HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/12/16 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE,MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY DECEMBER 16, 1997 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Bill Bethel Rich Macias Nancy Fong
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel
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.
7:00 p.m.
(Steve) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-42 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S)-A request
to construct a 5,500 square foot restaurant on a 1.1 acre parcel within the Foothill
Marketplace Shopping Center within the Community Commercial District of the Foothill.
Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard and immediately,east of
Interstate 15 -APN: 229-031-40.
7:40 p.m.
(Steve) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-36-KEISKER AND WIGGLE ARCHITECTS -A request
to construct a 7,581 square foot retail pad building on a portion of a 3.6 acre parcel
within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, in the Community Commercial
District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the east side of Rochester
Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 227-151-39.
8:10 p.m.
(Steve) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to construct a public storage facility consisting 70f
5 buildings totaling 76,650 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial
Distri0 Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of
Arrow RW4 between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82.
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.
8:50 p.m.
(Miki) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/97-35 - NORTH
TOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to construct single family
residences on 13 infill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
within the North Town area along Center Avenue, 24th SCYeet, and 25th Street, east
of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-102-08, 209-102-15, 209-102-38, 209-103-26, 209-
103-25, 209-103-24, 209.104-24, 209-101-05, 209-122-15, 209-123-09, 209-101-04.
Related Files: Development Review 95-03 and Tree Removal Permit 97-23.
DRC AGENDA
December 16, 1997
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.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Steve Hayes December 16, 1997
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-42 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) - A request to construct a
5,500 square foot restaurant on a 1.1 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center within
the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill
Boulevard and immediately east of Interstate 15 -APN: 229-031-40.
Design Parameters:
The project is proposed on a rough graded and hydro seeded pad within the Foothill Marketplace
Shopping Center, immediately west of the Claim Jumper Restaurant and north of Sport Chalet and
Circuit City. Immediately to the west is the recently completed Foothill Boulevard offramp for the
Interstate 15 Freeway. To the south is an existing field of parking for the Sport Chalet. The site slopes
only minimally and drains to adjacent parking areas.
With the original Master Plan for the shopping center, a retail pad building of approximately 12,210
square feet was shown on this parcel. The proposed building plotting and parking configuration are
essentially identical to that of the proposed 5,500 square foot restaurant with one exception; in the area
where the additional building area was proposed in a southerly direction, a proposed expansion of the
parking area is currently proposed. The previous layout has been attached an shown as Exhibit "A."
Staff feels that the proposed changes in the building shape and in the parking expansion layout are
acceptable.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. The exterior architectural treatment of the building should be applied consistently to that of other
pad buildings in the shopping center, both in terms of material use and detailing. Generally, staff
feels that this is being accomplished on the conceptual building elevations, but would
recommend that the accent tile base treatment be used on the building more extensively and that
blank wall areas be treated architecturally or trellises with vines trained to grow up the walls of
the building be added.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The location and orientation of the trash enclosure appears awkward and should be revised.
Landscaping should be provided between the trash enclosure wall and any adjacent parking
space.
2. A stronger and more direct pedestrian connection between the restaurant and the restaurant to
the east should be provided. To achieve this, staff would recommend that the sidewalk
connection be continued to the southeast corner of the parcel so that pedestrians can cross the
drive aisle at the four-way controlled intersection east of the site.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 97-42 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S)
December 16, 1997
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. The final design of the proposed awnings, outdoor tables and umbrellas should be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Division. Awnings and umbrellas should be of a solid color and not
have any advertisements.
2. Special paving consistent with that already used in the shopping.center should be provided in
key pedestrian areas and in the handicapped parking stalls.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the
Planning Commission with conditions.
Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Master Shopping Center Site Plan
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission
subject to the following conditions:
1. Metal trellises, identical to those used on other buildings in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping
Center, such as Hollywood Video, should be used on the building in blank wall areas, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner. Vines should be trained to grow up the trellises.
2. The wainscot treatment should be used on all four sides of the building, to the satisfaction of the
City Planner.
3. The revised layout of the sidewalk, which now connects directly to the vehicular crossing at the
southeast corner of the site, was acceptable to the Committee. The continuation of the
pedestrian walkways to Claim Jumper and Wal-Mart should be provided as recommended by
staff, prior to occupancy of this restaurant.
4. The trash enclosure layout was deemed acceptable by the Committee. However, a planter area
should be provided between the enclosure and the first adjacent parking space.
5. An overhead trellis should be constructed over the outdoor eating area, instead of the individual
umbrellas proposed for each table.
6. No more than one sign should be shown per building elevation and a maximum of three signs
will be allowed for the business, consistent with the provisions in the Foothill Marketplace
Uniform Sign Program,
7. The above-referenced policy issues will be recommended as conditions of approval for the
project.
� VN ro n A•I
Gyn
HB
T
5m•r C,r Al ll
CtIClnl Pn
I
SAe
Ff ff I a rT A
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes December 16, 1997
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-36 - KEISKER AND WIGGLE ARCHITECTS -A request to construct a
7,581 square foot retail pad building on a portion of a 3.6 acre parcel within the Terra Vista Promenade
Shopping Center, in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located
on the east side of Rochester Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-151-39.
Design Parameters:
The site is located on a rough graded pad within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center,
immediately south of and adjacent to the vehicular access to the center off Rochester Avenue. To the
north is the Home Depot home improvement center and to the south is the Old Spaghetti Factory, which
is currently under construction. East of the building is an existing trail and sidewalk along Rochester
Avenue and to the west is the field of parking for Home Depot. A fairly significant grade difference (4
to 5 feet) occurs between the pad and Rochester Avenue. Generally though, the site slopes gently from
north to south.
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. As currently proposed, the architectural style of the building is not consistent with the Design
Guidelines established for pad buildings within the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center or
other existing pad buildings within the center (i.e. ARCO and Carl's Jr.). The architectural
concept should be revised to be more consistent with the Design Guidelines and existing
buildings by using like exterior materials and colors as other existing pad buildings, modifying
the design of the tower element and incorporating freestanding trellises with precast columns in
addition to or in lieu of the proposed metal awnings around the perimeter of the building.
2. With the original approval of the Master Plan for the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center,
no building(s) were shown in the area where the current project is proposed; two similarly sized
building were shown flanking both sides of the on-site Activity Center extension near the corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (see Exhibit "A"). However, with the processing
of the Old Spaghetti Factory project, it was determined that one building designed in a sensitive
manner to the Activity Center would be acceptable. At that time, the Master Plan was revised
to include the building in question and parking between the two buildings modified accordingly.
Since the two buildings total approximately the same amount of area as the original Master Plan
proposal and the parking area layout is technically acceptable, staff does not have any concerns
with the Site Plan.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Additional landscaped areas (including trees) should be provided wherever possible. Areas of
special concern include areas adjacent to the south and west sides of the building and in the field
of parking south of the building.
2. Large blank wall areas on the side and rear elevations of the building should receive additional
architectural embellishment.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-36 - KEISKER & WIGGLE ARCHITECTS
December 16, 1997
Page 2
3. A pedestrian connection should be provided between the site and the sidewalk along Rochester
Avenue.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Screening of all transformers and other above ground mechanical equipment should be provided
to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
2. The proposed metal awnings shall be of a single color and not include any advertisements.
3. Special paving consistent with that used throughout the shopping center should be provided in
key pedestrian areas and in locations such as the vehicular access to the parcel, handicapped
parking stalls, etc.
4. Any retaining walls should be composed of a decorative block material or receive a decorative
exterior treatment.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend that the architectural concept for the
buildings be revised per the above comments and return to the Design Review Committee for further
review.
Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Master Shopping Center Site Plan
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
Revised architectural elevations not previously reviewed by staff or the Design Review Committee were
presented for consideration at the meeting. The Design Review Committee did not recommend
approval of the project or the revised building elevations as presented. The Committee directed the
applicant to work with staff to revise the plans and return to the Committee once revised to the
satisfaction of staff. The following items were recommended to be addressed by the Committee:
1. The tower element should be redesigned to be consistent with the Terra Vista Promenade
Design Guidelines and other existing pad buildings within the shopping center.
2. All wood trellises on the building should receive support columns. Precast concrete columns
consistent with those already used in the center were recommended, but the Committee noted
that they might possibly consider thick wood support columns as a second option.
3. Blank wall areas on the north and east elevations should receive additional architectural
treatment. It was suggested that the applicant consider the treatment used to resolve this
concern at the ARCO service station in this shopping center.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-36 - KEISKER & WIGGLE ARCHITECTS
December 16, 1997
Page 3
4. A pedestrian connection to the sidewalk trail along Rochester Avenue should be provided by
extending the walkway on the north side of the building easterly to meet the existing sidewalk,
thereby minimizing slope and grading issues.
5. Additional landscaping, including trees in pots, should be provided on the south side of the
building and in the field of parking south of the building. If the trellis is pursued on the west side
of the building, then the request for trees can be eliminated, but shrubs and vines trained to grow
up the column supports should be provided.
6. The Committee supported the redesign of the parking area south of the building, which
eliminated angled parking.
7. All policy issues should be addressed or will become recommended conditions of approval for
the project.
'1 5�7 �iiy � i.� i t � • Z O
IL S
Z 4 F�-' ii°t i'-;. �!a. ._e;cl t�:: { S•'Sc
I
I
_ __ __ — _ —}� N3AY b3 V53H5 0 _ — _ _ _ __ _ �..—
' I3
o__ � _ - _ • ate � -,",,= �I•°'' �I
�.
H J
No
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:10 p.m. Steve Hayes December 16, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH
ASSOCIATES -A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 76,650
square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street -
APN: 209-491-82.
Design Parameters:
The project site is bounded by office and light industrial development to the north and south, a fast-food
restaurant under construction to the east and vacant land to the west. To the south, the buildings
typically abut the shared property lines and walls have been constructed on other portions of the shared
property lines. The proposed driveway access to the site will be from a shared access with the fast food
restaurant on the east side of the property. An existing drive approach on Arrow Route, at
approximately the east/west midpoint of the parcel, is proposed to be removed with this project. No
significant vegetation and no structures exist on the property. The site slopes from north to south at
approximately 2 percent.
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. Staff is concerned with how the architectural theme of the proposed project fits in with the
generally office/light industrial flavor of the surrounding area. Within the immediate area, a
variety of architectural themes exist, with the most prominent style of building being composed
of tilt-up concrete as the primary material and flat roofs with parapet walls to screen roof
equipment. The proposed buildings consist primarily of a smooth stucco or block material with
split face block applied as an accent treatment. The office building has a tower element and
sloped standing seam metal roof. In order to provide a greater degree of compatibility with
buildings in the area, the architecture should be revised to have tilt-up concrete or a smooth
plaster over block finish with joints between blocks smoothed over as the primary building
material and the standing seam metal roof eliminated in favor of flat roofs with a parapet screen
W211 and upgraded cornice treatment.
2. In addition to the concern with the compatibility of the architectural theme, staff is also concerned
with the minimal architectural variety presented along the street frontage. Arrow Route is a
Special Boulevard that warrants greater attention to architectural design. As currently proposed,
of Building A, the primary building visible from Arrow Route, is 410 feet long and linear in nature.
Only three minor 5-foot deep recesses and 15 to 20 feet in width occur to break up the vertical
building plane, which again consists primarily of a stucco or smooth block material and squared
off, minimally protruding arches of split face block as an accent material. Staff would recommend
that a greater amount of variety be provided in the horizontal and vertical building planes and that
the use of accent materials occur in a more substantial manner. An example would be to
introduce fluted block as an accent material for areas such as the roof cornice and/or as the
base material for the split face arches.
3. In conjunction with the application, the applicant has submitted a Master Plan for the possible
future expansion of the public storage facility on the parcel to the west. Staff feels that the
general overall layout of the Master Plan and how it integrates with the proposed project are
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
December 16, 1997
Page 2
acceptable. However, staff is concerned that, if the proposed expansion does not occur, then
the publicly exposed architectural elevations for the west side of the project (i.e. the west
elevations of Buildings A and D) will not have adequate architectural embellishment or a
landscape buffer along the project edge. Therefore, staff would recommend the following
upgrades along the western property line:
a. The west elevations of Building A and D should be upgraded architecturally to a level
consistent with the elevations along Arrow Route, per the recommendations in Comment
no. 1 above; and
b. Buildings A and D should be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the west property line to
allow for landscaping (including trees) along the western edge of the project to soften the
mass of the buildings.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The appearance of the street scape along Arrow Route will be critical in establishing an
appealing public view of the project. Besides the above-referenced architectural modifications,
staff would recommend that elements such as undulating landscaped berms, dense landscaping
with specimen size trees, special landscape features such as alluvial rock should be used to five
visual varieties and interest to the street scape area.
2. The landscaped area on the north and east sides of Building E should be widened to
accommodate mature trees. In addition, a landscape planter with trees should be introduced on
the south side of the office building to frame the main entrance in to the storage project.
3. The proposed chain link fence over the drainage easement at the southeast and southwest
corners of the site should be replaced with a decorative tubular steel or wrought iron fence.
4. The proposed gate at the entrance to the storage area should be moved west to ensure the main
driveway for Cowboy Burgers in not obstructed.
5. An alternative, more aesthetically pleasing method of drainage should be provided along the
north side of Building A. A concrete channel adjacent to the building would eliminate the
possibility of planting any vines or shrubs at the base of the building.
6. It appears that the existing walls along the south property line will be limited in height on the
north or project side given the proposed grade difference between the property and adjacent
properties to the south. Therefore, a new decorative block wall or wrought iron fence
architecturally compatible with the project should be constructed along the south property line.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. The trash enclosures should be designed to be architecturally compatible with the buildings.
2. The proposed signage should be modified to consist of individual channel letters and not contain
any extra information, such as telephone numbers, beyond the business name.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
December 16, 1997
Page 3
3. Special paving, similar to that used at the fast food restaurant to the east, should be used near
the main vehicular entrance to the project.
4. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment should be completely screened from public
view.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans per the
staff comments. Once the plans are revised to the satisfaction of staff, then the item should be
scheduled for further review of the Design Review Committee.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The
Committee directed the applicant to work with staff and revise the development plans addressing the
concerns of the Committee. Issues which should be addressed are as follows:
1. As currently designed, the Committee felt that the tower design was not in proportion with the
- building. The Committee suggested that the tower either be reduced in height or the massing
increased and/or the height of the office area increased in order to address this concern.
2. The Committee recommended that the repetitive and redundant pattern of the exposed
aggregate finish on the north side of Building A be mitigated by utilizing an additional pattern in
the upper half of the building. In addition, the Committee expressed concern with the minimal
3-inch depth of the accent treatment in that it would not produce a sufficient shadow line or give
the depth necessary to provide variety to the long stretches of vertical building plane.
3. The end panels on the west side of Building D and the east side of Building E should be
architecturally treated, consistent with the recommended treatment for the building facing Arrow
Highway. With this treatment, it would not be required to move Building D 5 feet easterly to
produce the landscape setback requested in the initial staff comments;.
4. The cornice treatment should be modified in design from the corporate painted color banding
over the smooth block finish. A fluted block cornice treatment that also extended into the
recessed and return areas of the cornice was suggested by the Committee.
5. The signs should be designed per the recommendations of staff, specifically with the telephone
numbers eliminated from the signs. The Committee suggested, as an option to provide a
recessed area on the tower for a sign and that the corporate color banding could be introduced
around the perimeter of the recessed sign area.
6. The Committee agreed to allow the developer to work with the adjacent property owners to the
south to place open decorative fencing on top of existing block walls as a solution to the
wall/fence situation along the south property line.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
December 16, 1997
Page 4
7. The Committee agreed with the recommendations of the Grading Committee requiring undulating
berming and shrub hedges along the north side of Building A to screen the concrete drainage
swale from view.
8. The Committee directed the applicant to address all other Secondary and Policy Design issues
not previously referenced in the above comments.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
8:50 p.m. Miki Bratt December 16, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-35- NORTH TOWN HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to construct single family residences on 13 infill lots in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the North Town area along Center Avenue, 24th
Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-102-08, 209-102-15, 209-102-38, 209-
103-26, 209-103-25, 209-103-24, 209-104-24, 209-101-05, 209-122-15, 209-123-09, 209-101-04.
Related Files: Development Review 95-03 and Tree Removal Permit 97-23.
Attachment: Design Review Comments dated February 14, and 28, 1995
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Miki Bratt
The Committee recommended approval.
1
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:40 p.m. Dan Coleman February 14, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-03 - NORTHTOWN
HOUSPVG DEVELOPMENT CORP.- A request to construct single family residences on 12 infill
lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along
24th Street, 25th Street, and Humboldt Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue. - APN: 209-102-19, 31;
209-104_-16, 18;209-111-04, 15, 16;209-112-26; 209-123-25. Related File: Pre-Application Review
94-05
Background:
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Pre-Application Review workshop on
January 11, 1995. The Commission praised the craftsman style architecture, front porches, and use
of detached garages. Concerns expressed by the Commission included asphalt composition roof
material, predominant stucco materials on side and rear elevations, and chimney siding materials.
Comments were made that the craftsman style should wrap horizontal siding around all sides and
use masonry chimneys. See attached minutes.
Design Parameters:
The Northtown Housing Development Corp. (NHDC) goal for this project is to provide quality
affordable single family detached homes that will positively influence the community and inspire
pride of ownership. The lots are scattered throughout the Northtown area and represent the first
phase of NHDC's efforts to acquire and build affordable single family detached housing. The
proposed craftsman architecture is based upon the few remaining fine examples of this style in the
neighborhood. Much of the housing stock within the Northtown area is pre-1950; unfortunately,
many of these older craftsman homes have been modified with rather insensitive stucco-over
treatments and aluminum frame windows.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
tifaior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. Composition versus tile roof material. The Planning Commission has a policy requiring tile
roofs on new residences. However, they have approved the use of composition roofing on
several other projects, including one Design Award winner, where appropriate for the
architectural style. Staff supports the use of composition shingle material as consistent with
the craftsman architecture.
2. Stucco versus horizontal siding on side and rear elevations. Commission policy is "if the front
is sided, then siding should be used on all elevations". On Plans I & 2 the siding is used as an
accent material on only 1/2 of the front elevation. On Plan 3 the entire front of the house is
sided, and is wrapped around the sides to logical stopping points. Staff supports the use of
stucco on the sides and rear elevations to maintain affordability and reduce long term
maintenance costs.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 95-03 - NORTHTO%VN
February 14, 1995
Page 2
1. A undetermined number of existing trees must be removed; however, consistent with
Commission policy existing healthy trees are being preserved whenever possible. A Tree
Removal Permit must be considered by the Planning Commission concurrently with the
Development Review application.
2. Chimney materials (siding versus masonry) - Consistent with Commission policy, the project
features chimney stacks using the same accent materials used on house(i.e., horizontal siding).
3. Property line walls/fencing should be built to provide private yard areas. Return walls/fencing
and comer side walls/fencing should be decorative and compatible with architecture. None
are shown on the plans.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. Manufactured stone versus real river rock veneer. Commission policy requires that river rock
veneer be constructed using native rock. Other types of stone veneers may be manufactured
products. (This could be conditioned).
2. All corner lots should have upgraded comer side elevations, such as horizontal siding and
windows with mullions and wood trim surrounds. (This could be conditioned).
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Brad Buller
Staff Planner: Dan Coleman
The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to return to DRC prior to Planning Commission, with alternative elevation with all
stucco scheme (no horizontal siding). Provide cost differential between siding versus stucco
as a percentage of total house construction cost. Also provide photo analysis of houses on
adjoining lots.
2. Provide property line and return fencing or walls. Applicant to return to DRC prior to
Planning Commission with a fencing plan. Provide analysis of existing fence/wall materials
on adjoining lots.
3. Chimney materials may be stucco or siding.
4. Construct sidewalk connections from house front door to public sidewalk, and from house
back door to driveway.
5. Use wood trim surrounds on all windows.
6. Composition shingle roof material was acceptable as consistent with architectural style and
context.
7. The proposed tree removals are acceptable.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
1
5:40 p.m. Dan Coleman February 28, 1995
ENVTRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-03 -NORTHTO�Wi HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to construct single family residences on 12 infill lots in the Low
Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)within the Northtown area along 24th Street, 25th Street, and
Humboldt Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue. - APN: 209-102-19, 31; 209-104-16, 18; 209-111-04, 15, 16;
209-112-26;209-123-25. Related File: Pre-Application Review 94-05 (Continued from February 14, 1995).
Desi-n Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Dan Coleman
I. The alternative with the all stucco scheme was not recommended for approval.
2. The fencing plan, as presented by the architect, was recommended for approval.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
December 16, 1997
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary