HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/04/18 - Agenda Packet#- r-MlL. I V7 «r I I - r .vv V.M.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
RAINS ROOM
CITY HALL
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
A. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Ray Wimberly
Rich Macias
Candyce Burnett
Donald Granger
Alternates: Lou Munoz
Rich Fletcher
Francisco Oaxaca
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee on any item listed
on the agenda. 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 to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by
the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individuals embers of the audience. This
is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain
from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any
activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
C. 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.
C1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 - IPT ARROW
ROUTE DC, LP - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot
industrial building on 26.63 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side
of Arrow Route and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 0229-021-60.
Page 1 of 3
r1r1\fL 1%FY A6v I r — r ■VV rRIVI,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
RAINS Room
CITY HALL
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
C2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19557 - W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS - A
request to subdivide a parcel of 42,150 square feet into three (3) parcels in conjunction with the
development of three (3) single-family residential homes within the Low (L) Residential District
located at 9757 Liberty Street - APN: 0201-251-56. Related file: Minor Design Review
DRC2014-00700.
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00700 - W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS - A
request to develop three (3) single-family residential homes in conjunction with Tentative Parcel
Map 19557 on a parcel of 42,150 square feet within the Low Residential (L) District located at
9757 Liberty Street - APN: 0201-251-56. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19557.
C3. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2016-00338 - OWEN'S COURT ESTATES, LLC. - A
request to modify Design Review DRC2014-00207 for an approved 6-lot subdivision to revise
the plotting and architecture for six (6) single-family residences within the Low Residential (L)
District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, on Owens Court, located on the west side of East Avenue
and south of Banyan Street - APNs: 0227-842-01, -02, -03, -04, -05 and -06. Related files:
Development Review DRC2014-00207 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16578.
C4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762 - DR
HORTON - A request to subdivide 28.4 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Victoria Community
Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project
consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000
square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road -
APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre Application
Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit
DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451,
Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508.
Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032 - DR
HORTON - A request for a residential condominium subdivision for 380 residential units on 28.4
acres of land in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the
construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two
restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek
Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review
DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM19762, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450,
Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-
00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Page 2 of 3
r%r F%I IL I WI `%P I I w % ■%P%F r'sIN■
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
RAINS Room
CITY HALL
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00450 - DR HORTON
- A request for site plan and architectural review in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within
the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380
residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located
at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05.
Related Fifes: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review DRC2016-00142,
Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use
Permit DRC2016-00449, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan
Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 - DR
HORTON - A request for a Uniform Sign Program in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within
the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380
residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located
at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05.
Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review DRC2016-00142,
Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use
Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Victoria Community Plan
Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
D. ADJOURNMENT
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, Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist 11 with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on day,
Thursday, April 6, 2017, seventy two (72) Fours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Jennifer Palacios
Office Specialist II
City of Rancho Cucamonga
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours
prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
Page 3 of 3
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Nikki Cavazos April 18, 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 - IPT ARROW
ROUTE DC, LP - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 611,573 square foot
industrial building on 26.63 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District on the north side
of Arrow Route and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 0229-021-60.
Design Parameters: The project site is located on the north side of Arrow Route about 1,000 feet
east of the Interstate 15 Freeway. It consists of one parcel that is approximately 925 feet (east to
west) -and approximately 1,270 feet (north to south) with an area of about 1,160,155 square feet
(26.63 acres). The frontage along Arrow Route has no street improvements. There are no
permanent buildings on the site; it is currently vacant and is a former vineyard. The site is
generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,177 feet and 1,162 feet,
respectively.
The property is bound on the west by a parcel that is developed with a self -storage facility (Planet
Storage) and another parcel that is developed with a warehouse building. The property is bound
on the east by a parcel that is developed with a chemical manufacturing facility (Air Liquide). To
the north is a property that consists of several parcels that are developed with a commercial center
(Foothill Marketplace) that includes businesses such as Walmart, Living Spaces, Claim Jumper
and In-N-Out Burger. To the south, on the south side of Arrow Route, is a parcel developed with
a steel manufacturing facility (CMC). The zoning of the property and the properties surrounding
the subject property to the west and east is General Industrial (G1) District. The zoning of the
properties to the north is Regional Related Commercial (RRC) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay
District, and the zoning of the properties to the south is Heavy Industrial (HI) District.
The proposed project is a one story warehouse building of 611,573 square feet including two (2)
office areas with a combined floor area of 20,000 square feet. The front, or primary, elevation of
the building will be oriented towards Arrow Route. The office areas and entrances will be at the
southeast and southwest corners of the building.
The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction painted with a palette of six colors.
The primary building material will be concrete while the secondary materials will be glass panels
(glazing), metal accents and wood accents. The majority of the metal, glazing and wood accents
are proposed at the office areas. Each fagade also will also have panel reveal lines. Horizontal
metal canopies are proposed above the windows on each elevation of the office entrances. All
elevations will have a parapet that varies slightly in height to create dimension and visual interest.
Additional dimension and visual interest are provided at both office areas by parapet and wall
planes that vary significantly.
A new public street (identified as "Street A" on the Site Plan) is proposed along the east side of
the property. This new street will be 66 feet wide (including sidewalks, parkways, etc.) and will be
aligned south -north between the southeast and northeast corners of the project site. It will extend
from Arrow Route and terminate at an existing block wall that is on the property line that separates
the project site and Foothill Marketplace. Removal of the wall is at the discretion of the property
owner/management of Foothill Marketplace. However, it is anticipated that eventually the existing
block wall will be removed and the new public street will connect to the parking lot of Foothill
Marketplace to facilitate access and circulation.
The loading area, dock doors, and trailer parking stalls will be located on the east and west sides
of the project site. These areas will be screened from public view on Arrow Route by the proposed
building itself and from public view on "Street A" by a wall.
Item a-1
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP
April 18, 2017
Page 2
Two access points are proposed for the property along Arrow Route and another two are
proposed along "Street A". The plotting of the building allows for full vehicle circulation around
the building. As a result, any of the driveways can be used to access customer and employee
parking at the south and north sides of the building, and the dock areas on the east and west
sides of the building. Some vehicle and trailer parking can only be accessed by driving through
one of four security gates.
There are three vehicle parking areas on the subject property, one on the north side (62 parking
spaces), one on the south side (138 parking spaces) and one on the west side of the building (48
parking spaces). The combined required amount of parking stalls is 248 and 248 parking stalls
are provided. A trailer parking stall is required for every dock door. There are 110 dock doors
proposed and 110 trailer parking stalls provided. Landscape coverage is 10.8%; the minimum
requirement is 10% for this Development District. No tenants have been specified at this time.
Two employee outdoor eating areas will be located at the northwest and northeast corners of the
project site. As permitted by the Development Code, in lieu of a shade structure there will be a
shade tree at each of the outdoor eating areas.
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.
Add an additional primary material such as sand blasting. This material shall be used on all
elevations.
2. Add glazing on the south elevation between the office elevations (three areas), similar to
the amount proposed on the east elevation.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
Change the species of trees that will be shading the employee break/eating area. The
landscape plan shows the trees proposed as a "Blue Palo Verde" and that type of tree will
not provide a large thick canopy of shade. The Development Code requires a "large shade
tree" if a tree is used in lieu of a shade structure.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
All ground mounted equipment and utility boxes, including transformers, back -flow devices,
etc., shall be screened by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches
on center. This equipment shall be painted dark green.
2. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or
proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line -of -sight of the
office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the
review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire
Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC)
screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative
masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or poured in -place concrete with design
elements incorporated to match the building.
Item C1-2
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00726 — IPT ARROW ROUTE DC, LP
April 18, 2017
Page 3
3. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building; All
downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls.
4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color.
5. Decorative paving shall be provided at all vehicular access points onto the site, behind the
public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line
to the parking setback line (25 feet on Arrow Route and 15 feet on "Street A") and have a
width equal to the width of the driveway.
6. All doors (roll -up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the
adjacent wall or glass panel.
7. Provide durable street furniture in outdoor employee eating area, such as tables, chairs,
waste receptacles.
8. All trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standard. The design of the trash
enclosures shall incorporate the materials, finish, color, and trim used on the buildings.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the
Planning Commission for review and action.
Item C1-3
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Dominick Perez April 18, 2017
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19557 - W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS - A request
to subdivide a parcel of 42,150 square feet into three (3) parcels in conjunction with the
development of three (3) single-family residential homes within the Low (L) Residential District
located at 9757 Liberty Street - APN: 0201-251-56. Related file: Minor Design Review DRC2014-
00700.
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00700 - W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS -A request
to develop three (3) single-family residential homes in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map
19557 on a parcel of 42,150 square feet within the Low Residential (L) District located at 9757
Liberty Street - APN: 0201-251-56. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19557.
Site Characteristics: The project site is a 42,150 square foot parcel in a single-family residential
neighborhood located northeast of the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Lemon Avenue at
9757 Liberty Street. The dimensions of the parcel are 130.99 feet from east to west and 334 feet
from north to south. The site contains an unoccupied single-family residence. There are a
combination of wood fences and block walls along the east, west and south perimeters of the site.
Street improvements along the north end of the property consist of street, curb and gutter, cobble
parkway, sidewalk and an existing driveway. The site is generally level with an elevation change
of about 16 feet between the northwest and southeast corners of the property. The site is located
within the Low -Residential (L) District. The surrounding properties to the north, south, east and
west are developed with single-family homes and are also located within the Low -Residential (L)
District.
Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into three (3)
parcels and construct one single-family house on each lot. The subdivision will result in a generally
conventional lot (Lot 1) with two (2) flag lots (Lots 2 and 3) behind it (as seen from the street).
The conventional lot will have an area of 11,492 square feet while the two flag lots will have areas
of 13,303 square feet and 17,355 square feet (Lots 2 and 3, respectively). Lot 1 has a width of
91 feet and a depth of 134 feet. The "buildable" part of Lot 2 has a depth of 110 feet and a width
of 100 feet while that of Lot 3 has a depth of 130.99 feet and a width of 100 feet. To allow vehicular
and pedestrian access to Liberty Street, the flag lots will be connected to it by separate "poles",
i.e. elongated sections of each lot. The poles for Lots 2 and 3 will be 20-foot wide by 110.4-foot
long and 20-foot wide by 211-foot long, respectively.
The project also involves the construction of one two-story house on each lot. The floor area of
the houses will range in size from 4,355 square feet (Lot 2) to 4,746 square feet (Lot 1). According
to the table below, there are a total of two floor plans that will be used. All of the houses will have
a three -car garage. The houses and site layout conform to the technical standards required in the
Low Residential (L) District including setbacks, building height, and lot coverage.
Lot
No. Of
Stay
Floor Plan
Type
111 Floor
SF
2nd Floor
SF
Total Living
Area SF
Garage
SF
1
2
A
2,521.74
2,225.06
4,746.80
775.20
2
2
B-1
2,488.02
1,867.17
4,355.19
720.24
3
2
B-2
2,767.52
1,975.84
4,743.36
1 720.24
The houses will also comply with the design guidelines specified within Section 17.122.010 of the
Development Code, which require 360-degree architecture. The architectural styles that are
proposed to be used are Craftsman and Ranch. The Craftsman elevation type, which will be used
on Lot 1, will have stucco -finished walls with stone veneer and horizontal siding, front porch with
Item C2-1
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19557 & MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00700 —
W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS
April 18, 2017
Page 2
battered columns, concrete tile roofing and decorative garage doors and windows. The Ranch
elevation type, which will be used on Lots 2 and 3, will have stucco walls with stone veneer,
horizontal siding (Lot 3), gable accents, concrete tile roofing and decorative garage doors and
windows.
Staff Comments: Staff is in support of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19557 and Minor Design
Review DRC2014-00700. Each parcel complies with all the applicable development criteria for
standard and flag -shaped lots within the Low Residential (L) District. The residences are well
designed and the architectural design theme, and roof and wall plane articulation, has been
applied to all elevations.
Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. None.
Seconda Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. None.
Code Compliance Issues:
1. None.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. None.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the
Planning Commission for review and action.
Item C2-2
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Dominick Perez April 18, 2017
DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2016-00338 - OWEN'S COURT ESTATES, LLC. - A
request to modify Design Review DRC2014-00207 for an approved 6-lot subdivision to revise the
plotting and architecture for six (6) single-family residences within the Low Residential (L) District
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, on Owens Court, located on the west side of East Avenue and
south of Banyan Street - APNs: 0227-842-01, -02, -03, -04, -05 and -06. Related files:
Development Review DRC2014-00207 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16578.
Site Characteristics: The subject property, a 2.99 acre undeveloped site within the Low
Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, is located west of East Avenue
approximately 2,000 feet north of the Interstate 15 Freeway. The site is surrounded to the north,
south, east and west by single-family residences. The properties to the north and west are located
within the Very Low Residential (VL) District and the properties to the east and south are located
within the Low Residential (L) District. The subject property and all surrounding properties are
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The site currently is without street improvements.
Background: On August 23, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map
16578 (SUBTT16578) for the subdivision of a property of 2.99 acres into six (6) single-family lots
ranging in size from 14,315 square feet (Lot 6) to 18,317 square feet (Lot 4). The final map was
subsequently recorded in September of 2014. On January 28, 2015, the Planning Commission
approved Design Review DRC2014-00207 for the development of six (6) single-family residences
at this site. The previously approved plans consisted of two (2) one-story homes and four (4) two-
story homes ranging in floor area from 4,035 square feet to 4,146 square feet (Exhibit A).
Following this, the property was sold to Owen's Court Estates, LLC. They then submitted a
Design Review Modification application on April 27, 2016 for consideration by the City.
Design Parameters: The applicant proposes to replace the architectural design of the houses that
were originally going to be constructed within the subject tract„ They believe that the revised
design (floor plan and architecture) is better suited for this site. The design that is being proposed
for the subject houses was previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in
May of 2016 for a different 12-lot tract located within the Low Residential (L) District, Etiwanda
North Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Altura Drive and Tejas Court (related files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18960 and Design Review DRC2015-00811). As shown in the table
below, the project will incorporate a total of three building footprints, which will each have two
elevation types,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,....................................................
No. Of
................................ ..,,,.-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,,.
Floor Plan
.....................................................................................................
11' Floor
I..................................................
2Floor Fl
,...................................................I ,,,, ,, I......... ...........................
Total Living
................................................................. ,
Garage
Lot
Story
Type
(SF)
(SF)
Area (SF)
(SF)
1 1
2-D
_....................................................................................... ..
3,014
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
NIA
3,014
678
.........................................................................................................................................-„
2 2
...................................................
1-C
............................. ... ....................................................................... ....................
2,194
....,,,,,,,,....................................................................
11,817
.................................................................. ....................................
4,011
........................................................ .........
655
................................................................. ...........................................................,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
3 1
3-A
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,...............................................................................................,,,........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................m.
3„504
NIA
3,504
.
815
............................................................................................................................
4 1
.........................................................................
3-D
.................... .................................................................................
3,504
..- ................ .,..............................................................
NIA
I .............................................................4....... .........................
3,50
815
m...................................................................m,,,,,,,,,,,.
5 2
................................ ,,,,,....... ,,,,,,,,,,,................ .................................................................................
1-A
..........................
2,194
...................................................... I ................... .............. ....
1,817
..........................................................................................................
4,011
........... .................,,,,..,,,
655
...............................................................................................................
6 1
....................................................................... ..........I.
2-B
.................................................................. ,,,- ,,:................................................................................................
3„014
NIA
.......................................................................................................
,4
................................................
6
Item C3-1
DRC COMMENTS
DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2016-00338 — OWENS COURT ESTATES, LLC.
April 18, 2017
Page 2
The architectural styles that are proposed to be used are Traditional, Craftsman, Spanish and
Bungalow. The Traditional elevation type, which will be used for Plans 1 and 3, will have stucco -
finished walls, raised panel shutters, concrete tile roofing, stone veneer, decorative garage doors
and decorative window trim. The Craftsman elevation type, which will be used for Plans 1 and 3,,
will have horizontal siding, stone veneer, board and batten gable accents, flat concrete tile roofing,
battered columns, decorative garage doors and decorative window trim. The Bungalow elevation
type, which will be used for Plan 2, will have horizontal siding and stucco -finished walls, stone
veneer, shake siding gable accents, flat concrete tile roofs, decorative garage doors and
decorative window trim. The Spanish elevation type, which will be used for Plan 2, will have
stucco -finished walls, concrete 's' roof tiles, an arched entry, curved windows and decorative
garage doors. The proposed houses are in compliance with the requirement to provide 360-
degree architecture.
The site plan indicates that the plotting of the houses will be in compliance with the technical
standards, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height, as described in the Low Residential (L)
District, Etiwanda Specific Plan. The site plan also indicates that the project will incorporate 6-foot
tall tan precision side yard and rear yard block walls with decorative caps. The proposed return
walls, which were previously approved to be constructed of decorative block, are now proposed
to be 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing with wrought iron gates. The conceptual landscape plan
includes the preliminary plant list and shows that the project will be in compliance with the
requirement to landscape a minimum of 50 percent of the front yard area. The plan also provides
a water budget for the project which indicates the project's estimated total water usage is less
than the maximum allowed water allowance.
Staff Comments: Staff is in support of the proposed Design Review Modification (DRC2016-
00338). The residences are well designed and the architectural design theme, and roof and wall
plane articulation, has been applied to all elevations. As mentioned, the proposed architectural
product was previously reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee and Planning
Commission for a 12-lot single-family residential tract located within the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan in May of 2016. Other than the issues discussed below, the project complies with the
requirements specified in the Development Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
Each of the three floorplans include multiple options. Residence 3 includes an optional guest
suite in lieu of a 2-car garage (see sheets DRB3.1a and DRB3.1b). The guest suite meets
the definition of a "Second Dwelling Unit" per Section 17.126 of the Development Code as
it allows complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, with permanent
requirements for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation sited on the same parcel as the
primary dwelling unit. Per Section 17.100.020(G) of the Development Code, an additional
single -car garage space is to be provided with the addition of an attached or detached
second dwelling unit that contains a kitchen. This requirement is in addition to the 2-car
garage necessary to be provided for the primary single-family residence. Staff recognizes
that the guest suite is an option. However, staff found that should this option be chosen by
a future homeowner, the property would not be in compliance with the Code as the house
will only have a 2-car garage, and will be deficient by one vehicle garage space. Due to this,
staff recommends making the following changes to remedy the issue:
Item 0-2
D C COMMENTS
SIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION D 2016-008 — OWENS COURT ESTATES, LL.
April 18, 2017
Page 3
a, Remove the option from the plans.
bo Remove the kitchen from the option, since additional garage parking is not required
for guest units that do not include a kitchen.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Residence 3 includes 3„504 square feet of living space and 815 square feet of garage area.
The garage area, which is divided into two separate areas towards the front of the house„
includes a 421 square foot two -car garage and a 394 square foot golf cart storage room.
Per the Development Code, a two -car garage is required to have a minimum unobstructed
interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet, Since the 421 square foot two -car garage complies
with this requirement„ staff does not have any issues with this area. However, the 394
square foot golf cart storage room has interior dimensions of 18 feet 9 inches by 20 feet f -
inch,;. and therefore does not qualify as a two -car garage. Staff recommends the applicant
revise the interior dimensions of the garage to maintain a minimum area of 20 feet by 20
feet, Based on the layout of the two lots that this plan will occupy (Lots 3 and 4), this option
appears to be possible as the minimum side -yard setback for both lots is 10 feet and the
site plan indicates the houses are currently setback approximately 24 feet from the side
property line.
Code Compliance Issues:
The site plan indicates the applicant is proposing to install wrought iron return fences and
wrought iron gates between the house and the side yard block walls, which is inconsistent
with the wall materials for the previously approved Design Review (DRC2014-00207) for
this sited. DRC2014-00207 was approved with all side yard, rear yard and return walls to be
constructed of decorative block. Furthermore, per the design standards specified within the
Development Code, return walls are to be compatible with architectural style and if more
than one house design exists, a simple wall design is preferred. For these reasons, staff
recommends the project incorporate return walls that are constructed of decorative block
and compatible with the side yard and rear yard block walls. Additionally, all portions of the
return walls that are visible from public view shall be of decorative material.
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 Committee forward the project to the Planning
Commission for their review and final action with the condition that staffs comments listed above
are incorporated into the project.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Site, Architectural and Conceptual Grading Plans for Design
Review DRC2014-00207
Item C3-3
14'
...................
'^ 4ILMiK 11
. . ..... . . ... . ..... ... . . ...................................................... .
v RV'W
. . . . ........
I
�. i%,
cei.,.
t�m. ..... .... ...
.V. MUG
Pul-
131,
. ... ... . . ..
I
mmramml
9N VQ p
......... .. . . . . . . . ..................
I
4%-11010� W,
I
I
.��� r �� ��:
I
. . . ............... .. ......................
T------- ~� -~---- --------r~�- �?
! ' �
.. . . ... ... ...... . . . .
..........
z
LL
. .... . . .....
.......... � � o"h� h �*,a „„�.�„���'`�s�";°, � o.,o,.�.�m�cs.�d�l®�e ,�.W.I�` � � lad ��.,.,,� �$��µ,�.. d� � ;','®
I
11,
ir�,�,�,�,. do,r,urs.uaw�^ti�r,. lir ... �..._ . �_
-- —
Mew 17, - Ini
40 ....... ....
qLQ M W
F
... ... . .....
7, 1,
. . .. . ...... ...... . ........ . . . . .............. ....
............
7,
III
Ll L
lily.6\
. .... . ............ . �\
rj
...............
.. . ...... . ..........
.... ......... . ... . ....... .. . .......... . .......... .......... . . ...... . ......... ............
0
1tem C3-22
. ... . ......................... EJ
IT . . . ...... i
lu;
-4
RL
I
- — — - 1-11I.-- ... . ............ . .
... .. ...... NVIW � I
..... ........
22" Vzrw^ sw
r
OL
RL
I
WrW I'll 1-1 1
, - I W"W Ao" - 0 an ., �
��� µ �tlF.., anti v.i
I- . ........................ . .... ...... ............................................. .4
IL
MMORWIM
,..
gym,. ._f
......... ......
�
'
-.9, �
�'�-9
�
HoJ WSW.) 7MONG.)
-------------
.........
TV
Item C3-27
e umM ON Viral
........... . 041� .............
,.. wig .T
Nou'lB, Mn'kj :.M, TIC I 5�
. . . . . . ...................... . . ........ .. ............... AU EJ 11 ........ . ... I I ... .... ...
7�4
El
m
11
I
ov
I
Q
of L
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Donald Granger April 18, 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762 - DR
HORTON - A request to subdivide 28.4 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Victoria Community
Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project
consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000
square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road -
APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review
DRC2016-00142, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449,
Design Review DRC2016-00450, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community
Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032 - DR
HORTON - A request for a residential condominium subdivision for 380 residential units on 28.4
acres of land in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the Mixed Use District related to the
construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two
restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek
Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05. Related Files: Preliminary Review
DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM19762, Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450,
Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-
00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00450 - DR HORTON -
A request for site plant and architectural review in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within the
Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380 residential
units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located at the
southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05. Related
Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review DRC2016-00142, Tentative
Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use Permit
DRC2016-00449, Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451, Victoria Community Plan
Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 - DR
HORTON - A request for a Uniform Sign Program in the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) within
the Mixed Use District related to the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 380
residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet, located at
the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road - APN: 1090-331-05.
Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2015-01102, Pre Application Review DRC2016-00142,
Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032, Conditional Use
Permit DRC2016-00449, Design Review DRC2016-00450, Victoria Community Plan
Amendment DRC2016-00452 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00508. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
BACKGROUND
Preliminary Review: In November of 2015, DR Horton filed a Preliminary Review Application
with staff to receive Design and Technical comments for the proposed 28.4 acre mixed -use
project. Following receipt of staffs Design and Technical comments and a couple of meetings
Item C4-1
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 2
to review subsequent iterations of revised site plans, the applicant opted to file a Pre -Application
Review to obtain comments and input from the Planning Commission prior to filing a formal
application.
Planning Commission Workshop: On March 23, 2016, at a workshop the applicant presented
conceptual designs to the Planning Commission prior to filing a formal application submittal in
order to receive broad, general comments and direction.
Following a brief overview from staff, the Commission reviewed the project layout and gave
general comments and direction. In summary, the Commission provided the following
comments and direction to the applicant:
• Support was expressed for the proposed amendment to the Victoria Community
Plan to change the zoning to mixed use to be consistent with the General Plan.
• Direction was given that stressed the importance of adding active recreational
amenities and providing sufficient guest parking.
• In addition to the two restaurants, some of the Commissioners supported an
additional commercial component along Day Creek Boulevard.
• General support was indicated for the architecture, site layout, and the installation
of a low wall topped with Plexiglas along Base Line Road and Day Creek
Boulevard.
• Feedback was given noting the importance of completing the commercial portion of
the project along with the residential portion so that the project is viable mixed use
project at opening.
PROJECT SUMMARY AND LAND USE ALLOCATION/ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Project Summary: The project located along a designated view corridor in the General Plan
(Day Canyon), will have high visibility at the intersection of two major divided arterials, and is
one of the few remaining prominent parcels of nearly 30 acres in the City that has high land use
planning and economic synergy potential with the existing commercial uses along Day Creek
Boulevard, such as Victoria Gardens. The applicant proposes developing the 28.4 acre Pierotti
property located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road with a
mixed use project consisting of 380 residential units (329 attached townhomes and 51 single-
family detached condominiums), a 71 room boutique hotel and two restaurant pads totaling
12,000 square feet. Currently, the overall project area is made up of 1 parcel totaling 28.4 acres
of land. The project includes the subdivision of the 28.4 acre site into 4 parcels and a residential
condominium subdivision for the 380 residential units.
Land Use Allocation and Property Description: Overall, the project site is approximately 30
gross acres, 28.4 acres net, with 25.2 acres devoted to the residential portion (single-family and
condominiums) and 3.2 acres allocated for the commercial uses (hotel and two restaurant
pads). The rectangular shaped parcel is approximately 840 feet wide (west -east) and
approximately 1,500 deep (north -south). The site has approximately 37 feet of fall, measured
from near the north property line (elevation 1,310) to the south property line (elevation 1,273).
Curb and gutter are existing along the Base Line and Day Creek frontage. Of the 380 residential
units, 51 units are single-family detached condominiums, 329 units are attached townhomes,
and the residential density over the 24.9 acre area calculates to 15.3 units/acre. For the
attached townhomes, there are 95 two bedroom units and 237 three bedroom units. A
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application is also included for the requested bar/ alcohol sales at
the hotel.
Item C4-2
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 3
SURROUNDING AREA
The project site is bordered by Base Line Road along the north boundary; Day Creek Boulevard
along the east boundary; a 16.8 acre single-family neighborhood zoned Mixed Use/ Single -
Family (4-6 units/acre) that is developed at 4.8 dwelling units/acre within the Victoria Arbors
Master Plan in the VCP west of Day Creek Boulevard, between Church Street and the south
boundary of the project; and a Southern California Edison transmission corridor zoned Open
Space and the Day Creek Flood Control channel zoned Flood Control along the west boundary.
Across Base Line Road at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road is
a future neighborhood shopping center that will be anchored by Stater Brothers that is currently
under construction, and across Day Creek Boulevard at the southeast corner of Day Creek
Boulevard and Base Line Road is an existing neighborhood center anchored by Sprouts
Farmer's Market.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan and Zoning: The project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed
Use; however, the site is currently zoned Regionally Related Office/Commercial (RROC), within
the Victoria Community Plan (VCP). The General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use
occurred with the 2001 General Plan update and remained Mixed Use in the 2010 General Plan
update. The Victoria Community Plan was adopted in 1981 and according to staff research has
been zoned Regionally Related/ Office Commercial since VCP's 1981 adoption.
Zoning: The applicant has submitted a Victoria Community Plan Amendment to change the
Victoria Community Plan Zoning Designation from RROC to Mixed Use (MU) in order to be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. When the Victoria Community
Plan was first approved, Mixed Use was not included as a land use category.
CIRCULATION AND SITE PLANNING
Circulation: Regarding access and intersection alignment, the proposed project is anticipated to
be compatible with streets and intersections in the surrounding area. The applicant has
designed the project so that access will be from three points: one on Base Line Road that will
be signalized and align with the driveway to the future Stater Brothers neighborhood center at
the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard; one right -in and right -out off
Day Creek Boulevard; and one signalized entry off Day Creek Boulevard that will align with the
existing signal at Madrigal Place. The primary access point off Day Creek Boulevard will feature
a drive aisle that utilizes decorative pavement with a landscaped median that is framed by trees
on either side. The project is also designed with an emergency vehicle access point along Day
Creek Boulevard south of the signalized entrance at Madrigal Place.
Site Planning: The project features two primary plaza areas that are accessible by both
residents and hotel and retail patrons. The Village Plaza is located just south of the drive aisle
adjacent to the hotel and will feature decorative pavers in the drive aisle flanked by twin
fountains with tree plantings, colored concrete that will be coordinated with the drive aisle
pavers in a running bond pattern, a raised stage for community performances with a retractable
movie screen, lounge area and seat walls. At the corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line
Road, the Village Center has been designed as a publicly accessible focal point. The plaza will
be shared by the two restaurants and will feature a central fountain, decorative paving, accent
trees, fountain, overhead trellis structures, colored concrete and an architectural tower that
pedestrians can pass through.
Item C4-3
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 4
RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE, AMENITIES, OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE
Residential Product and Architecture Overview: The project is designed with 4 residential
product types. Villages A, B and C feature three types of three-story rowhomes and Village D
features a two-story, single-family product that is plotted along the southern edge near the
existing single-family neighborhood. Village A features three floor plans featuring two or three
bedrooms that range from 1,279 square feet to 1,474 square feet with a two -car garage
(conventional or tandem). The two bedroom product has been paired with the tandem garages
as the Development Code requires 1.5 spaces for two bedroom townhomes, of which 1 space
must be in a garage or carport. Even though the Development Code permits tandem parking to
be counted towards the required parking in mixed use projects, the developer has opted to
count only one of two garage spaces toward the required parking where tandem garages are
utilized. Village B features two or three bedrooms that range from 1,549 square feet to 1,862
square feet with all units having a conventional (side -by -side) two -car garage. Village C is the
largest of the rowhome concept and is designed with two or three bedrooms that range from
1,854 square feet to 2,202 square feet with all units having a conventional two -car garage.
Village D is comprised of single-family detached condominiums.. The single-family detached
product are all two-story, range from 2,177 square feet to 2,333 square feet, are designed with
either 4 or 5 bedrooms and include conventional two car garages.
Note: Per the Code, single -story, single-family product is not required in Mixed Use Districts.
Architectural Styles and Design Vocabulary
Village A: The architecture of the rowhomes for Village A is Craftsman -inspired, featuring board
and batten siding, shingle siding, wood braces, horizontal siding and Craftsman -inspired
windows and some garage doors reflecting Craftsman elements. Roof material is concrete flat
tile. Village A also incorporates a showing of urban Craftsman influences, utilizing a metal
awning with cable support on the 6B and 713 Elevations.
Village B: The architecture of the rowhomes for Village B is Craftsman -inspired, utilizing more
elements that evoke an urban Craftsman design. Design elements include awning with
standing seam metal roofs, brick veneers and tower features. Traditional Craftsman elements
include board and batten siding, shingle siding, wood braces, horizontal siding and Craftsman -
inspired windows and some garage doors exhibiting Craftsman -inspired features. Some units
have decks on both the front and rear elevations. Roof material is concrete flat tile.
Village C: The architecture for Village C exhibits both Craftsman and Adobe features, blending
the two styles appropriately. The exterior material palette includes horizontal wood siding, board
and batten siding, awnings, exposed beams and accent features in the wall plane. The wall
planes are designed with both vertical and horizontal articulation, featuring balconies and roof
decks. Consistent with the architectural style, the roof planes are gently sloped
Village D: Village D is designed with single-family detached condominiums. There are a total of
three floor plans, and each plan is designed with four architectural styles: Craftsman, Santa
Barbara, Shingle and Italianate. The Craftsman design utilizes stacked stone, horizontal siding,
Craftsman -inspired doors and windows and wood braces. Roof material is concrete flat tile,
The Santa Barbara style includes concrete "S" the roofs, corbels, fabric awnings, decorative
metal railings and decorative tile vents. The Shingle style is designed with stacked stone,
shingle siding, shutters, corbels and a flat concrete tile roof. The Italianate design includes
decorative corbels under the eaves, shutters, plaster recess, and concrete tile "S" roofs.
Item C4-4
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 5
Amenities: The Development Code requires a total of seven recreational amenities for a 380
unit residential project. As proposed, the project is providing a total of 9 amenities, comprised of
six passive areas and three active amenities. The passive amenities are designed for sitting,
reading, conversation and outdoor eating, and include two plazas, three outdoor seating/lounge
areas and one paseo with a connecting walkway trail near the core of the project that links one
plaza and one seating area. The primary plaza in the residential area features a retractable
movie screen, raised staged area, a lounge area, colored concrete with medallion and pavers,
and raised seat walls. One plaza has a dual age tot lot, picnic tables and low walls that define
the space. Two of the outdoor lounge areas are designed with suspended lighting, steel
patterned screen walls, planter areas, low walls, and I -beams that will frame each seating area.
For active amenities, the project is designed with three areas for physical activity: 1) pool/ spa/
cabana area; 2) linear park and 3) double bocce court. The pool/ spa area will feature outdoor
dining areas, barbeques, large potted plants, trees and a restroom building. The linear park is
designed with a walking path, a pedestrian plaza with a shaded seating area, three outdoor
exercise stations, and a decomposed granite path. Although the linear park will be privately
maintained, it will be accessible to the public. The double bocce courts feature shade and
poured in place colored concrete seat walls.
Open Space: The Development Code requires that the townhome provide a minimum of 150
square feet of open space per unit, with a minimum depth of 6 feet. Open space may be provide
in the form decks or balconies. All of the townhome units comply with these requirements.
Landscape: Landscape standards for mixed use projects are governed by a combination of
standards from the Mixed Use District and standards from Residential Districts for multi -family
projects. For landscape calculations, the density for the project equates to 13.4 dwelling
units/acre based upon the 28.4 acre project area. Per Section 17.56.070 of the Development
Code, the following are the landscape standards for projects with density ranges between 14-24
units/acre: 45 trees per gross acre shall be planted, with the following percentages of sizes:
10% shall be 36-inch box or larger; 10% shall be 24-inch box or larger; and 80% shall be 15-
gallon sized. Mixed Use projects required that 10% of the overall net area be landscape. For
the residential area, 19.3 acres are allocated to multi -family product, and 5.5 acres to single-
family product. The project has 87 24-inch box trees, 87 36-inch box trees and 745 15-gallon
size trees, for a grand total of 919 trees, exceeding the minimum requirement of 871 trees (45 x
19.36 acres). For landscape area, the minimum requirement is 2.84 acres (10%), and the
project is providing 4.57 acres of landscape area. For all landscape standards (tree sizes and
landscape area), the project either meets or exceeds the minimum standards.
COMMERCIAL and HOTEL ARCHITECTURE
Restaurant Pads: The architectural vocabulary for the restaurant pads and hotel is Santa
Barbara inspired. Exterior features and materials include arches, tile insets, tile roofs,
colonnades, recessed niches, awnings, curvilinear elements, and fenestration choices that
enhance visual interest. Roof top equipment will be screened by the parapets. Each restaurant
is 6,000 square feet, and the height of each building is 25 feet. Both restaurants are designed
with a covered outdoor dining area.
Hotel: Complimenting the restaurant buildings, the hotel evokes Santa Barbara -inspired design.
Key architectural features include awnings, tile insets, ceramic the elements, curvilinear
parapets, French doors, decorative wood siding at key locations, medallions, exposed rafters,
Item C4-5
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 6
plaster trim and a wood trellis. The height of the hotel is 44 feet.
PARKING AND SETBACKS
Required Parking Ratios:
Residential
Townhomes, two bedrooms:
Townhomes, three bedrooms:
Visitor parking (multi -family area only):
Single -Family Detached
Commercial
Hotel:
Restaurants:
2 per unit, 1 in garage or carport
2 per unit, 2 in garage or carport
1 per 3 units
2 per unit; 2 in a garage
1 per unit plus 2 for manager
1 per 100 square feet
Residential Parking Analysis: In accordance with the above ratios for residential uses, the
applicant has exceeded the amount of required residential overall and garage parking (see
Table A).
TABLE A
PARKING ANALYSIS
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
760 in a garage
Unit Parking ......................................................................................I
.........................................................................................
760,
(711 counted
Guest Parking
127
142
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,
Surface Parking
,,............
N/A
49
..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Total Residential Parking
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
887
902
Surplus
15
Notes: w Of the 760 required parking staffs. 666 must be in a garage
The project provides for allll 760 requilred stalils fin a garage.
Although the Development Code permits Mixed Use projects to count tandem parking towards
meeting the required parking calculation„ the applicant hasopted only count 1 stall from each of
the 49 tandem garages (98 potential spaces) and has provided additional surface parking
throughout the parking project in order to ensure that the project has adequate parking. As
indicated in Table A, when the 49 tandem garage stalls are only counted as one space, the
project has 15 surplus spaces. If the 49 tandem garages were counted as spaces, the project
would have a surplus of 64 stalls (15 + 49 = 64),
Commercial and Hotel Parking Analysis: For the commercial uses (hotel and 2 restaurant pads),
the project is designed with 193 stalls, meeting the required amount (120 stalls for restaurant
and 73 for hotel).
Parkin study: In accordance with Section 17.64.060(D) a parking study was prepared by the
applicant's consultant (Urban Crossroads) to demonstrate adequate parking. The parking
verified the applied ratios and calculations;. The parking study validated the conclusion that
adequate parking exists based upon the required ratios in the Code.
Item C4-6
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 7
Setbacks: For Mixed Use projects, setbacks are determined at the following formula: 50-75% of
the standard streetscape setback. Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard are classified as
Major Divided Arterials. Accordingly, the minimum building setbacks (measured from ultimate
curb face) are the following for each land use type:
a. Detached single-family: 11.25 to 22.5 feet.
b. Attached single-family/ multi -family: 11.25 to 22.5 feet.
c. Commercial: 11.25 to 22.5 feet.
All of the project's proposed setbacks are in compliance with the standards for Mixed Use
projects. Along Day Creek Boulevard the setbacks range from 13 to 23 feet for the hotel, 14 to
17 feet for the restaurant, and 22 feet for the attached townhomes. Along Day Creek
Boulevard, the setback for the restaurant is 21 feet, the attached townhomes are plotted from 18
to 21 feet from the curb, and the detached single-family condos are plotted from 24 to 31 feet
from the curb.
UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM
The applicant has submitted a Uniform Sign Program for the project in order to provide a
cohesive sign architecture for the hotel, two restaurants and project entry signage for the
residential portion.
Commercial Si na e: The monument signs (one on Day Creek and one on Base Line) are
designed to match stucco color and texture of the hotel and restaurant buildings. The signs also
feature tile roof and recessed tile to match the hotel and restaurant buildings. The sign height
and area are compliant with the Development Code regulations. Each restaurant includes
provisions for two wall signs, all of which are compliant with the area and quantity requirements.
Residential Proiect Identification Signs: The project includes a 6-foot high project identification
sign at the primary entry off Day Creek Boulevard. The sign will have adjacent landscaping,
designed with pinned steel letters attached to 24-inch by 48-inch stone/tile veneer walls and
illumination will be backlight. The height and sign area meet the Code requirements.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY#1
DR Horton conducted a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at Victoria
Windrows Elementary School at 6855 Victoria Park Lane, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. for the
proposed project. Approximately 60-65 people attended the meeting. DR Horton presented an
overview of the project, which was then followed by a question and answer period. The meeting
lasted approximately two hours, and residents raised a variety of concerns regarding the
proposed project. The issues raised by the residents at the neighborhood meeting that are
germane to the scope of the review by the Design Review Committee are summarized below,
along with any revisions or updates that have been made to the project since the meeting.
1. Hotel: Residents did not feel the hotel is a compatible land use in a predominately
residential, neighborhood commercial area. Residents stated that hotels belong at VG
or on Foothill Boulevard. Residents were also concerned about crime and other
activities occurring at the hotel that are undesirable.
Item C4-7
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL_ MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 8
Update: The hotel is still a component of the project. Staff and the developer have
conducted research on the economic viability of the hotel, and market research indicates
solid demand, with strong occupancy and room rates within the City. The hotel is three
stories, at 44 feet in height and fronting Day Creek Boulevard. This an ideal location
since it fronts a major divided arterial and future commercial center across Base Line
Road. Additionally, the height of the hotel is compatible with the nearby three-story
townhomes, which range in height from 37 to 41 feet.
2. Project density along the south edge and park along the south edge: Residents indicated
that both the density and type of product along the south edge for the proposed project
should match their neighborhood. Residents want to see single-family detached product
that matches the plotting of their neighborhood, not side on single-family with minimal
setbacks. Residents indicated that their neighborhood is currently underserved by
neighborhood parks that are within a walkable distance that do not require crossing of a
major arterial. For a 28-acre project, residents indicated that the developer should be
directed to study the viability of dedicating a minimum of 2 acres within the project area
for a public park.
Note: The nearest park, Victoria Arbors Park, across Day Creek Boulevard, is
approximately .5 of a mile away.
Update: The developer has redesigned the project with a privately maintained but
publicly accessible linear park that is approximately 60 feet wide and 540 feet deep,
equating to about .75 of an acre. The park will feature exercise stations, a walking path
and a shaded seating area.
3. Inadequate project parking/ crime: Residents from the single-family neighborhood to the
south expressed substantial concern their neighborhood will be impacted by cars
parking on the streets from the proposed project. Currently, the residential neighborhood
to the south is experiencing vehicles parking on the streets from the residential
development at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Church
Street. Additionally, the neighborhood along the south boundary of the proposed project
has recently faced multiple mailbox robberies, and residents feel that there is a
correlation between the crimes and vehicles coming in to their neighborhood from other
areas.
Update: As proposed, the project exceeds the required amount of parking by
approximately 15 stalls.
4. Setbacks: Residents from the neighborhood to the south strongly expressed that the
project setbacks along the south edge are not adequate. Existing rear yard setbacks
average approximately 35 feet for the neighborhood to the south. Residents indicated
that single-family product along the south edge must match the setbacks of their
community.
Update: The first generation layout by DR Horton proposed 18 to 22-foot side -on
setbacks from the dwelling units to the south property line. The developer has
redesigned the project so that the southerly edge condition has linear park that functions
as a buffer along a substantial portion of the south boundary. For the remaining five
single-family detached condos at the southwest corner of the site, the plotting has been
item C4-8
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 9
changed from side -on to rear -on to match the orientation of the neighborhood to the
south; setbacks remain the same, ranging from 18 to 22 feet.
5. Additional Single -Family,_ Units: Residents to the east, across Day Creek Boulevard,
would like to see single-family homes plotted along Day Creek, not townhomes.
Residents indicated that the Day Creek frontage should match the streetscape on east
side of Day Creek Boulevard with single-family homes.
Update: Between the primary driveway to the project off Day Creek Boulevard and the
detached condos, the initial site plan proposed two buildings of six-plex attached
townhomes. The applicant has since redesigned the project to reduce the massing by
plotting 9 townhomes in three buildings of three-plex units.
6. Overall Density: Residents from the neighborhood to the south noted that the project is
too dense. The neighborhood to the south is built at 4.8 dwelling units/acre. Residents
did not offer up a specific acceptable density for the overall project, but stressed again
that the southerly density range of 25% of the project site should be very close to their
neighborhood.
Update: The initial project site was for 392 units at 15.7 units to the acre; the update site
plan indicates 380 units at 15.3 units to the acre.
7. Privacy: Residents from the neighborhood to the south are very concerned that with DR
Horton's project having 18 to 22-foot setbacks along the south edge, their privacy into
their bedrooms and back yards will be compromised.
Update: The developer has redesigned the project so that the southerly edge condition
has a 60-foot wide linear park that functions as a buffer along a substantial portion of the
south boundary. For the remaining five single-family detached condos at the southwest
corner of the site, the plotting has been changed from side -on to rear -on.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY#2
The applicant conducted a second neighborhood on Monday, March 27, 2017 at Etiwanda
Gardens at 7576 Etiwanda Avenue from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. DR Horton made a presentation
of the revised updates as noted in the above summary for Neighborhood Meeting #1, and staff
from DR Horton, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning and Engineering Department and the
Sheriff's Department were available for questions. In summary, residents appreciated the
revisions made by the applicant, but still expressed concern over the following issues that are
relevant to the scope of the review by the Design Review Committee:
1. Land use/ hotel: Several residents continued to indicate that the hotel is not a compatible
land use in a predominately residential, neighborhood commercial area. Residents
stated that hotels sometimes are locations for illegal activities, and that hotels are better
suited along Foothill Boulevard. Residents were also concerned about crime and other
activities occurring at the hotel that are undesirable.
Response: A Sheriff's deputy attended the community meeting and indicated that the
police have not seen significant increase or correlation in crime associated with hotels in
the City. The Sheriff's deputy indicated that the deputies are available to work with hotel
Item C4-9
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 10
management and provide training on how to proactively prevent undesirable and illicit
uses that could occur. City staff also commented that the hotel height, scale and location
is compatible with the proposed three-story townhomes, and that the hotel is located on
the frontage of a major divided arterial, facing a commercial center.
2. Protect density, additional single-family and increased setback along the south edge:
Some residents indicated that the overall density of the project is too high and that more
single-family homes should be plotted. Residents did not offer up a specific acceptable
density for the overall project. A few residents indicated that the proposed setback of the
single-family homes along the south edge is not adequate and the rear yard setbacks
should be the same or greater as the houses in the subdivision to the south.
Response: The applicant indicated that the project is a mixed use, and that the proposed
density is common to mixed use projects.
3. Inadequate project parking: Some residents expressed concern if the project is parked
adequately.
Response: As proposed, the project exceeds the required amount of parking by
approximately 15 stalls. The applicant further indicated that they are exploring the
possibility of utilizing the commercial parking during specific time periods (after the
restaurants close/ prior to opening) as a means to provide supplemental parking for the
residential areas.
4. Linear park: Residents indicated appreciation of the developer's effort to provide a park.
Some residents expressed concerned over the park's small size (.75 acre), narrow
width, lack of an adequate area for active recreation and concerns over potential noise
and crime issues.
Response: The developer indicated that efforts were taken to provide a low intensity
impact yet publicly accessible park. The developer indicated that the design goal of the
park was to minimize potential noise impacts by providing exercise stations, walking
paths and shade. City staff added that the main idea behind the park was to provide a
buffer zone between the project and the single-family homes to the south in response to
issues raised at the first community meeting. The developer stated that they are willing
to continue to modify the design to include amenities that would be the best fit for the
community. The Sheriffs Deputy indicated that the installation of public safety cameras
might also be possible, which would augment public safety.
The developer concluded the meeting and indicated that one final community meeting would be
scheduled so that residents could review the final project design.
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff Comments: Staff is pleased with the overall design, site plan and landscape features of the
project and is in support of the applicant's request to change the zoning designation of the
project site from Regionally Related Office/ Commercial to Mixed Use (RROC). Conceptually,
the buildings are well -designed, include a variety of materials and design features that capture
the intended architectural style. The project will provide a visually appealing street scene that
includes a variety of land uses and pubic areas that are compatible in scale with the surrounding
Item C4-10
DRC COMMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19762, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20032, DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2016-00450, UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2016-00451 — DR HORTON
April 18, 2017
Page 11
area. Staffs evaluation of the architecture for the hotel and
positive and that the architectural vocabulary is well -executed.
degree architecture requirement for the residential product,
revisions:
Major Issues:
two restaurant buildings is very
In order to meet the City's 360
staff recommends the following
Village A: For the 3 story Townhome Rowhome on all 5, 6, or 7 plex buildings and
elevation schemes, add additional materials and elements to the front and rear elevations
that are appropriate to the Craftsman -inspired design. Consider adding additional amounts
of the following as appropriate: board and batten and lap siding, introducing brick,;
additional amounts of shingle siding, and windows appropriate to the architectural style.
2. Village D: For all plans and architectural styles, add additional materials and elements that
are appropriate to each style to achieve the 360 degree architecture requirement, For the
Craftsman and Shingle styles, some options to consider are adding board and batten
siding, shingle siding, brick or rock, lap siding. For the Santa Barbara and Italianate style,
additional design elements and architectural vocabulary should be authentic to the style
and placed on the wall plane appropriately in order to meet the 360 design requirement„
Avoid tacked on elements that are out -of -place or not true to the style. Particular attention
should be directed to enhancing the front and rear elevations.
In addition to providing 360 degree architecture, staff recommendations the following
specific design changes:
• Plans 113, 1 C and 1 D: Rework the locations of the 3-inch plaster recess to reflect
each style in an authentic manner. As shown, the locations appear awkward and not
well -executed.
• Plans 2A, 2B and 2D: With the exception of the first floor on Plans 28 and 2D,
rework the locations of the 3-inch plaster recess to reflect each style in authentic
manner. As shown, the locations appear awkward and not well -executed.
• Plans 3B, 3C and 3D: Rework the locations of the 3-inch plaster recess to reflect
each style in an authentic manner. As shown, the locations appear awkward and not
well -executed.
Secondary Issues:
All Villages_: All garage doors should be appropriate and enhance the architectural style,
Recognize garage doors as an element of design rhythm and use to create varying
patterns. Avoid selecting standard doors with no design features. Revise the units with
standard garage doors to have features that reflect and compliment the architectural style.
In addition, doors that allow natural light are encouraged...
2. Linear park: The developer should provide an update on any changes that were made in
response to the comments received at the community meetings, with particular attention to
adding an area large enough with turf for active recreation, and other low intensity, active
amenities, such as bocce ball or horse shoes,
Staff Recommendation: With the above issues addressed to the satisfaction of the
Committee, staff recommends that the Committee move the project forward to the Planning
Commission for review.
Item C4-11