally
proposed near the second floor windows on the side elevation be restored to that location.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
DRC2012-01012 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2013
Page 2
2. All themes (all Plans) — On Plans that have a decorative wood siding at the front elevation, where
the side elevation intersects with the front elevation, the siding shall wrap around the corner and
terminate at the return wall.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
The applicant agreed to do this where wood siding has been proposed.
3. All themes (all Plans) — Provide additional shutters on the windows on both floors on all elevations
(it is not necessary to provide them on all windows). Note: Some Plans, for example Plans 65 and
70, already have shutters on all windows. On the plans where shutters have already been
provided, it is not necessary to add more.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
• Removed the shutters from the side elevations where, as discussed during the review
meeting, it was agreed by all participants that they would have limited aesthetic value.
• Removed the shutters at the second floor windows on the rear elevations of some two-story
plans and at the first floor windows on the rear elevation of some one-story plans. Staff
recommends that, where applicable, the shutters that were originally proposed at these
windows on the rear elevation be restored to those locations.
• Relocated the shutters from the first floor windows to the second floor windows at the rear
elevations. Staff recommends that, where applicable, the shutters that were originally
proposed at the first floor windows on the rear elevation be restored to that location, i.e. the
shutters at the second floor windows should be an addition to the shutter at the first floor
windows,.not a one-to-one replacement.
4. All themes (all two-story Plans) — Add corbels beneath the areas of the second floor that project
beyond the primary wall plane. Note: Some Plans, for example Plans 65 and 70, already have
corbels or have a clearly defined trim at the bottom of the projection. On the plans where corbels
or trim has already been provided, it is not necessary to add anything.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
• Added corbels beneath the areas of the second floor that project beyond the primary wall
plane of, for example, the theme.
• Added scallops beneath the areas of the second floor that project beyond the primary wall
plane at the rear and side elevations of the Spanish and Santa Barbara Revival themes.
• Added support columns beneath the areas of the second floor that project beyond the primary
wall plane at the rear elevations. These columns also include a decorative veneer.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
DRC2012-01012 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2013
Page 3
• Modified the areas of the second floor that project beyond the primary wall plane so that the
projections are on both the first and second floors
5. All themes (all Plans) — Add decorative wrought iron metalwork or pot shelves at the windows (it is
not necessary to provide them at all windows). Note: Some Plans, for example Plans 70-3.2, -3.3,
-3.4, and -4.2, already have these features. On the plans where these features have already been
provided, it may not be necessary to add more.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Alternate solutions were presented during the previous Committee meeting — see the proposed
solutions discussed for Issue #4.
6. Bungalow, Ranch, and Country (all Plans) — Increase the height of the decorative stone veneer
wainscot and trimcap that is proposed at the garages to a line that is 6 feet above finished surface.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Not completed; staff recommends that this revision be completed as a condition of approval.
7. Bungalow (all Plans) — Add/increase the number of rafter tails at the eaves of the gabled roofs on
all elevations.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested; the applicant also added rafter tails where necessary to balance the
corresponding rafter tails on the other elevations.
8. Ranch (all Plans) — Increase the application of the board and batten siding so that it covers more of
the primary wall plane beneath the gabled roofs at the rear elevation of the one-story plan and both
the left and right elevations of the two-story plans so that the area of this wall plane that is only
finished with stucco is reduced.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested in limited areas; staff recommends that this revision be completed as a
condition of approval.
9. Bungalow (all Plans except Plan 70-1.3) — Increase the application of the wood shingle siding so
that it covers more of the primary wall plane beneath the gabled roofs on at the rear elevation of the
one-story plan and both the left and right elevations of the two-story plans so that the area of this
wall plane that is only finished with stucco is reduced.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested in limited areas; staff recommends that this revision be completed as a
condition of approval.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
DRC2012-01012 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2013
Page 4
10. Prairie (Plan 65-1.3) — Add more rectangular insets beneath the hip roof at the rear elevation so
that their number is proportional to the area where they are located.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested.
11. Santa Barbara Revival (all Plans) — Where shutters have been provided, the general shape of the
shutter shall match the general shape/outline of the window area they would enclose, e.g. arched
window openings should have arched shutters.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested; this has also been done for other themes/plans, as well, where
applicable.
12. Bungalow (all Plans) — Continue the wood siding that has been applied to the front elevation
around to the right side elevation. The wood siding shall terminate directly above where the stone
veneer terminates. Note: Both the stone veneer and the siding shall wrap and terminate at the
return wall.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested where applicable.
13. Bungalow (Plan 55-4.3) — The design of the columns/bases that support the porch cover shall
match the design of the same feature in, for example, Plans 55-2.3 and 70-3.3.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested.
14. Country (Plan 55-2.4) — The design of the columns/bases that support the porch cover shall match
the design of the same feature in, for example, Plans 55-4.4 and 70-2.4.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested.
15. Italian (all Plans) — The belt-line at the front elevation and part of the left elevation shall be
continued along all elevations.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
The Committee did not deem this necessary; the applicant did not make this revision.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
DRC2012-01012 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2013
Page 5
16. Italian (Plan 65.4.5) —The sets of square corbel pairs at the front elevation beneath the area of the
second floor that projects beyond the primary wall plane shall be repeated on the similar
projections located at the rear and left elevations.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested.
17. European (Plan 65-1.4) — The application and design of the decorative stone veneer projection
beneath the front window shall be duplicated on the rear elevation.
Proposed revision(s) by the applicant:
Completed as requested; also, the edges of the projection have been modified slightly so that it is
more distinctive.
18. General Comment: The applicant has also curved the top edge of some of the shutters to match
the curve of the adjacent windows and the top edge of the decorative trim above the windows and
doors have been curved. In some instances, the size of the shutters has been enlarged.
19. General Comment: On the side elevations of some themes, projections beyond the primary wall
plane have been added. For examples, see Plans 55-2.2, -2.3, -2.4, and -2.5.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
None.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved, with the above-noted
revisions incorporated by the applicant, and those recommended by staff, and forwarded to the Planning
Commission for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
Members Present:
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
April 30, 2013 Mike Smith April 30, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18870 — LENNAR HOMES
OF CALIFORNIA - A request to subdivide a vacant parcel of approximately 3,047,614 square feet
(79.67 acres) into 291 lots within the Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan.
(South Overlay), located approximately 525 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue at the north side of
Arrow Route -APN: 0229-041-09. Related file: Development.Review DRC2012-01202.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2012-01202 —
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - A review of 291 single-family homes that will be constructed in
conjunction with a proposed subdivision of a parcel of approximately 3,047,614 square feet (79.67-acres)
within the Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located
approximately 525 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue at the north side of Arrow Route -APN: 0229-041-09.
Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18870.
Site Characteristics: The project site is an irregularly-shaped vacant parcel with an overall area of
approximately 3.5 million square feet (80.8 acres). The site is approximately 1,900 feet deep (north to
south); because of its irregular shape, it is approximately 1,300 feet wide (east to west) at the north
property line and approzimately.2,100 feet wide at the south property line. There is a "dog leg" extension
that is approximately 232 feet in width and 688 feet in length at the northwest corner of the property that
extends to Foothill Boulevard.
The project site was previously used by Ameron, a concrete pipe manufacturer located nearby at the
southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route, for outdoor storage (finished pipe segments).
To the west of the project site are the,Victoria Woods apartment complex and a single-faniily residential
subdivision. To the north is the San Sevaine Villas apartment complex. To the east are single-family
residences, 'a mobile home park, and some minor industrial uses within the unincorporated
San Bernardino County. To the south are legal, non-conforming single-family residences, industrial uses
(principally outdoor storage), and several vacant parcels. Principal street frontage will be along
Arrow Route with length of approximately 2,100 feet. Secondary street frontage will be along
Foothill Boulevard with a length of approximately 232 feet (at the north end of the aforementioned
"dog leg").
A corridor comprised of easements in favor of Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California
Gas Company (SCGC), and associated improvements, such as transmission lines, are located parallel to
the west property line of the project site This corridor is'approximately 22 acres in area. The,"dog leg"
portion of the property is entirely within this corridor. Because of the presence of this utility corridor, the
actual area of the project site that is available for development is approximately 64 acres. The
Etiwanda/San Sevaine flood control channel is locatedparallel to the east property,line of the project site.
The zoning of the majority of the site is Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan
(South Overlay); the portion of the site that is within the utility corridor described above is zoned Open
Space (OS) District. The zoning'of the properties to the west beyond the utility corridor are Low(L), Low
Medium (LM), and Medium (M) Residential Districts, and Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay). The
zoning of the property to the north is Medium (M) Residential District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay Zoning
District (Subarea 4). The zoning of the properties to the south is General Industrial (GI) District. The
subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of approximately
1,180 feet and 1,155 feet, respectively.
EXHIBIT A '
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT18870 AND DRC2012-01202
April 30, 2013
Page 2
General: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 291 numbered lots for a private (gated).
single-family residential development. There will be an additional eleven (11) lettered lots for an existing,
unrelated Southern California Gas Company facility (Lot A) and common areas as follows: open space
along the Arrow Route street frontage (Lots B — D); two private parks (Lots E and F); pedestrian,access
pathways (Lots G and H), and private streets (Lot'I). All lots will comply with the development standards
applicable to this zoning district as described in Figure 5-2 of the Etiwanda Specific.Plan. Individual lot
areas will range between 5,000 square feet to 13,450 square feet, which are in excess of the minimum of
5,000 square feet that is required. The minimum average lot area is 6,738 square feet which is in
excess of the minimum 6,000 square feet that is required. The depth of each lot will be at least 90 feet,
and the width of each lot at the required front setback will be at least 50 feet (with 50 percent of the lots
being a minimum of 55 feet in width as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan). Included in the proposal
is a network of private streets and two (2) gated entrances that will link the site to Arrow Route. As
streets are. not permitted within the utility corridor, there will not be any vehicle access directly to
Foothill Boulevard.
Along the south side of the project site along the Arrow Route street frontage, there will be a series of
community entry monument signs, decorative vehicle gates, ornate wood trellis structures,and extensive
landscaping. In addition to aesthetically enhancing the entrance into the project site these features will
in combination with a continuous perimeter block wall, buffer the project site from existing/potential
industrial land uses on the properties on the other side of AfTOw Route. Two private parks are proposed
within the interior of the subdivision. These parks will include typical playground equipment, open lawn
areas, benches, and decorative entry trellises.
Within the utility corridor a 20-foot wide trail will be constructed per Figure CS-3 — Hiking and Riding
Trails Master Plan — of the General Plan. This trail will be a part of the Community Trail network: The
alignment of this trail will extend from Arrow Route to Foothill Boulevard. Per the. General Plan,
Arrow Route will be the south terminus of the trail, i.e..the trail will not continue further south. At
Foothill Boulevard the trail will eventually connect.with the trail segment that will be constructed by others
in conjunction with future development on the other side of that street. As the trail will be located within
the easements of both SCE and SCGC, trail-related improvements will be restricted based on meetings
with representatives of both utilities. Therefore, the installation of fences, light standards, landscaping,
etc. that are typically required for Community Trails may be very limited or not present altogether along
this segment of the Community Trail system.
In conjunction with the tentative tract map, the applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence
on each lot for a total of 291 single-family residences. Seventy-three (73) of the houses will be
one-story, while the houses On the remainder of the lots will be two=story. This equates to 25 percent of
the lots having single-story houses. This mix of one- and two-story homes is consistent with the policy
adopted by the Planning Commission requiring that 25 percent (minimum) of the proposed houses be
single-story. The project will comply with Section 5.42.606 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which requires
that 50 percent of the garages to be oriented or situated in a manner that minimizes its visual presence.
The houses on all corner lots will be single-story as required per Section 5.42.608 of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
The applicant proposes nine (9) types of architectural themes (elevations) — Santa Barbara Revival,
Bungalow; Ranch, Country, Monterey, Spanish, Prairie, European, and Italian. Each house will
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT18870 AND DRC2012-01202
April 30, 2013'
Page 3
incorporate a variety of materials to varying degrees depending on the theme. Each house will have an
articulated footprint/floor plan and profile. The applicant proposes thirteen (13) distinct footprints— Plans
55 (1 to 4), 65 (1 to 4), and 70 (1 to 5) — and reverse footprints of each for a total of twenty-six (26)
footprints. Plans 55-1, 65-1, 70-1, and 70-2 will be one-story, while the others will be two-story. The
number of available footprints will comply with Figure 5-45 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Because the
footprints and profiles of each,house differ, there will be a variety of movement in the wall planes and
roof lines.
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. All themes (all plans) — Where a decorative stone veneer wainscot and trimcap is provided at the
front elevation, add a decorative stone veneer wainscot and trimcap to the entire width of the rear
elevation to match it. Alternate solutions such as adding stone veneer to an entire section of wall
plane may be considered. Note: At the corner of each house, where the side elevation intersects
with the rear elevation, the veneer'shall wrap around the corner and terminate at a logical point
along the side elevation. At the corner of each house, where the side elevation intersects with the
front elevation, the veneer shall wrap around the corner and terminate at the return watt
2. All themes (all plans) — On plans that have a decorative wood siding at the front elevation, where
the side elevation intersects with the front elevation, the siding shall wrap around the corner and
terminate at the return wall.
3. All themes (all plans) — Provide additional shutters on the windows on both floors on all elevations
(it is not necessary to provide them on all windows). Note: Some plans, for example Plans 65 and
70, already have shutters on all windows. On the plans where shutters have already been
provided, it is not necessary to add more.
4. All themes (all two-story plans) — Add corbels beneath the areas of the second floor that project
beyond the primary wall plane. Note: Some plans; for example Plans 65 and 70, already have
corbels or have a clearly'defined trim at the bottom of the projection: On the plans where corbels
or trim has already been provided, it is not necessary to add anything.
5. All themes (all plans) —Add decorative wrought iron metalwork or pot shelves at the windows (it is
not necessary to provide them at all windows). Note: Some plans, for example Plans 70-3.2, -a 3,
-3.4, and-4.2, already have these features. On the plans where these features have already been
provided, it may not be,necessary to add more.
6. Bungalow, Ranch, and Country (all plans) — Increase the height of the decorative stone veneer
wainscot and 'trimcap that is proposed at the garages to a line that is 6 feet above the finished
surface.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT18870 AND 0RC2012-01202
April 30, 2013
Page 4
7. Bungalow (all Plans) —Add/increase the number of rafter tails at the eaves of the gabled roofs on
all elevations.
8. Ranch (all Plans) — Increase the application of the board and batten siding so that it covers more of
the primary wall plane beneath the gabled roofs on at-the rear elevation of the one-story plan and
both the left and right elevations of the two-story plans so that the area of this wall plane that is only
finished with stucco is reduced.
9. Bungalow (all Plans except Plan 70-1.3) — Increase the application of the wood shingle siding so
that it covers more of the primary wall plane beneath the gabled roofs on at the rear elevation of the
one-story plan and both the left and right elevations of the two-story plans so that the area of this
wall plane that is only finished with stucco is reduced.
10. Prairie (Plan 65-1.3) — Add more rectangular insets beneath the hip roof at the rear elevation so
that their number is proportional to the'area where they are located.
11. Santa Barbara Revival (all plans),— Where shutters have been provided,the general shape of the
shutter shall match the general shape/outline of the window area they would enclose, e.g. arched
window openings should have arched shutters.
12. Bungalow (all plans) —Continue the Wood siding that has been applied to the front elevation around
to the right side elevation. The wood siding shall terminate directly above the where the stone
veneer terminates. Note: Both the stone veneer and the siding wrap shall terminate at the return
wall.
13. Bungalow (Plan 55-4.3) The design of the columns/bases that support the porch cover shall
match the design of the same feature in, for example, Plans 55-2.3 and 70-3:3.
14. Country (Plan 55-2.4) —The design of the columns/bases that support the porch cover shall match
the design of the same feature in, for example, Plans 55-4.4 and 70-2.4.
15. Italian (all Plans) — The belt-line at the front elevation and part of the left elevation shall be
continued along all elevations.
16. Italian (Plan 65.4.5) —The sets of square corbel pairs at the front elevation beneath the area of the
second floor that projects beyond the primary Wall plane shall be repeated on the similar
projections located at the rear and left elevations.
17. European (Plan 65-1.4) —The application and design of the decorative stone veneer projection
beneath the front window shall be duplicated on the rear elevation.
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 molding along the top of the stone or brick veneer wainscots shall also be stone or brick and
not foam.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT18870 AND DRC2012-01202
April 30, 2013
Page 5
2. Altrock veneer shall be real river rock and not'synthetic.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and resubmitted for follow-up
review by the Committee prior to forwarding it to the Planning Commission for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff presented a brief overview of the project and summarized the major/secondary issues relating to
the architecture and site development. Staff'noted that the content and direction of the report prepared
for this meeting took into consideration the feedback that was received by staff during the Planning
Commission's Design Workshop held on April 10, 2013. The Committee then reviewed some of the
proposed elevations of various models and indicated where the applicant needed to provide more
enhancements to the architecture (using the Comments Report as a template for discussion). They were
in agreement that the front elevations needed only limited enhancements (or none at all). They also
agreed with the staff observation that extensive architectural embellishment on the lower part of the side
elevations, where the building setbacks from the side property line could be as low as.5 feet, limited the
'value'' of such enhancements as they would have limited visibility to the public or the homeowner.
Instead, the enhancements that would normally be provided along the lower part of the side elevations
should be applied to the rear elevations. They noted that the upper part of the side elevations should-still
have enhancements. The Committee considered the rear elevations, as proposed, to be generally
unacceptable. More specifically, they pointed out to the applicant that the architectural theme that the
front of the.house implied needed to be continued on the rear elevation. As proposed, the features, trim,
and/or details that were typical of a particular theme were. not present on the rear elevations. In the
absence of such enhancements, the rear elevations of each house were practically the same, and the
theme that the architects were'attempting to,convey was not apparent.
The. applicant's architects, using tissue paper, illustrated several solutions. Some of the solutions'
presented by the architects were consistent with staff's recommendations. When they were hot, the
alternative achieved similar objectives: The Committee responded favorably with the understanding that
each model and elevation would have a unique solution. For example, when a wainscot of stone veneer
would be impractical along the full horizontal width of the rear-elevation, the architects proposed veneers
that were applied vertically to support a pop-out feature directly above it. Similarly, altering the design of
the trim around some windows would provide the illusion of a window inset without significant
restructuring of the window area. Other solutions not previously suggested by staff but forwarded by the
applicant included revisions to the roof design to interrupt'relatively large wall planes. The applicant and
his architects accepted,that more details such as shutters, pot shelves, etc. needed to be provided and
would incorporate them accordingly.
Because of the number of models and corresponding elevations that needed to be revised, all parties
• recognized that the design issues would not be fully resolved at this meeting and that'additional effort
and time would be necessary. The Committee directed the applicant to consult with staff on the
revisions. When the'revised proposal is ready, the applicant shall resubmit it to the Committee for review
and action at a later, regularly scheduled meeting.
Members Present:, Fletcher', Oaxaca, Granger
Staff Planner Mike Smith
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Mike Smith August 20, 2013
•
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR2013-00283 — BICKEL UNDERWOOD ARCHITECTURE
FOR MCDONALD'S-A review of modifications to the site and architecture comprised of revisions to
the exterior elevations, the drive-thru lanes, the parking lot, and an expansion of the floor area by
390 square feet of an existing fast food restaurant of 3,670 square feet an exterior within the
Financial (MFC) District, Terra Vista Planned Community, located at 11198 Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 1077-422-53. Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00498 and Uniform Sign
Program Amendment DRC2013-00590.
Design Parameters: The project site is an existing restaurant, McDonald's, located at the north side
of Foothill Boulevard between Milliken Avenue and Elm Avenue on a parcel of 62,290 square feet
(1.43 acre). The restaurant is a pad building of 3,670 square feet and is part of a partially
constructed, master-planned commercial complex approved by the Planning Commission on
January 12, 2001 (Related file: Conditional Use Permit CUP99-25)that is bound by Church Street,
Milliken Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Elm Avenue on the north, east, south, and west sides,
respectively. The restaurant building was approved separately by the Planning Commission on
July 25, 2001. Related file: Development Review DRC2001-00231. (Attachment A-July 24, 2001,
Staff Report and excerpts). A gas station and a multi-tenant retail building are located to the west of
the restaurant. As construction of the commercial complex is not complete, the properties to the
north and east of the restaurant are undeveloped/vacant. The restaurant has direct access to and
fronts Foothill Boulevard.
The commercial complex was approved with a "Tuscan" architectural theme that is similar to the
other contemporary shopping centers in the City and, in particular, the Terra Vista Planned
Community. Consistent with this theme, the subject building (and the other two buildings) have
prominent tower features, exterior walls finished with light-colored stucco/plaster, pitched roofs with
barrel tile roofing, and common details such as tile wainscots and small decorative details (tiles
patterned in the shape of a diamond). As a result, the architecture only minimally reflects the
corporate identity, or branding, of any specific tenant.
The applicant proposes to renovate the exterior of the restaurant in order for it to be consistent with
an updated corporate identity that is being applied to all McDonald's restaurants. The renovation
primarily entails refinishing the exterior with a new stucco/plaster finish, removing the tile wainscot
and tile "diamonds", installing tile to the full height of wall planes at various locations, and
reconstructing the roofline of the building (with an emphasis on horizontal lines). The wood trellises
located over the drive-thru lane will be replaced with aluminum trellises and metal canopies will
replace the pitched roofs over the windows and metal coping along parts of the top edge of the roof
line will be installed. Lastly,the outdoor patio will be removed and replaced with added interior floor
space, and the parking lot and the drive-thru lanes will be redesigned.
Although the exterior of the building will be significantly revised,the building will continue to have the
tower features at the original locations, an undulating roofline, variations in the wall plane, and
projections/features that will provide either aesthetic and/or functional purposes. The proposed
renovation will result in a departure from the approved architectural theme of the commercial
complex. However, it is not significant as it has become common practice to allow individual pad
tenants such as restaurants to have signature architecture. For reference, recent instances where
this has been permitted are: Lazy Dog Café (Development Review DRC2011-00456) at the north
side of 4th Street between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue; Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor &
Restaurant at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue (Minor Development
Review DRC2011-00689); Taco Bell at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and
Archibald Avenue (Development Review DRC2010-00314D); and Sonic Burger (Conditional Use
Permit DRC2009-00219) at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Pittsburgh Avenue.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
DRC2013-00283 — BICKEL UNDERWOOD ARCHITECTURE FOR MCDONALD'S
August 20, 2013
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.
None.
Secondary Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. All walls along the perimeter shall be refinished to match the primary colors of the building.
2. The overhead trellis of the trash enclosure shall be reconstructed to incorporate the aluminum
trellises used over the drive-thru lanes.
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 are subject to the separate review and approval of the amendment to Uniform Sign
Program #134 (Uniform Sign Program Amendment DRC2013-00590).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the
Planning Manager for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
Members Present:
irk
1
1
T H E C I T Y O F
RANCHO C U C A M O N G A -
Staff Report.
DATE: . July 25, 2001
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00231 -HOGLE-IRELAND,INC.-The review
of detailed site plan and building elevations for McDonald's Restaurant on 1.44 acres
of land within the previously approved Terra Vista Commons Master Plan in
the Mixed Use (MFC) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the
north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Milliken Avenue-APN: 107-421-98 and
227-771-53. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 99-25.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Undeveloped portion of the Terra Vista Commons Master Plan/Mixed Use
South - Undeveloped land/Industrial Park(Subarea 7)
East - Undeveloped portion of the Terra Vista Commons Master Plan
West - Retail building (Pad E)of the Terra Vista Commons Master Plan/Mixed Use
B. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Commercial
North - Commercial
South - Industrial Park
East - Commercial
West - Commercial
C. Site Characteristics: The Terra Vista Commons Master, Plan(Conditional Use Permit 99-25)
was approved by the Commission on January 12,2000. The Commons is a mixed-use master
plan that will eventually include a combination of financial,retail,restaurants,a service station,
and high density residential. The Master Plan approval included the Conceptual Site Plan and
Design Guidelines,the design review approval of Pad E(now constructed)and the conceptual
approval of Pad D as a fast food drive-thru restaurant(proposed McDonald's).
- - --
�` �Attachment A
•
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -- —
DRC 2001-00231 –HOGLE-IRELAND, INC.
July 25, 2001
Page 2
D. Parkin()Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided
Fast Food Restaurant 4,387 1/75 s.f. 59 67
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The proposed building elevations reflect the details, materials, and color palette
established by the Master Plan Design Guidelines as well as other retail buildings that have
been completed within The Commons.
B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee(McNeil,Stewart,and Henderson)
reviewed the project on June 19,2001(Exhibit"D"). The Committee recommended approval
subject to the modifications and conditions as noted below and included in the attached
Resolution:
1. A 3-foot high decorative screen wall shall be incorporated along the south and east dges
of the drive-thru lane. The screen wall is necessary to properly screen the drive-thru
activity from Foothill Boulevard. The wall shall include a decorative cap that is
coordinated with the building design.
2. Provide pedestrian access from the sidewalk on Foothill Boulevard to the restaurant.
The access shall be provided in the location that would resemble the shortest path from
the sidewalk that pedestrians would be likely to take, in order to avoid trails through the
landscaping.
3. Vines shall be planted at the base of all trellis support columns, including the outdoor
eating area and the drive-thru lanes,in order to provide a greater degree of shade as the
vine matures onto the trellis.
4. The applicant shall coordinate with the site developer and complete all necessary
landscaping along Foothill Boulevard.
5. The eaves shall extend beyond the building face on all tower elements.
6. The elevated building segments on the south and east elevations shall be made deeper
(at least doubled in size)to alleviate the "false front' appearance of these segments.
C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on
June 20,2001. The project was approved by the Committee subject to all standard conditions
of approval that have been Included within the attached Resolution of Approval.
D. Environmental Assessment: Conditional Use Permit No.99-25 included environmental review
and adoption of a Negative Declaration on January 12, 2000. The proposed project is
consistent with Pad C of the Master Plan,which was approved as a fast food restaurant pad.
No additional environmental review was required for this Design Review application including
detailed Site Plan and Building Elevations.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _
DRC 2001-00231 —HOGLE-IRELAND, INC.
July 25, 2001
Page 3
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper,the property was posted,and notices were mailed to all property owners within a
300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project
through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Bra. Buller
City Planner
BB:DM:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Plan
Exhibit"B" - Building Elevations
Exhibit"C" - Conceptual Landscape Plans
Exhibit"D" - Design Review Committee Action dated June 19, 2001
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
•
- O O ® p 9 • O I i 7� §§ t 1 i -'FL J �;1 1 ,fir 14, '`,, gl ! =l� -D5 III 1:��,I,„H J ; I
U a
d 1 i 1 _J ar � .
yy t
66 ayy 5 p y
•,, '\ 3ON3AV N3AIllIW v
-
',
ipu iL41g.eht �Ni_16tI 1 1 ,{"+bi 'E��dw s •
I i'y l� v ....2- ,...t. r� °emu .L. IS :'c :��2- .a"`& • .,-'iv @ $a
1i a ,•� y 9 €
^gaaa 4.. I 1. s / ,j' 1 ii r �� dU
1'.. ss� �' N ' y is %J Z Z
i yy
■ t� \ w S_^I y. O J Rr in a 1 ` i I q�.O 0 u'L KM' ��.I.n� Q.,,, ilr k i kthatS, 4.-e.` Q 1 ijr
, r \'. t5 w a `—, I/ J 1 "e_ s I 3.I.1-X i; ice
n = O Z
1 i1 `i 6� .3a z 11412.E: ! �:'
' , R r LL ! iiw� I flake ': ' 1 ui
pp r { W;Nit I\ \, c. —_� 1 i H#*O b _..9' fir`
, \ 11 ' c j
t ;\,� i rw.$ E III -",2 + ro )1 w
w:[ \ '_`r 1y p6.� 1►- a,� c '! R' I s 7 , "4ii R ,_ 0 a ce
'`tY N ${1 _ I >L i':. vim' '—�- Fill. ,
,.1; t I t Z� (Y Q
< N 1.L\ tie t� � �I �,. S > � ¢U
8 -1 , :1 \'1c%" ffia -, P i.;ddd 1% g w. .,.- III 1 i "'��I p O J a
I , .A t(;$-i“ G a l'\\t,`L`__ 1 C. .. ' l -a c Z C
1 y c, at ` I_ yc�' , %I * 1: Ph fE r v
G p O J
P. a ap.gJyE
' \ \ \ \1\\ 1`6 II1 ,4 is. i "I i VI/Mt f:fL Ir ' LL O U G
1 a 3\ p ce
\\ \ , `is A ��p � . r �i it_ �, O O a gg
silo \‘y\l }�t�t, rcs?�"G \ .e - \ ! I; i \ =UZ o31i
•: ', °';', v ' ' 9� `; � 1=p 1-- •z ce ! Id
' -' i 1 .i k‘ I Vet xars is \\ n►il a 'gi .. m r
L 1 \
��11 ' y44• � tr � .:rl�''A^
` ,v �ryry� @�uH
` 0%, i S 4 Y
tt_ —' \-- - ■1�\ (,tai t`1a,aCl� 1i, d Ei — • &'tt, $g E ill
H L i I .'i ',0",r's� I I I f •9 .A r 1 y- I s { f
t
�.. .. R .._ ...,. i� 5� g ij
i — oid lid
1
8
�` 311N3AV Wl3 iJi i`i
. _ ll .% i a
I 11 111!1!IMIIIIIIIUi; IIT.I IEJ ' _y Its j��
PC_7 ' IIIII r tII i{1i
11. �S—V('. —= r-:� n r� r- r-. g l /I I `l II I ,T°. :e in
•
II II ° . s�
} ... • t
lit 111 o
•
°s - u Fig ::0.
l• a I IF I =•=--- i ., . i:_:_:_:_:„... 1
I 111
. CI Ile WINEVIIIIIIIII: 1,11 ,/1
•
Tan 1 11 =--- ----r-= 710i .‘ . . 00
: JIIEIL`,`III■IIilil I I::E: ° ° Ilt®i, °
•
G'.' \\IIIIIIVICHNl!IS 111241:: 0 v `D 1:::r0
° ■iii I
! ta- -' 1. ' •
•
�G:..•
41 liar mine
:: CL
,.. 1 . .... .� .... CI
1::: ::
` girt!'III ...,,::
it _ee��� U
° ° ° ° °° ° ° °
Hl l.v:: ° •
M b �it ° •
..a ..0 t
• O 1 1 ° ° ° °
3lJ _- ." f PC7ag-rn .... ....
y4r
IV.V.v CC/.C/IV IV'I V.N./ .V 1\/1 �i. 7' 1' 1 f•r .LM - l '1.. ...11
{ OD J�-J.I Q1 4 I .vA .in iA
J 1 °
. 1,_,! 115 • . 00 .00 0 000 0
IJ• i43R I 5��.C.��' °
•
hill ��I�. �,, .o•
• X ,1 11;__ I . ° � iio
l:: lal E °
- - - , irraara:::: 0 as■- I tirillitEE
,
talpgrSiPl! o � ° :C ��: :
I �� ° Iiii,,,•:. v iii
. 41 •=7§ Wil/E::: • 5; . ,i.D,..,.- ..; • ."-I" ID
. 21 . ll 1.:10
X11 in= 1._4:111 Ii� `�I'I- =
IjIISm ii
O
11 Mall11":: •
0
_ ° i �II1Ir i°u.- Ilse o •
_ o
o p A iii
D o :I
:
. a L :' 1111.11111ili k gat l g. li V ::::
. I, I :LI: Ili:1 at a .
ill®® 11 ° \I U► �.... ° .3•h'�i
I I f 111 .J C) 1111 0 0 0 o O °
17
•
I:'- _.III II..._a In a .... to
I::::r I��•.
ll °
•
• �
O 0 . ° p° °O J � ==
C1 1 -:
q
X� Vim
-
•
C1 0 A - • �� a' assn fro __ -. . ___ -. : —
..
F
Ill
..... :
1 0a
I. 1i il .:1°01.7_,j:.;.,:::
�,:; 0
Ell5: i 0010 .: ;. —
":. ,i to a
00,
i . II • Illt.ii:3
Ai
Ill 1111,:::::: A
• �
: liar . . . r.
I I
�+i o_°ono
I I
I i i , riEto° 1
tone•'9°°bra.. ,
t %/ I pool:; :.
S .! • • I \d°•% = P
asks:\�.•oo ♦ a.
aL' ' it I O° rE
1 _ 0 I iii °
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
. I
8:00 p.m. Debra Meier June 19,2001
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(DRC2001-00231)-HOGLE-IRELAND,INC.-The review of detailed site
plan and building elevations for McDonald's Restaurant on 1.44-acres of land within the previously
approved Terra Vista Commons Master Plan located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of
Milliken Avenue in the Mixed Use (MFC) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan —
APN: 107-421-98 and 227-771-53. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-25.
•
•
Design Parameters: Conditional Use Permit 99-25 was approved by the Commission on
January 12, 2001. This approval included the Master Plan and Design Guidelines for The
Commons at Terra Vista,a master planned commercial center, the approval of Pad E,which has
been constructed, and the conceptual approval of Pad D as a fast-food drive-thru restaurant. The
proposed McDonald's is located on Pad D.
The Commons at Terra Vista is a mixed-use master plan concept, that will eventually include a
combination of retail, restaurants,service stations,and high-density residential development. The
residential component has only been approved as a master plan in concept at this time.
The proposed building elevations reflect all the details,materials and color palette,as established by
the Master Plan Design Guidelines, and the structures that have been completed within The
• Commons to date. Staff has no further comments pertaining to the building elevations at this time.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
1. Construct a 3-foot decorative screen wall along south and east edges of drive-thni lane
(similar to Texaco/A8W drive-thru in same center).
2. Provide pedestrian access from the sidewalk on Foothill Boulevard to the restaurant.
3. Indicate the location of the loading zone"that will be used by the tractor-trailer that provides
deliveries to the restaurant, and indicate turning radii along the truck route.
4. Provide elevations of the enclosure wall,trellis structure(shown on page C2.1)and support
columns proposed at the outdoor dining patio.
5. Although signage is approved by separate action,you are proposing four building mounted
signs in addition to a monument sign. The City's Sign Ordinance, and the Uniform Sign
Program(USP 134),will allow a maximum of three signs in any combination of wall and/or
monument.
6. The landscaping required along Foothill Boulevard is more extensive than what is reflected
on the plan. The project proponent will need to field verify the extent of required landscaping
to be shown on the plan, prior to Planning Commission review and approval.
7. Fabric awnings shall be a solid color.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Committee review the project,address the
issues noted above and any other issues as identified by the Committee members,and forward to
the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Fin/ / /IJ/ /
ft 17-9.stoi
DRC COMMENTS
DRC2001-00231 —HOGLE-IRELAND •
June 19,2001
Page 2
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner. Debra Meier
The Committee had the following comments pertaining to the issues identified by staff. The items
reflected in bold font shall be either revised prior to the Planning Commission hearing and/or
incorporated as a condition of approval.
1. The Committee agreed that the applicant shall Incorporate a 3-foot decorative screen
wall along the south and east edges of the drive-thru lane. The project site sits 4 to
5-feet above Foothill Boulevard. Therefore,the screen wall is necessary to properly
screen the drive-thru activity. The retaining wall shall include a decorative cap that is
coordinated with the building design.
2. The applicant shall provide pedestrian access from the sidewalk.on Foothill
Boulevard to the restaurant In the location that would resemble the shortest path from
the sidewalk that pedestrians would be likely to take.
3. The applicant illustrated the anticipated tuming movements that would likely be used by the
tractor-trailer delivery trucks,as well as the location where the truck will be directed to park
during deliveries in the northerly portion of the parking lot This information was acceptable
to the Committee without further revision.
4. The applicant illustrated the trellis structure and support columns proposed at the outdoor
dining patio. All elements of the columns and trellis support structure were compatible with
the architectural style and design of the building. The Committee requested that vines be
added to the base of all columns supporting trellises, in order to provide a greater
degree of shade as the vine matures onto the trellis.
5. The information regarding signage was included as information only,and will be addressed
with a subsequent Sign Permit.
6. The applicant will coordinate with the site developer and complete all necessary landscaping
along Foothill Boulevard.
7. The material sample board provided by the applicant identifies the awnings as a solid Terra
Cotta color to match the architectural style.
The applicant shall incorporate these additional comments made by the Committee:
1. Extend the eaves beyond the building face on all tower elements.
2. The elevated building segments on the south and east elevations shall be made deeper(at
least doubled in size), to alleviate the"false front"appearance of these segments.
3. Vines shall be planted at the base of all trellis support columns,including the outdoor eating
patio and over the drive-thru lane.
The Committee recommended approval subject to the modifications as noted in herein.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Mike Smith August 20, 2013
UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT DRC2013-00590 — PERMIT PLACE, INC. FOR
MCDONALD'S - A request to amend Uniform Sign Program #134 in conjunction with a review of
modifications to the site and architecture comprised of revisions to the exterior elevations, the
drive-thru lanes,the parking lot, and an expansion of the floor area by 390 square feet of an existing
fast food restaurant of 3,670 square feet an exterior within the Financial (MFC) District, Terra Vista
Planned Community, located at 11198 Foothill Boulevard-APN: 1077-422-53. Related file: Minor
Development Review DRC2013-00283 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00498.
Background: The proposed Sign Program Amendment is requested for three(3)revisions. The first
revision is to incorporate new pages that reflect the revised architecture and Site Plan/parking lot
layout of the McDonald's restaurant (Related file: Minor Development Review DRC2013-00283).
The second revision is to increase the number of signs. The third revision is to allow slightly larger
signs. The remainder of the Sign Program, including the construction and design requirements for
wall signs; category definitions, i.e. "Major Tenant,""Minor Tenant,"etc.;sign restrictions, and tenant
responsibilities will remain unchanged. Note: Based on the floor area of the proposed building,the
fast food restaurant is classified as a "Pad Shop Tenant (all tenants under 4,000 square feet)."
Design Parameters:
Revision No. 1: As the amendment is in conjunction with proposed revisions to the exterior
elevations, the drive-thru lanes, the parking lot, and floor area expansion of the existing restaurant,
new pages reflecting these physical changes to the building will be incorporated into the Uniform
Sign Program. This is a housekeeping revision.
Revision No. 2: The amendment proposes to increase the number of wall signs. There are
currently two (2)wall signs. The proposal is to add six(6)wall signs for a total of eight(8)wall signs
that will be located in relative equal distribution on all elevations. Two (2) of the walls signs will
consist of the text"McDonald's" (identified as"wordmark"on the plans), while the remaining six (6)
signs will be logos consisting of the trademarked arched 'M' (identified as"wall arch"on the plans).
The colors and fonts will be the trademark colors of McDonald's.
Revision No. 3: The amendment proposes to increase the allowable height of the text to 24 inches;
the current limit is 18 inches. The height of the logo is proposed to be 42 inches — no maximum
height is given in the Uniform Sign Program for logos, but the maximum overall height of a sign
permitted for this category of tenant is 36 inches. The proposed overall length of the text is
approximately 16.5 feet, while the proposed overall length of the logo is 48 inches. The logo and
text will both have a proposed depth of 4 inches. The overall area of the text and logo will be 33.38
and 14 square feet, respectively. As there are currently no restrictions relating to length or area
discussed in the Uniform Sign Program, the restrictions in the Development Code are applied. Per
the Code, the maximum sign area permitted for this category of tenant is 150 square feet (there is
no length restriction discussed in the Code). Consistent with the other signs within the shopping
center, the text of the signs will be fabricated channel letters, while the logos will be a box. No
changes to the existing monument sign are proposed.
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.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
DRC2013-00590— PERMIT PLACE, INC. FOR MCDONALD'S
August 20, 2013
Page 2
1. Per Table 17.74.080-1 of the Development Code,the maximum number of signs permitted per
tenant is three (3) signs. This maximum may be comprised of three (3) wall sign or two (2)
walls signs and one (1) monument sign. (Attachment B, excerpt of the Development Code)
As there is already a monument sign, the applicant will only be allowed to have two (2) walls
signs. The proposed amendment shall be revised to address this limit prior to approval of the
amendment and submittal of plans for construction and installation of the signs.
2. Per Section 17.74.070(B)(4)(c) of the Development Code, wall sign raceways shall be
concealed from public view (e.g. within the building wall or otherwise integrated with the
design of the sign and building). (Attachment C, excerpt of the Development Code) Both wall
(texUwordmark) signs have exposed raceways. The sign at the north elevation shall have its
corresponding raceway located behind the parapet wall. The sign at the west elevation shall
have its corresponding raceway to be designed in a manner that integrates(or blends)with the
raceway into the metal coping.
Secondary Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. The depth the channel letters and logo boxes shall be 5 inches in order to be consistent with
the existing Uniform Sign Program.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
None.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed amendment to the Uniform Sign
Program be approved subject to the applicant coordinating with staff to make the above-noted
revisions identified under the Major and Secondary Issues, Staff shall review the revisions for
compliance with the Development Code and,when deemed acceptable, forward the amendment to
the Planning Manager for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
Members Present:
z
t E
2b'
a
. .. 7.
.•' • :•i..L 1 ' 'rV I
...-- a- •. 1
wu .
,1 •-• -.:.0, ,1
i, g F.Rgz:
RI i
..----, a
2 k 1
* I
, it12 itil
-2 z
,
,re I
i tt 1
,......
ki 3
04' i•l' .
•
, •
,7 1 I
:a i•
ti 1
i 0
I I 0
4 k Ca
• 4 s 2
r 1 g
;.1 w
4 4, it 1
fin ,,,,' 1
, ..; ,,, u,
- r 11 .
< ,,, ,
, ,,i: ,,
r---) • 0 „
_. z
_,
. , 1 0
. ...
S 0
I 00
.X 0
u: V
0
<
V
0 Z
.i
. M CC
C...) Y - 0.
z .
IL 0 0
i 0 ..,
C.) CO 0
Z
..,
i
<
0
_ Ce CC LA.
a00
a C)
Ct 0
-
.- CG
---
LIJ .i.1 co
Z cp co
O (I) I:
4 a.'
1 —I
-J ot
u
2 of
I— 0
O 0 1 0
—1 2
—>' 0 4C
Z cti j
LI- 0 D
53 v
CO E 0
I• z
a
s- ce
.■-•
Attachment A , ..
1.%
i ..i
0 0 0 0 0 0
>_ >_ 0
„, „...11
—
c■-i
• 0 u)
w z 4
i-• < ., '.:•
O i-
Lii 0 0
m c‘ cc a
• w a 1 2 --I
< i 0 0 0 LU ellia
UJ W M et 2
-J <
w D 0 0 t*
O -J
0 Z -J 0 *111411 tt
44
Z re w <„„.. -4 ...,
w
-05 0 2 S c4 Iti 5.1
,
. . . . .
. .
'
, Ittiviii
, . 4
, .•- 4--.4.'4'•'•.•..7' 1
.
,,...
km" tl
,
• ii . ........ . . _._.. 1 1
I ... r 0 '„,„,,.s.:-:..,:.- ,..-:.•_- i. . 11
h
gAl—M1111 L 'N*1-........%\\ \. I ! i,,,
'
a
: 4 ,
I &,. .... .,, -•.• ' . ' /
• : *
\ -•• ........ . i
...,91.1 :.„
. ..., : ,,,,.,„.....• i - ir-i
11"[4. 2 c,"1
8 ;,
. ''''- . ---7_,,:.',.-:44,.•- • -'.•: i 1
. 0--,‘',:::- ' • .-,. ' 1
*
I i •:, , 2 m 71
7, • i , - % • -•. . / ..• 13
• • '
a,.., ,,,,,
.g,cc 4 6.,--*4-..--; •'-. 1.:. •1 ; L.;1 o
•. rz a : • -,e-44.•• i 1. •:-•• .... I fl.;
. .
.. -. . ••-"...4?-. ..:: •.l•' - a ; ... ., 6 1
0 i, ...... ........•........ . . . .
I .._ ..
IL U —111L , ,:-. ....,.. ... .." -•-. . .1 a
i 6 ' 'z
; : lo
. .-...... . . . . i ' z
. ... ..- - - • • . 1
"....p.„. .1 . .
.i.•,....,tp,t .:. • . . . — . . 9
- =,I ,c
' ft
.4, -AEI ("722) 11 ?' • - -il— { •
.. . -...-• - - .•. a
i.,5 X
11 ® :11 r • • ,111 . .. •
-,..,\.,......• - ,,,, L.,
- %2 i K.\\:. .,.g -. . ; • , - K' ■ . -' ••• 0
1
i-ou li — ill. '. • V
.0-.41 •". .3-,94 DO■ . ..., CC oC
V 1 I i & .N,Z ii 1 5 , __, -:-.7-:I.:Zir•- : :::'•:. I M cc
..."4111P . ...-4ts..„--.:-':-'
u cc
... /' — a
- ..:i; tor...• 2 , .." • -.) . ... . .. ..,
ni, y S, 1 4:...:_.>"7--- - .:/..:•:::::.:' -I -1
41140' 11 H. -.. 01
go
I'.•.441;•-• • 1 1 ...I
i E
•41,-•:1q- : ;i (--" : , la i _-•
‘A 1 8
-- '
4:: 0
_ ,, ,,, Y.
''' C• -. CO
-1?.1- 1 - .. .t
1 ' .c.O.' • •
p' •'•'. 1 i
• - . :.."rt.-1,,.*; ,. .. - a,
. -.4 . ...
,.--, '`•"..1 .r-: --.,,,i. :• .
cv,
rn OL
1
1
e- g Z
Coo ;Ii7; v ch
_ ' .0-.21 '•'-- 40
1111111111111111111111PO - ' • 1
, • '- • [ .1 ,
; ,I• IIIIIII
1 ii
it -
., . .
:.,
z a
i -
3 •- ,...
i •F i';';',1-.,'A
',-fli.i-,_ . i i • a
I • " - 1
1 4 I I I 4i
) i WIND -'1-." In z
i l't 1 1 1
----1
o
V
..• ..I
Z Li<
n I i
7 a
,
0
, Z
i 1
.. . ‘9: •.]
Z'
/ 4 i
M
a
m
till\
t!lit3 i 11 12 0 4
.44. ll E,f!IEf
ayc;
ata
4 Itt i
0
• x
® 1411
Ilk
J •
} s4 1 1 II lj
a a 1` { :�Iii 1
•C . L._
11 Q
•
L...;
4 � s
;, 31
•
, 74 14 i
! -. _ .,- ,,,.. , .
.. v: • ,......: .
ui mx
._,_... ,,
0
u
0. .. , .
;
Gi
o � z
1 -163;
7 N i
m
ch
011 m ^!a
d
M N
00
01
1
Z
y
w - '^ z
-J o
w s
F- 2 u
z 'r. I u
!- a
m
1.. F
Y
0 .:
..
Z _
yF 2 (
3
..:. Itt ..%
i O al
:' :1;1=1° :'-- . 1
eiti
_,.:
• i ,. ograll . i
I • iq
....
. . , . .. __ • 1 _11:110H. , 1
- "
. .. .
i
Y
j H
I E
Y V
— ' f{( Q
II .f 1 Z
i O
___ Z.
J• e1 X
Q O
U
u ZyZ
C C
J
---g _::.:..:. ...T.-..-... T
li \ m
1.
X. !
9N i.
II M .. a. _..z n
y Y ¢
V M
m
Co
2 O. ..„
11 z
a
W
Z
o S
En
I a Lt]
o
J
U.1 z a
ce
ill x
V
CC
2
ci
8 Y C
3
U
>-
z •C
a
la
0
u
a.
0 F.
: : =8:.
,4, •-: v ;
. -
I ' CD 5 `. .
0 -..
'g CZ E
,la,
I'2= 2
.----.2 t-
kit'111 t 1
ti
"4"14 I
ct
cz
1
11121131
I .? /
-I-
11
I .
H% 2
I
r
IE
il *
1
1 1
-I 6-
I I '
7..._ 3 i
i , 4
41 W
II I '
,
(0 I 0
I
LU 4'x g
_1 C4 U
< 0
cn 5
= g
4.
i=
g
g
1 oi
.) t 8
1- , co
cn
kik CC
< ,.
Lt _.
_.,
M CC
Z o
en f..4
1 .N 4- at
.4%.,..... , II
. ilifilL3. AIN11116/1111111t .
z :
0 1,- .., "—i_.1 I-Lf f--___. [
r a. --
_42
, - k
,
w> .c
w , 111111
I D
V) z
0 0
Li g .
›
,.,
a z
_... .
?,- ,•5
Pc e
=
O '
v 9
a
D
�L: :
a
0
S S S Q
,..
„. .:!.! : , . - . -.no ..
,,INK 1
:... _
:i4-1-i-i-0-___I--- . -1--r - 514
03 ,...!
,„ „tt i
1
Q 1
I
Pa
I
;1 x
1t 8
L IF
d V
a
_... m 1 ;:,
di 1Q Wx V
U O
Z
d g o
',:A., 0
0
a
I
02
E x
rt u
a F
u.
N
r,
N
M OC
7
,...
� O
i--- E Z
O .,
LL.I z,,,
_, ::
w , s.
V ce
w
,_ ..''=i z
0 0
a
V
0
O f 0
Z u
z
a
cc
I`
4
_ 177"YELLOW PIGM£N7®MODIFIED RETURN5 PAINTED TO MATCH__
- - MOLDED ACRYLIC FACE/LETTER BODY PMS 877 C SILVER(OPAQUE)
ELECTRICAL OUT P1305151066 .
' 1HRU BACK NEAR POWER SUPPLY
•
• .063'ALUMINUM BACK 17T YELLOW PIGMENTED MODIFIED—,�
MOLDED ACRYLIC FACLtETTERBODY
-- -LE%IDLE CONDUIT
- --, LED POWER SUPPLY AS REOL!PELT WI ME LEDS AS REQUIRED--
.063'ALUMINUM BACK _
�-—WHITE LED'S AS REQUIRED MOUNTING HARDWARE AS REQUIRED-
COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS >..
�`
DRAIN HOLES �,_
FRAME&LAMP DETAIL CROSS SECTION A-A
SCALE.3/4'-1'-0' SCALE 3.4-=i'
FRAMfpJTJ
DESIGN FACTOR:TBD
.177'FORMED YELLOW PIGMENTED(PMS 123 C)
MODIFIED ACRYLIC FACE/LETTER 800Y
EXTERIOR FINISH:PAINTED70 MATCH PMS 877 C
SILVER(OPAQUE)
INTERIOR FINISH.PAINTED STAR.BRIGHT WHITE
(OPAQUE)
.063'ALUMINUM BACK-PAINTED STARBRIGHT
WHITE
LETTER BODY REMOVABLE FOR SERVICE ACCESS
U.L APPROVED
ELECTRICAL:0.85 AMPS,120 VOLTS
GRAPHIC SQUARE FOOTAGE.
RAPHIC DETAIL
, BOXED=14.00
SCALE 3/•('--1'0' ACTUAL 4.90
r.
- _ _. - - 16'-415/16" ��p-J7"' _ _-\'1
•
;,.. r 1 • iiii‘___,
--.,
„. .... . . . . *. .177'WHITE MODIFIED ACAYUC MOLDED F FACES/LETTER BODIES GRAPHIC QOM RACEWAYSANDDTO MATCH I.
TUNNEL TO BE DA MS 871 MATCH
SCALE!!2"-1'-0` PMS 877 C SILVER
-_4•..__-.4•-_
RETURNS PAINTED TO MATUi
VMS 877 C SILVER(OPAQUE)
ELECTRICAL OUT PROM510N:
THPU BACK OF RACEWAY
080'2-PIECE ALUMINUM C•CHANNEL
RACEWAY(EXTERIOR PAIN EOTO MATCH
EMS B77 C SILVER(
• .177'what MODIFIED ACRYLIC _ •
MOLDED FACS1LETTER BOOZES
N01FS. INTERIOR PAINTED STARR RIGHT
.177'MOLDED WHITE MODIFIED ACYLIC LETTER BODIES WHITE(OPAQUE(
INSTALLEDONALUMINUMBACKS
WHITE LED'S AS REOWPEO
EXTERIOR FINISH:MATCH PMS 877 C SIIVER!OPAQUf1; _
BACKS PAINTED PASS 377 C SILVER Lr0 POWER SUPPLIES AS REQUIRED-- .�-_
as '
INTERIOR FINISH:STARBNIGHT WHITE(OPAQUE) 063'ALUMINUM BACK PAINTED
LETTER BODIES REMOVABLE FOR SERVICE ACCESS 5 PMS 8877IC SRYER ONSIDE)U IDE61 L
ACCESS PANEL BEHIND LETTER"n•FOR RACEWAY ACCESS COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS --.0 1 I
U.L APPROVED
ELECTRICAL 2.50 AMPS,120 VOLTS DRAIN HOLES --
SQUARE FOOTAGE:
BOXED-33.36 LETTER PROFILE
ACTUAL=19.53
SCALE 1 1:2'.i'-T
McDONALD'S 01111/13 INI ,...�ri .����� ~��°-` rn°"°`�' wsTwm7ao ev SIGN urco,vrRY
_no rap* �n.rn.� .Y.•...1 P,ERsONR 7„uf Stn.Sarn.,n
PO Pr re
NW?name: Eng. ',form,S7
RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 11N20-R2-11 Hi FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA PROGRAM 60011 _ Riff UXINS/MAPCIIl2CIR2 y1',,,
I;. i
3%9 J18"
0
3i4"
fs o 0 --k----,---.
cl
I
GRAPHIC DETAIL
SCALE 1'G=1'-0'
•
'WELCOME"LETTER DETAILS
3/4'ALUMINUM LETTERS WITH 1ST
SURFACE DECORATION.
7725.120 SILVER--WELCOME"
COPY
=BLACK POWDERCOAT-OUTLINE
SQUARE FOOTAGE BOXED=2 54
ACTUAL= 1 18
1 lino
�\ ! .....____\ Tii- i.,
er{:7 ....
. ,,
--. - I A*k_ I A
GRAPHIC DETAIL
SCALE 112-•t'-0'
I
1
4' S'
t
•
— H'.PA4'RT SCR ,, �I
•
i'ff1J <PN'RE. S
'.'M,:EDACTVC=ACESCHEM , t 1K'-.ESA r
• / TOOR'.OUF.A061E0 TUC RE TOWS-, .
SAWN EDGE
IOW/CAL:GE, -,EHU41LE010LS11 •
3A'X;LAG'.TS`.1S,NEED TOP THROUGH
;Ai: EVERY 41 JNTO AC_STUDS. .
RACEWAY HIM REMOVABLE EOM
CA'!SCONRECT SWITCM WOOED 0.0 ENO \
OE.3 MUM:L.8C-CBAP0I SACKS ► \h •
EDGE DBMI. ;
CLASS 2 LOW 0017A:E Ye.RIKG
•
29A:40.2,7VAC 0 OCO1:NECI iWrtCN----- E' - 11
PCWSR BOBBY ti rtt
RLAIBER 8000116 ".....41/
LEON ATTACHMENT TO RACEWAY
•'1 S4EET METAL SCREWS
LK0R1l.11TMG MODES 1140,1— _ I
/T1 I■
ONE .KEEP HOLE BEW!G I ET'FR / I I
LOCATED AT ALL AREAS C.
THAT MAY COLLECT WATER '
la
l:. I ',
I'ne Peep.eE Up ,. . ..,,,,,.4.++q,..,e....a N-i...ew.tl.e..l.,.e➢S pSEBOUIm W SIGN UPCOMKANY
1 MCDONALD'S 02/14/13 cm. 'W.^ ..-.•.,w}..4..+.VIM.v..........r.♦..0Nri
PERStINR 1»aM Wn S.M.,.1
106m:..cwwc
RANCHO 118926 82-11198FOOTILLe PROGRAM BOOK IYIfl07S/BUM/IAMI6V Wa"*."STwyn•
.........._._. ............. OWAIVARq RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA
111051 W4PAS•...prv..∎k....e
1.-0 r V-11 Ins — 3
1111PS
Clearance 9 Feet to
.. — — MN _ ..
L? Itk
b Z 11011110110111101°--''-"- -
R
•
1
ELEVATION
SCALE '1 =VA'
,r-
4,11
ME'4U1148.1.CAD
7, Dr e* iRl Ya RAC%RIM1D W 9aJWpLF-1'RS 11$AC%RIGD PVC LE
- •
+I. ISOAU41E B'fR VM II G4/GE STEELAMA--1
, .. N64.5ECt
-DOOM 1,GAUGE CVAC-
A[KA1S BAR BACK BAR
91
M'•Y ACM MEYEA_
` A .•-...ILN ACM REVEAL
V
o -
_ 7q,- .F.._........_ .........._.. _.._ .-_ Y X►'X SKIS'SOME TIRE
t1�_ I�_ _......-.._u. ..._... _.-..._..__. C%S XYI6 sQWRE'tbE
} S h
e - .................•....•-•1'X1'%1M'ALLA'HlA!f•YAF I'%I'KGE,LLFWKM ANGLE
' e 1 -`__-'---..--.,-..-....-'••'•'dNIt ACM UN
OA'KM%X r1...
' I '' .....EBB 4UI.••KU•.'SMIGVO EB:'KUMAEN SIIR'tJO....
:2..._....._-..._.......... -._-_..........._..SASE 4...1E
EBONLItedi
SEND VIEW
SCALE ur=v-o-Clearance F99[
11
• POLE COVER DETAIL S.WIN,�ARM DETA7L
DESIGN FACTOR' TBD DESIGN FACTOR: TED
4MM WHITE ACM POLE COVER 18 GAUGE STEEL ARM WITH HINGE
.080'ALUMINUM CAP AND SHROUD W;1ST SURFACE PAINT AND VINYL
EXTERIOR FINISH: DECORATION:
POLE COVER&REVEALS- MATCH 9MS 109 C YELLOW-SWING ARM
PRE-FINISHED BONE WHITE -7725-12 BLACK VINYL-'CLEARANCE 9 FEET'
10" - SHROUD AND EASE PLATE-MATCH COPY
1'x 14'x 14'PLATE B M.2130-20 DEEP CAVIAR "DRIVE-TNRU"LETTER DETAIL
7/B'HOLES CLEARANCE BAR DETAIL 3/4'BLACK RIGID PVC BOARD ROUTED
2 CENTER HOLE BLACK ACM PIPE Wr 7725-15 YELLOW LETTERS WI 1ST SURFACE VINYL
-t 314'ANCHOR BOLTS VINYL STRIPES APPLIED TO 1ST DECORATION:
SURFACE 7725.15 BRIGHT YELLOW•'DR IVE-
GRAPHIC DETAIL. BASE PLATE DETAIL SQUARE FEEL BOXED=92.44 TNRU-COPY
SCALE +,4=1'-7' SCALE: V-1-0 ACTUAL-15 69 MI BLACK-COPY OUTLINE
1� �� ." OSMIUM �w COMMIT
McOONALD'S 02/11/13 IN
I�EAAoNA
n1,, .RANCHOCUCAMOGA,CA 111920-R2.11191FOOTMILL IOULEVARD.RANCHO NGY0N6A,CA-PAOGSMW0[J 1.II1 J , ._
.,
P4
., wilopi
, w i• -7.
Itt us
1
Ila il
1 ttlif
Itia ..1.
. irt iz,
. 1
yo 11 ill
lila i
' I*
tall:
,. .
013 ;
I . ... 1
.. i i
! I "
2 4 W
. I
[ ._ - .4 0
........ L . „
.1
1 Et
4 z
4 2 2
• z I`? i .
o E
E_It ct
=
,r i ce
1 P -
a .
4-k. Z
4.1 > --
. "t; 1 2
Li,
a) LL,
_Ji.<- . _i
CD I . • Lou 1 ‘..,
A-- Crl I
2
W ., N4
.
7
'% 1 .4
"
I , ..
-. - • ..
, •,771';' C
1609 1 ci
cc
•-, *v
I
-.1,
, • ,„ -:-
: tu
... al.) I "• t.) CC
= -J
i..'
,----.
I
r- . ._
:4
a. I-
i ---)
2
I co
M CIN
Ir.*
..... e■1
IN Cr
0 P. 6
7.,.• ry
b i to"
., et
LI
ce
Let 0
-C1 Z
-I 0
ot z
Z
0 5
a D
u
,v
..,
x
U ,
z
19 . ..
,..2,
, ..,,,,, ce.:t
_
.
_
_ _
I..;.,,-,1
ikillai
r-lo-
9 112'•
IIIIIIIIMED
•
4I-5 15115'
II -1
n rd. '6a i'r i rl Alr'‘
Co
193
1. .G.
• • ..
.• ' 11,. • ..
• I •
•
•
•
ELEVATION
SCALE. W
•
-W-4' -- --• T-0"
r- TAP -----, -MOW=flIDIGLASS CNN*,1CP
9 lir— ------7—=---•_e.-7„---.w x 13•,-.trr SQUARE TlX1E
1 If X 1`V X We 601.1.17C'ME
\,.. . -.'-•-aiLIAMIUM IJOHT SOX PRA6C et Tr 112 TLUO6ESCENT LAWS :.
..
314'16.ACK 16467.PVC%WV LETTERS -
.
4 ' '
.....,
. - Yr SLAM ROO PVC 60ARD I.ET,E CI 4
146triE•••• 1
±.
, y
A !,„ •••r X IT XIII OAUGIE S',CEL'.1VittiG ARV
--- "'-
eV •'-ATTACTIONNT PLATES(SEE OETAP.I
•
v. ..,....._....,..
CBAT
1.
N I 1
SPEMEILSPICROPHOME ISY 01$161t3 --•—. .......41 i I
, .
1 tti._1 . 1'.".-----•-•-•■---.-...,..._..___.--"------ MI z a,.1. ' t
11
i •
At X6 X 8.-lifetANGULAR TIME --• t—6
WE PLATT(9EE DETAIL) • ...
EMEFMEW SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1/4-=r4r SCALE, ,4 -1-Q•
4'
FISERGLASS DAN_Qer12.0M,
I 1 A.X 15-X 4'PLATES DESIGN FACTOR: TED
718-HOLES FIBERGLASS CANOPY WITH STEEL TUBE
5.9"BOLTS AND RIB INTERNAL STRUCTURE
43 '&
EXTERIOR FINISH: PAINT TO MATCH EMS
• ATTACHMENT 109 C YELLOW
[1111' PLATE DETAIL
=1-2 LIGHT LENS REMOVABLE FOR SERVICE
SCALE 14 U.L.UL APPROVED
ELECTRICAL: 1.90 AMPS,120 VOLTS
r
2191Fr2greggr
DESIGN FACTOR; 90 MPH
- ALUMINUM ANGLE IRON STRUCTURE
1110" \ 1 1 1/4•X 18'X 28'PLATE
1 19'HOLES 4MM ACM SKIN
EXTERIOR FINISH:
SWING ARM-PAINT TO MATCH EMS
le
• ' I Ihr ANCHOR BOLTS 109 C YELLOW
BASE-BONE WHITE
I BASE PLATE_DUAL SHROUD 8 POLE-DEEP CAVIAR
11/4 . , '.. .. SCALE 3/4• 1..0' U.L.APPROVED
I. "ORDER HERE"LEITER DETAIL
314•BLACK RIGID PVC BOARD LETTERS WI
_MIL 1ST SURFACE VINYL DECORATION:
7725.15 BRIGHT YELLOW-'ORDER
GRAPHIC DETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE ACTUAL=17.10 HERE'COPY
SCALE 1.4'L 1LT BOXED=104.51 =BLACK-COPY OUTLINE
McDONALO'S 01/11/13 18.. 9 DISTRIUTED SY SIGh VP COMPOLNY
pEggh-NR
PO Set tx•
I.vrxtsthr Ftl•1%.66 Eno
‘.....,SD,.:-.11,
RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 118920-S2-1111911/10011911 110U12VABO,RANCROCUCAMOUGA.CA-PROB11.98811008 . Na V laffik,00.461 AVM": ,,,
a
r L
a N
.-- .,...r...-.,
W a c n a
'.E:?' 1 �`� Tr �'' 1 I N ^ m rg
JJYY rG.2[}
1
/
it z.
[I, • , • ,.. 1 : i
S C % iA ., SC ¢Q r U
8
,,
o ; ' r l -- •••• MI I:1 ft!sn
if € j � v t-
j r,z ' - t r r Z z
i ti /, . .j Q Lli t
Lirilit ;
,c4-,,,„..A.,. - Ai'''; ;;TS; ' '
till h
/4 W
a
i 4
x 0
O
I a ct
!,;• O
g 1 a a•T
s
it t47
V J[ ZZj
=�823ge as 0
i "1I z
W a
S ar
V
N
a
.9 a� 1,,t-a5.> >. III
.i u,2. 4'22 p V m
Vi 7.7,'R =
c.-...' O
>o e o M a
I� ,�- W u w ,[ 4
��w e-
l�a�ii � � ao � ip 4 •-
I1 s [1 N
MAM cc I O J OW O O C N W I� r U C v ?
( o s 3
. , o t-• �W
Ct
w V
a3AO7 a,^
.. w y d.. W
I_ F06 m V
O:� '� �NWM 0 O
�c N Jam '
i13d
A - Hld.3O I O U
4, a-,c- fl D
2 O
z
a
EC
• J -3
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Article IV, Chapter 17.74
0 TABLE 17.74.080-1 SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR PERMANENT ON-SITE SIGNS
Development Standards(3)
Sign Type Maximum Number .. Maximum . Maximum
Permitted Area Height
Residential Zoning Districts .
Wall Sign 1 sign per establishment 20 sf Roofline
Institution
Monument Sign 1 sign per establishment 24 sf 6 ft
Roofline or 20 ft,
Multi-Family Wall Sign 1 sign per street whichever is
Complex, 512 frontage, maximum 2 12 sf less
units - signs –
Monument Sign 6 ft
Roofline or 20 ft,
Multi-Family Wall Sign 1 sign per street whichever is
Complex, >12 frontage, maximum 2 24 sf less
units — signs
Monument Sign 6 ft
Permanent Wall Sign 6 ft
Subdivision 2 signs per development 24 sf
Identification Sign Monument Sign 4 ft
Wall Sign 1 per use 20 sf Roofline
School
Monument Sign 1 per use 50 sf 20 ft
`73 Commercial, Office, and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
4 1 wall sign Max 3 2 sf:1 If, max Roofline or 20 ft,
Wall Sign er building signs 150 sf whichever is
ace, max 3 total less
Establishments 1 monument between
Not in a Multi-
Tenant Monument Sign sign per both 24 sf 8 ft
Center
street, max 2 types
Pedestrian Traffic 1 per establishment 6 sf 12 ft
Sign
Wall Sign, 1 sign per establishment 2 sf:1 if, max
Primary per building face, max 3 150 sf per Roofline or 20 ft,
Establishment establishment whichever is
Retail Wall Sign, Sub- 1 sign per sub- less
Establishments in Establishment establishment, max 2 75 sq. ft. total
a Multi-Tenant
Center Monument(1) 1 sign per street 24 sf(2) 8 ft
frontage
Pedestrian Traffic 1 per establishment 6 sf 12 ft
Sign
-Attachment B
17.74-17
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Article IV, Chapter 17.74
c. Wall sign raceways shall be concealed from public view (e.g., within
the building wall or otherwise integrated with the design of the sign
r and building) so as to not detract from the architectural character of
the building.
d. Channel letters, reverse channel letters, and pushpin letters are
preferred in place of can signs.
e. Signage containing multiple elements (e.g., logo and text) on one
facade shall be designed so that the multiple elements are located
and scaled with relationship to each other.
5. Neon Signs. Neon signs for business identification are only permitted in
Community Commercial and Regional Commercial zoning districts, except
that four (4) square feet of neon window signage shall be allowed by right in
all districts. Within shopping centers, neon signs shall only be permitted as
part of a Uniform Sign Program. Neon tubing shall be fully enclosed in a
metal frame and covered with plexiglass. Neon banding of buildings for
architectural detailing is prohibited.
6. Window Sign. Window signs (permanent or temporary) shall not cover more than
thirty percent (30%) of the window area for each window of the
establishment. Window signage may include up to two neon signs per
business.
Section 17.74.080 Allowed Permanent On-Site Sign Standards
0
The standards of this Section provide the regulations for on-site signs on private property,
including height, size, placement, and illumination. Regulations are listed based upon zoning
district and sign type.
A. Format and Organization of Standards. The signage standards listed below are
summarized, where applicable, in table format for ease of use and organization.
Concepts described in these tables are as follows:
1. Collective Sign Area. The total sign area allowed herein for each sign type may
be distributed among the maximum number of signs permitted for that sign
type. For example, the total allowed area for wall signs for a particular
establishment may be distributed among the maximum number of wall signs
allowed for that same establishment. For Commercial, Office, and Mixed-Use
Zoning Districts, there are additional wall sign allowances for sub-
establishments as defined in Chapter 17.136 (Sign Definitions).
2. Sign Area Allowance. Allowable sign area is either a set square footage per
establishment or is based on a ratio of allowable sign area to primary building
frontage (e.g., one (1) square foot of sign per one lineal foot (1') of primary
building frontage, or 1 sf:1 If). Where a ratio is described, it applies to the
maximum sign area listed in Table 17.74.080-1 (Signage Standards for
Permanent On-Site Signs).
Attachment C
17.74-15