Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/11/05 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY NOVEMBER 5, 1996 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Rich Macias Larry McNiel Nancy Fong Alternates: William Bethel Dave Barker CONSENT CALENDAR - Please note these items will follow the regular agenda items. 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. 6:20 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-23 - HOLLYWOOD VIDEO - Review of the proposed (Steve) Activity.Center plans for an approved 6,550 square foot retail video store within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-27. 6:40 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - OILMAX - Review of proposed revisions to (Steve) the approved site plan and building elevations for an approved oil change and lube facility within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, located south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. 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. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR- A request to develop 264 (Dan) apartments, with a condominium subdivision map, on 22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential(8-14 dwelling units per acre)zone located in the Victoria Planned Community on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane. APN: 227-091-14, 15, and 227-111-12, 13. 5:40 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Steve) 89-03 (TRACT 13835) - SHEFFIELD HOMES - Consideration of a request to amend development standards pertaining to setbacks within the adopted Development Agreement for Tract 13835, a county approved 78 lot residential subdivision on 20 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast comer of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue - APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04, and 18. Related Files: Development Review 95-20 (Design Review for Tract 13835) and Minor Exception 95-06. 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 H for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 24,1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center ive, Rancho Cucamonga. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 6:20 p.m. Steve Hayes November 5, 1996 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-23 - HOLLYWOOD VIDEO - Review of the proposed Activity Center plans for an approved 6,550 square foot retail video store within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-27. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended that the Activity Center Plans be embellished to include the following elements: 1. In addition to the proposed second row of Crape Myrtle trees in planters at the same level as the existing sidewalk, an expanded sidewalk consistent with those used within other recently completed Activity Centers in the City should be provided across the Foothill Boulevard frontage. 2. Potentially adjusting the building south and west to allow for sufficient landscaping against the north and east walls of the building. 3. A decorative retaining wall at the back of the new sidewalk to separate the Activity Center from the building pad and landscape area below. In addition to these comments, the Committee also considered possible options to the video drop-off box situation and recommended that the applicant work with staff to incorporate the drop-off box into the wall of the trash enclosure or adjacent to the first parking stall west of the building on the southern facing row of parking, and designating the closest stall as "video drop-off only." CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Steve Hayes November 5, 1996 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - OIL MAX-Review of proposed revisions to the approved site plan and building elevations for an approved oil change and lube facility within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, located south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee determined that the proposed intensification of the use, going from an approved 3-bay to a proposed 6-bay facility would require reconsideration by the full Planning Commission and that a modification to the approved Conditional Use Permit should be submitted if the applicant desires to pursue the 6-bay scheme. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Dan Coleman November 5, 1996 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR - A request to develop 264 apartments, with a condominium subdivision map, on 22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)zone located in the Victoria Planned Community on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane. APN: 227-091-14, 15, and 227-111-12, 13. The Committee recommended that the applicant's architect work with staff to revise the project to address the design issues and return to Design Review Committee on November 5, 1996. 1. Architectural Style - The Committee supported the Mediterranean style subject to refinements: a. Provide window surrounds. b. Provide architectural treatment to blank wall areas such as the Bldg. 2A side elevation. c. Stairways - Study alternative designs with solid decorative walls. Areas beneath stairs may be enclosed for storage. d. Colors - Study alternative color schemes to provide color variations. Suggested that a subtle color change be used as accents on popout elements or between buildings. 2. Garages - Break-up long roof line with intersecting gables or varying roof height. Vary garage door patterns. 3. Carports- Completely redesign to match quality of apartment buildings and garages by incorporating tile roof elements and end walls. The Committee supported the concept of enclosing the ends with storage units. 4. Recreational Amenities- One of the three tot lots may be converted to open space. One possibility is to provide a smaller tot lot adjoining the pool area. 5. Landscaping- Remove and replace existing windrow with more appropriate tree species. 6. Trash Compactor - Provide at least four trash enclosure locations throughout the project for the convenience of residents. The Committee also requested floor plans. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to: 1. Provide decorative cap (i.e., stucco over) on the stairways. 2. Use heavy duty wood lattice, instead of vinyl lattice panels, at the ends of carports or enclose with solid walls. 3. Provide layered wood fascia detail, instead of flat metal, on carports to match apartments and garage structures. 4. Project will be conditioned to provide at least four trash enclosure locations throughout the site. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Dan Coleman DRC AGENDA VTT 15766-MARK TAYLOR November 5, 1996 Page 2 The Committee recommended approval subject to the following revisions: 1. Provide decorative cap (i.e., stucco over) on stairways to match patio wall cap. 2. Replace vinyl lattice on carport ends with 2"-3" metal tubing espalier. 3. Carport fascia profile and texture to match apartments. 4. Vary garage door pattern. 5. Replace wood lattice on Building 2A with 2"-3" metal tubing espalier. 6. Add window on right-hand side of first floor of Building 2B. 7. The alternative color samples were accepted. The applicant should revise the plans accordingly prior to the Planning Commission hearing. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Steve Hayes November 5, 1996 CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 89-03 (TRACT 13835) - SHEFFIELD HOMES -Consideration of a request to amend development standards pertaining to setbacks within the adopted Development Agreement for Tract 13835, a county approved 78 lot residential subdivision on 20 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue- APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04, and 18. Related Files: Development Review 95-20 (Design Review for Tract 13835) and Minor Exception 95-06. Backeround: The 20-acre site was approved for subdivision into 78 single family residential lots by the County of San Bernardino on December 19, 1988. The subdivision was then annexed to the City and a Development and Annexation Agreement was adopted relative to the development of this subdivision. The agreement essentially stipulated that the project shall be developed using the development standards for the Low Residential Development District, with the exception of certain specific development standards. The Planning Commission approved the Development Review application for this tract on January 24, 1996. In addition, Minor Exception 95-06 was granted by the City Planner on May 6, 1996. The Minor Exception included up to a 10 percent reduction in the required front yard setback on two lots and a reduction in the required rear yard setback on four of the 78 lots. Design Parameters: This County adopted subdivision contains lots that are typically 100 feet in depth. The area within the tract generally slopes from north to south at approximately 5 percent. A majority of the lots are oriented north/south,and the differences in grade are typically accounted for in the rear yard areas with a combination of retaining walls and slopes. All lots meet the minimum front and rear yard setbacks as currently plotted, as well as the minimum 15 feet of flat, useable rear yard area, with the exception of those six lots, which were granted a Minor Exception for a 10 percent reduction by the City Planner. Currently, the model home complex is completed and Phase One (Lots 25-36) is under construction. The remaining phases are pending in order to receive direction from the Design Review Committee regarding this request. Staff Comments: The purpose of tonight's meeting on this issue is for the Design Review Committee to provide the applicant with direction regarding their request to reduce the minimum and minimum average front yard setback within and only within this subdivision. Based on the comments of the Committee at this meeting, the applicant will determine whether it's feasible to formally submit an application to pursue this matter. Since this subdivision was approved under the County of San Bernardino and annexed into the City at a later date through a Development and Annexation Agreement, an amendment to the agreement would be required to be reviewed and approved formally by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is asking for input from the Design Review Committee relative to their request to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 22 to 17 feet and the minimum average setback from 25 to 22 feet (as measured from property line). The applicant is requesting this amendment in response to potential buyer complaints that the rear yard areas are not of a satisfactory size. The applicant feels that an increase in the depth of the typical rear yard area by even a few feet will help in the marketability of the project. The counter effect of the proposed increase of the rear yard depth is a decrease in the front yard setback. The proposed amendment would decrease the minimum average front yard setback by 3 feet and the minimum front yard setback by 5 feet. In most situations, it would be the Plan 4, which has a side-on garage, that would be plotted at the minimum front yard setback of 17 feet from property line. The DRC AGENDA DA 89-03 - SHEFFIELD HOMES November 5, 1996 Page 2 Development and Annexation Agreement included a condition that a minimum of 50 percent of the lots have units plotted with side-on garages. The current plan meets the conditions of the Development Agreement for setbacks, with the exception of those lots that received approval of a Minor Exception by the City Planner. In the Low Residential Development District of the Development Code, a minimum 20-foot front setback and a minimum average front yard setback of 25 feet is required (from property line). These setbacks typically apply to local residential streets with a standard 60-foot right-of-way width. However, it should be noted that the cul-de sac streets within this project only have a 50-foot right-of-way width. The effect of having a narrower right-of-way width, even with the current front yard setbacks required under the Development Agreement, allows houses across the street from each other to be plotted 6 feet closer together (94 feet of separation instead of 100 feet required by the Development Code). The proposed amendment would drop this potential separation down to 84 feet. Issues: The following issues should be considered by the Committee relative to the applicant's request: 1. Variation of front yard setbacks and the overall street scene. 2. Potential for an 84-foot front-to-front building setbacks across streets instead of the minimum 100-Foot front-to-front setback typical of the Low Residential District for areas governed by the Development Code. 3. Neighborhood compatibility with projects such as Caryn (Vintage Highlands) and Victoria, where lesser front yard setbacks are allowed. 4. House massing and movement in the design of the front elevations as seen from streets. Staff Recommendation: In preparation for the Design Review Committee meeting, staff strongly recommends that the members of the Design Review Committee visit the site prior to the Design Review Committee meeting to view Phase One construction, taking into consideration the request to generally"push"the homes forward on a majority of the lots within the remaining phases of construction. If the Committee feels that consideration of the proposed amendment is justified, then the applicant should be directed to prepare an application for an amendment to the approved Development and Annexation Agreement for formal consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council. However, if the Committee feels that the proposed amendment cannot be justified and supported, then the Committee make their concerns known and direct the applicant accordingly. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee determined that the proposed reduction of the minimum and minimum average front yard setback did not adequately mitigate the concern of the small back yards raised by potential buyers. The Committee stated that the proposal would result in creating another potentially serious problem of an even more congested appearance of the streetscape. The Committee did not recommend approval of the proposal but noted that the applicant could request that the proposal be forwarded for full Planning Commission review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS November 5, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respe fully sub ed Brad Buller Secretary