Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/03/19 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY MARCH 19, 1996 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Larry Henderson Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker John Melcher CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. . NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED -PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 5:00 p.m. (Steve) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-29 -FLATTEN- A request to construct a 3,974 square foot hillside residence located in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8900 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-251-29. 5:40 p.m. (Scott) PRELIMINARY REVIEW 96-05 - PATRICK SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY - A courtesy review of a proposed juvenile housing facility located in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Fourth Street, west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229- 283-70 6:10 p.m. (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a lube facility within an existing commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. 6:40 p.m. (Nancy) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-28 - WOODBRID E DEVELOPMENT: The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for five single family lots within Tract 10210 in the Hillside Residential District, located on the north side of Almond Street at Crestview Place - APN: 200-441-40, 48, 54, 55 & 63 DRC AGENDA March 19, 1996 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes March 19, 1996 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-29 - FLATTEN - A request to construct a 3,974 square foot hillside residence located in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8900 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-251-29. Design Parameters: The proposed residence is located on a parcel of approximately 1.59 acres that was recently created with the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12877. Two ravines with a distinct ridge in between run from northwest to southeast across the property. The residence is plotted on the ridge near the rear of the portion of property proposed for development at this time. A Community Trail is existing along the Hillside Road frontage. Native scrub vegetation covers the site. Single Family residences exist east and west of the site, while the land directly to the north of the area proposed for development is vacant. The property to the south is Heritage Park. 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: (For the Committee's information, the Grading Committee found the proposed design technically acceptable but determined that this item should be forwarded to the Design Review Committee to determine whether the aesthetic impacts created by the design of the residence are consistent with the intent of the Hillside Development Standards. The Committee should consider the proposed design of the residence as it relates to the site specific constraints associated with the parcel. Specific aesthetic concerns are as follows): I. Although the proposed design of the residence generally falls with the natural slope of the land, the pad steps only 2 feet over an area that has a natural fall of over 8 feet in vertical height. The applicant has stated that the potential aesthetic impact related to the height and effective bulk of the house are mitigated through a predominately single story house design. Staff does agree that the design mitigates this concern; however, more significant steps could be incorporated to lessen grading, which is also specifically mentioned as a goal of the Hillside Development Ordinance. 2. The applicant is proposing to utilize a "Loffelstein" crib wall along the east side of the driveway. This wall would be approximately 10 feet tall in the worst case scenario. The Hillside Development Standards prohibits retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height and encourages terracing with a minimum of 3 feet of landscaping between retaining walls. The present design would require a Variance. Originally, the applicant had proposed a standard retaining wall along this edge, but changed to the crib wall to attempt to address the aesthetic concern relative to the retaining wall height. The height of the crib wall can be mitigated somewhat by landscaping, which can be planted in between levels or steps of the crib wall. Ideally, however, staff would prefer this wall to be constructed in segments to allow for more significant areas of landscaping. However, in this case, the area where the crib wall is proposed is already beyond the slope influence line and into an area of fairly significant slope down to a ravine, so terracing the wall may reduce slope stability. The Committee should consider whether the crib wall is the best solution given the specific constraints of this situation. Staff feels that it is the best solution, unless the entire layout of the residence is revised to be more contained within the slope influence lines. (For example, the wall could be moved westerly and subsequently lowered in height if the garage was designed to face south. However, having the garage side onto the house offers a much better view of the residence from Hillside Road). DRC COMMENTS DR 95-29 - FLATTEN March 19, 1996 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Given the significant length of the proposed driveway and its high visibility from Hillside Road, additional decorative paving areas should be provided. 2. 1 Areas of glass block should be replaced with a more integrated architectural element or eliminated. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Front yard landscaping and downslope landscaping should be provided in accordance with the Hillside Development Regulations. Proper landscaping is especially critical in this situation given the natural topography of the parcel and its susceptibility to fire. All landscaping should comply with the City's Wildland Interface requirements. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee determine whether the proposed residence design is in compliance with the spirit and intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. If so, then staff would recommend that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. However, if the Committee feels that a significant redesign of the residence is necessary, then the item should be brought back to the Committee for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: David Barker, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee recommended approval of the residence as presented, with the secondary and policy issues incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Scott Murphy March 19, 1996 PRELIMINARY REVIEW 96-05 - PATRICK SULLIVAN LIVAN A SOCIATES/ SAN BE NARDINO COUNTY - A courtesy review of a proposed juvenile housing facility located in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Fourth Street, west ofEtiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-283-70 Back round: The applicant is proposing to develop a maximum security juvenile housing facility on the site of the West Valley Detention Center. The application anticipates the construction of a 40-bed facility at the northeast corner of Fourth Street and the south entry. Access to the site is obtained via the south entry or a new drive approach proposed east of the south entry. Access from new drive approach, however, will be limited to employees and vehicles transporting detainees. The new approach provides a drive aisle into a secured "sallyport." All detainees enter the building through the southerly portion of Building No. 1. The buildings are designed with block construction and standing seam metal roof. The building interiors are laid out to access most facility functions without leaving the building. Every day bed has access to a "day room." All rooms have access to the multi-purpose rooms and eating facilities. All meals are prepared at the West Valley Detention Facilities and transported to the juvenile facility through the sallyport. The east and west halves of the building (20 beds each) have direct access to an outdoor basketball/recreation area. At present, there does not appear to be adequate funds to construct the administration building (Building No. 3). When this building is constructed, visitor facilities will be provided. Detainees will be accompanied from the housing building to the administration building through enclosed passageways connecting the buildings. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Extensive landscaping should be provided along the southern portion of the site to screen visibility of the chain link security fencing. The landscaping should be provided a sufficient distance from the fence to eliminate any security issues. 2. The standing-seam metal roof should be replaced with another material. 3. The block and roof color will be provided at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Because the application is part of a County-owned facility, the City has no jurisdiction over design of the site and buildings (other than within the public right-of-way). The applicant has provided plans as a courtesy review. Any comments generated by the Design Review Committee will be forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Scott Murphy DRC COMMENTS PR 96-05 - PATRICK SULLIVAN/S.B. COUNTY March 19, 1996 Page 2 The Committee reviewed the application and recommended the following be considered by the County in the final design of the facility: 1. Landscaping should be provided along the Etiwanda Avenue frontage. The design should be consistent with the overall design for Etiwanda Avenue. 2. Given the visibility from Etiwanda Avenue, alternative fencing material should be considered in place of the chain link fence on the east side of the complex. The applicant will investigate possible alternatives for presentation to the Planning Commission. 3. The height of the fence on the east side of the complex should be lowered to the minimum acceptable height that maintains the integrity of the security system. 4. The applicant indicated a larger-scale elevation could be available for the Planning Commission meeting so the Commission can review the building elevations in more detail. Of particular concern was the split-face block and burnished block relationship. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Scott Murphy March 19, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a tube facility within an existing commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. Design Parameters: The site is located to the southwest of the In-N-Out Burger facility. The drive-thru lane for In-N-Out extends to the northeast comer of the site. The pad was previously planned as a retail pad. The pad has been rough graded and landscape improvements have been installed along the south side of the lot, adjacent to the drive aisle. Backeround: On December 5, 1995, the Design Review Committee reviewed the application and recommended that the project be referred to the Planning Commission. The Committee felt there were significant issues with the location of the facility, the ability to screen the bays from surrounding areas, and the potential conflict with the stacking for In-N-Out Burger that warrant consideration by the full Commission prior to any discussion on the architectural design. On January 10, 1996, the Planning Commission considered the application. While having no objections to lube facilities in general, the Planning Commission felt that the location proposed was not appropriate. First, the Commission expressed concern about the impact aU development would have on the existing on-site traffic congestion. The second concern of the Commission centered on the potential conflicts between the application and In-N-Out Burger. In order for a vehicle to exit during these times, the drive- thru lane must be stopped by an attendant to allow the lube facility customers to exit. The Commission felt the potential conflict was unacceptable. And, the final area of concern was the visibility of the work area from the surrounding areas. As a result, the Planning Commission could not support the application. On February 21, 1996, the City Council considered an appeal filed by the applicant. After concluding the public testimony, the City Council determined that the application was appropriate for this location and directed the item back to the Planning Commission. The City Council indicated that a condition of approval should require the realignment of the drive aisle to create a four-way intersection as was required for Price Club. 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. The applicant should review the site plan to determine if the entry and exit locations could be reversed to allow exiting without the conflicts with In-N-Out's stacking. 2. Detailing proposed at the entry and to cantilever the trellis members is inconsistent with previous approvals. All details used for the building should be consistent with the approved architecture for the center. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS March 19, 1996 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Because of the location proposed for the facility, the service bays will be visible from the surrounding drive aisles, the existing freeway off-ramp, and the future freeway off-ramp. Extensive screening should be provided. 2. As indicated on the site plan, the operational realities of this type of facility is that vehicles will be parked at the bay entries waiting their turn for servicing. The staging of the vehicles is comparable to a drive-thru lane and should be screened. 3. The 2:1 slope on the southeast side of the building should be minimized/eliminated by exposing the exterior basement walls and providing additional architectural treatment. Polio Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by the parapet or secondary roof screen. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the application and direct the applicant to revise the plans in accordance with the above-reference comments. Design Review Committee Actions: Members Present: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The application was continued to the April 2, 1996, Design Review Committee meeting at the request of the applicant. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Nancy Fong March 19, 1996 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-28 -WOODBRID E DEVELOPMENT: The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for five single family lots within Tract 10210 in the Hillside Residential District, located on the north side of Almond Street at Crestview Place - APN: 200-441-40, 48, 54, 55 & 63 Design Parameters: The tract consists of 33 lots. It was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 23, 1981 and recorded in 1986. The Commission approved a Design Review for 20 lots on January 11, 1995. The approved elevations consisted of three floor plans with three elevations for each. The size of the floor plans range from 3,360 to 3,870 square feet. The architectural style is a mix of Mediterranean and Traditional. The first (Phase 1) 10 lots were completed and the remainder (Phase 2) 10 lots are under construction. The applicant proposes to use the same floor plans and elevations for Lots 5, 13, 19, 20, and 28. 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. The applicant applies the same grading concept as in Phase 1 and 2, which is a stepped foundation that ranges from 1-foot to 3 feet. However, some improvements can be done to the created slopes: a. Provide variable slopes of 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 4 to 1, and 5 to 1 instead of just 2 to 1 or 5 to 1. b. Show graphically the application of contour grading for any slopes. 2. In response to staff comments, the applicant has provided an alternative plotting of the house for Lot 28 to be parallel to the natural contours. Staff finds this alternative is more in keeping with the Hillside Ordinance. However the stepped foundation should be parallel instead of perpendicular, to the contours. Based on the floor plan, the step should occur between the formal dinning room including the kitchen and the family room, and the formal living room including the foyer and bedroom 5. 3. Adjust the alignment of the walkway for Lot D so that it is away from the existing Eucalyptus tree. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: I. Provide concepts for 24 feet by 24 feet corral and a 10-foot wide access to the trails for lots that can accommodate horse corrals. (This item can be conditioned). 2. Retain the large boulders that have been excavated and use them as landscape accent on any or all of the five lots. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the above improvements. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: David Barker, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Nancy Fong DRC COMMENTS DR 95-28 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT March 19, 1996 Page 2 The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Provide variable slopes of 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 4 to 1 and 5 to 1 for the manufactured slopes of each lot. 2. Provide and show graphically the application of the contour grading for any slopes. 3. Adjust the alignment of the walkway for Lot 13 to be away from the existing Eucalyptus tree. 4. Provide concepts of 24 feet by 24 feet corral and a 10-foot wide access to the trails for lots that can accommodate horse corrals. 5. Retain the large boulders that have been excavated and use them as landscape accent on any or all of the five lots. 6. The Committee approved the plotting of the house for Lot 28 as proposed by the applicant, which is parallel to the street frontage. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS March 19 , 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bull r Secretary