Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-01 - Minutes Design Review Committee Meeting Agenda October 1, 2024 FINAL MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 New Time: 6:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Design Review Committee held on October 1, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:00 p.m. Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Boling and Commissioner Diaz Correction to the members present; remove Commissioner Diaz and replace with Commissioner Daniels. Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner B. Public Communications Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2024. Item C1. Motion carried 2-0 vote. D. Project Review Items D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE MAP, DESIGN REVIEW & VARIANCE – GRAND PACIFIC COMMUNITIES – A request to subdivide approximately 1.7 acres of land into 8 numbered and 4 lettered lots including site plan and design review of 8 duplexes (16 units total), and a variance to reduce the required streetscape setback for a site located between 19th and Hamilton Streets east of Hermosa Avenue in the Medium Residential (M) Zone; APN: 1076-121-03 (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20662, Design Review DRC2023- 00363, and Variance DRC2024-00300). The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. Staff presented the item. Committee members asked a number of questions regarding WQMP facilities, wall height, street width, and requirements for completing sidewalks. Additional questions from committee members included landscaping, specifically that the applicant consider a tree type that does not drop pods, the placement of mailboxes, the placement of solar and location of trash cans. Committee Members complimented the design. Committee Member Boling inquired about the need for crosswalks and crossing guards, considering the new proposed street included within the project design would terminate right in front of an elementary school. Committee Members recommended that the applicant contact the school district and City engineering department for requirements on crosswalks and crossing guards. Committee members voted to move the item forward to the full Planning Commission with the motion that the applicant consider flashing beacons in any potential crosswalk and coordinate with the school district on the need for crossing guards and any other requirements the school district may desire. The motion also included that the applicant consider revising the landscape plan as well as incorporate a dog relief station within the WQMP area. The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote. D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GORRE ARCHITECHTS FOR CAL BOX - A request for site plan and architectural review of 45,993 square foot addition to an existing 98,406 square foot industrial building and a Conditional Use Permit to operate a manufacturing use over 50,000 square feet located on approximately 7.7 acres of land within Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone, located on the east side of Toronto Avenue where it terminates into the BNSF/Metrolink right of way; APN: 0209- 401-05. (Design Review DRC2023-00379 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2024-00288). The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. Staff presented the item. Committee members asked general questions related to nonconforming setbacks and the project’s compliance with other standards. Committee members asked the applicant questions about the history of their business in Rancho Cucamonga and about business operations related to the proposed addition. Committee members noted that the plan set did not include colored renderings which would have been helpful in their review. Particularly since this is an addition to an existing building, colored renderings would be helpful to distinguish the existing structure from the new addition. Staff responded that these items will be addressed prior to the item going to the Planning Commission. The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote. E. Adjournment Principal Planner Sean McPherson adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant