Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/04/02 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY April 2, 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. 5:00 p.m. (Brent) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15732 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-38 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 33 single family homes on 9.45 acres of land in the Community Service designation, located at the northwest comer of Base Line Road and Etiwanda avenue - APN: 0277-522-05, 07, and 08. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 95-38 and PAR 94-04. 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. 5:40 p.m. (Larry) LANDMARK DESIGNATION 96-01. LANDMARK ALTERATION 96-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-09& DESIGN REVIEW 96-03 - SANBAG- A request to landmark designate(LD 96-01) and to move(LA 96-01), an existing residence and accessory structures, (Sam and Alfreda Maloof Residence and workshop - National register Eligible), conversion of same to an Arts and Crafts Center(CUP 96-09), and construction of a new Residence (DR 96-03)on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low(VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Camelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061- 281-16. 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. (Continued from March 19, 1996.) DRC AGENDA April 2, 1996 Page 2 6:40 p.m. (Nancy) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-05 -WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO. -The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Building 12, a 10,000 square foot restaurant within the Town Center Square, in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue -APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. 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 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 21, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drj ve, Rancho Cucamonga. CONSENT CALENDAR 5 p.m. Brent LeCount April 2, 1996 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15732 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-38 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 33 single family homes on 9.45 acres of land in the Community Service designation, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda avenue - APN: 0277-522-05, 07, and 08. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 95-38 and PAR 94-04. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent LeCount The Design Review Committeeconsidered the revised project on April 2, 1996, at which time the Committee recommended approval subject to the following additional conditions: 1. Where necessary to avoid side yard setback encroachment, reduce the width of the porch along the side of the Plan 441 homes to 4 feet. This would apply only to Lots 7 and 20. The four remaining Plan 441 homes would have 5-foot wide wrapping porches except for the Plan 441 home on Lot 4 which is not recommended to have a wrapping porch. 2. Provide a Plan 268 home on Lot 10 and a Plan 441 home with wrapping porch on Lot 33. 3. Use decorative railings for all porches on all home plans. 4. For the comer lots at the intersection of"A" Street and Etiwanda Avenue (Lots 16 and 17) provide a sound attenuation wall to mitigate exterior noise levels within useable outdoor space only 5. Per Planning Commission policy,use native cobble stones(not manufactured)for wall and pilaster treatment. However, the Committee does not object to the applicant providing a sample of synthetic cobble stone for review at the Planning Commission hearing. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Larry Henderson April 2, 1996 LANDMARK DESIGNATION 96-01 LANDMARK ALTERATION 96-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-09 & DESIGN REVIEW 96-03 - SANBAG- A request to landmark designate (LD 96-01) and to move (LA 96-01), an existing residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof Residence and workshop -National register Eligible), conversion of same to an Arts and Crafts Center (CUP 96-09), and construction of a new Residence (DR 96-03) on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low(VL) zone, located at the southeast comer of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Design Parameters: This Project was presented and explored by the full Commission at a Preliminary Application Review (PAR 96-02) on February 28, 1996. The design parameters were discussed at great length with the Commission giving direction to emphasize the historic preservation elements as proposed over the usual design policies and requirements. The submitted plans reflect the previously referenced direction given to the applicant and staff. 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: None have been identified. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed,and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Although building, landscaping, and hard scape materials are not specifically detailed, the applicant's representative has indicated that the intent of the project is to relocate as many materials as possible and to match or duplicate where needed. Colored pictures and other documentation will be provided and staff will condition appropriately. 2. Plans for the decorative perimeter fencing indicate the use of metal pickets 4 inches on center within the street setback area. The Committee may want to determine whether the spacing allows for adequate visual opportunity to be considered "open view" fencing. 3. Two Community Trails are required and proposed for this area pursuant to the Trails Implementation Plan. Community Trails are located along Almond and Carnelian Streets. The Trail on Almond Street already exists. However,the existing concrete trail fence will be replaced to current City standards and also new PVC fencing along both sides of the trail. The Camelian Street frontage will be improved to the full collector road standards with the full 20-foot trail width improvements (12-foot trail and 8 feet of landscaping). The applicant plans to install decorative open view fencing around the perimeter of the site therefore, trail fencing may not be necessary on the east side of the Camelian Street Trail. This item will be considered by the Trails Committee on March 20, 1996 and staff will be able to up date the Design Review Committee at the time of the meeting. 4. Currently,the Engineering Division proposes to require a concrete sidewalk along Hidden Farm Road in order to accommodate children to and from school. However, such a walk will not connect to any existing walkway. As a compromise,the Trail Committee will consider a modified local trail design within the standard 12-foot parkway at their March 20, meeting. Such a trail would be used by the many equestrians and pedestrians in the area and would be more in keeping with the rural life style. DRC COMMENTS LD 96-01, CUP 96-09 & DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 2, 1996 Page 2 Policy Issues: None, no policy issues were identified: Staff Recommendation: Recommended approval subject to conditions to attain compliance with the "Secondary Issues"as identified. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Larry Henderson The Committee unanimously recommended approval per staffs comments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Scott Murphy April 2, 1996 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. (Continued from March 19, 1996). 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. Background: 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 aar y 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: I. 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 April 2, 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. Policy 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 Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Scott Murphy This item has been continued to the meeting of April 16, 1996,according to the request of the applicant. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Nancy Fong April 2, 1996 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-05 -WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO. -The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for Building 12, a 10,000 square foot restaurant within the Town Center Square, in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. Design Parameters: The site is part of an approved commercial center. It was formerly slated for the Olive Garden restaurant,however, they decided to withdraw from the development proposal on June 22, 1994. According to the applicant, they now have a tenant for the site, Old Country Buffet. The site is rough graded and padded. 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. Site Plan. The building orientation, pedestrian connections and parking area are consistent with the approved master plan: 2. Elevations. a. The south, north and east elevations have sufficient architectural treatment and are acceptable. b. The proposed 98-foot long continuous screen wall at the west elevation (facing Spruce Avenue) serves no purpose for most of its length and is not acceptable as an architectural treatment. The screen wall should begin at the north side of the west elevation to join with the trash enclosure area. Treat the remainder of the west elevation with a combination of architectural elements such as but not limited to pre-cast concrete columns and heavy wood trellis, columns with wainscot and recessed area with metal grill treatment, etc. 3. Signs. The applicant proposes a 30-inch letter height and a 33-foot sign length for their wall signs. According to the approved Uniform Sign Program for Town Center Square, this pad falls under the category of Pad/Restaurant Sign Type H. This category allows a maximum of 24-inch letter/sign height and a 25-foot sign length. Only the anchor tenant and major users are allowed the flexibility of increasing the sign/letter height. The applicant must reduce the sign/letter height and sign length to comply with the Sign Program. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Add a textured pedestrian walkway across the drive aisle at the south side of the 4-way stop north of the site to connect with the building. 2. Increase the depth of the landscape area at the north side of the building and add trees and shrubs massing to the area. 3. Provide shrubs massing against storefront building faces at the south,west and east elevations, and against the screen wall at the north side of the west elevation. 4. Add three trees to the east side of the south elevation. 5. Provide additional street trees to the landscaped setback area southeasterly of the building pad. DRC COMMENTS DR 96-05 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO. April 2, 1996 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Raise the height of the parapet wall to screen roof equipment and projections such as a greasehood, which is typically 6 to 7 feet high from the roof deck. The height of the proposed parapet wall as shown could only screen typical 4-foot high AC-units. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the above modification. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present : Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee continued the item to the April 16, 1996 meeting so that the applicant could revise the west elevation to address the design issues. The applicant also agreed to address all the items listed under the secondary issues and policy issues. The Committee did not approve the proposed 30-inch sign/letter height. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS April 2, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. J Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary