HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/02/03 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 3, 1998 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.
(Cecilia) DESIGN REVIEW 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY - The design
review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously approved
tentative subdivision map consisting of 37 single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the
Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located south of Lemon,
and east of Archibald Avenues -APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:40 p.m.
(Steve) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 -
PANATTONI-PHELAN - A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial
building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02-, 03 and 06.
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.
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.
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 January 29, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 Cecilia Gallardo February 3, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW 97-37 -ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY - The design review of the detailed
site plan and building elevations for a previously approved tentative subdivision map consisting of 37
single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) located south of Lemon and east of Archibald Avenues -APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49.
Background:
The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project at their January 20, 1998
meeting, and recommended that the project return as a full item for further review by the Committee.
The applicant submitted a letter to staff and the Committee stating how they would incorporate staffs
comments into revised plans. Staff has attached the Design Review Committee Action Comments from
that meeting and the letter submitted by the applicant.
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:
Staff reviewed the revised plans and found that the changes they made are minimal and do not
adequately incorporate the recommendations made by the Committee. Examples of minor changes
are: stucco surrounds provided for windows, added gable or hip roof pop-outs to the rear elevations
of Plans 1 (4 lots) and 3 (5 lots), added an 18-inch gable roof pop-out element for Plan 1. The following
are staff suggestions to address the major and secondary design issues listed in the January 20, 1998
Design Review Committee Action Comments:
1. Provide greater variation in the roof line on the side and rear of all plans with the following:
a. The gabled or hip roof pop-out window should have significant depth.
b. Provide cupola or dormer to left side elevation of Plan 1.
C. Add exposed rafter tails to the projecting wall dormer on the rear elevation of Plan 2C. This
detailing is similar to the wood detailing on the front elevation.
d. Add gabled roof pop-out windows to all Plans 1 and 3, and not just those lots exposed to
public view.
e. Add a matching dormer over the rear elevation doors on Plan 3.
2. Additional architectural enhancements are needed to provide greater variation in the building
plane on the side and rear elevations. The following architectural details should be incorporated
into the project design:
a. Add multi-pane windows to the side and rear elevations of all plans to match the front
elevation windows.
b. Pop-out kitchen window on Plan 2 or provide garden window.
C. Add pot shelves to the rear elevation of Plan 1.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-37 -ALPHA SERVICE &TECHNOLOGY
February 3, 1998
Page 2
d. Provide window shutters to side elevations on Plan 2A. On Plan 2B and C add decorative
window trim to match front elevation.
e. Provide window shutters to side elevations on Plan 3C. On Plan 3A and B add decorative
window trim to match front elevations.
3. The applicant had agreed to provide enhanced detailing for houses on corner lots. This
enhancement is not present on the revised plans. Staff recommends that additional architectural
details be added to the homes that sit on comer lots.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide accent materials on chimneys such as stone or decorative stucco treatment. Revised
plans show no added accent trim or materials.
2. Provide a variety of garage door treatments with varying window options. Plans show only three
garage door options.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications
as recommended above.
Attachment: Design Review Comments dated January 20, 1998
Letter from Applicant
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo
At the meeting, the applicant provided drawings that show the added architectural details recommended
by staff.
The Design Review Committee stated that the added architectural details addressed their concerns and
therefore, recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Cecilia Gallardo January 20, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW 97-37 -ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY - The design review of the detailed
site plan and building elevations for a previously approved tentative subdivision map consisting of 37
single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) located south of Lemon Avenue and east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and
49.
Design Parameters:
The project site is bounded by single family residential development on the north, east, and south sides,
and on the west side by Archibald Avenue. There are three existing single-family homes adjacent to
the project site on the northwest corner. Two palm trees and an oak tree on the site will be preserved.
A previously approved design for this tract was granted by the Planning Commission on March 28,
1990.
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
the project:
1. Architecture: The applicant is proposing three basic floor plans, each with three model
elevations. The elevations as submitted denote stucco trim around the side and rear elevations
only where the window treatments will be visible to public view. However, the applicant has
stated that they will provide stucco trim around all windows.
Staff reviewed the proposed plans against the previously approved designs and found that the
proposed designs under this new application lack the architectural details and treatment
displayed in the previously approved design for the tract. The previous design review approval
included elevations with significantly more architectural details, including greater variation in roof
lines, and enhanced 360 degree architectural treatment. The previously approved home designs
displayed side and rear facades with balconies, roof dormers, recessed areas and pop-out areas,
wood frames around side and rear doors, multi-pane windows, and window mullions. The
following treatments are recommended to improve the overall designs:
a. The side and rear elevations do not exhibit sufficient front elevation details to satisfy 360
architecture policy. Additional upgrading of the side and rear elevations of all plans should
be discussed and provided to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee.
b. Pop-outs or variations in the building plane on side and rear elevations. Additional
architectural embellishments, such as additional window shutters, pot shelves, multi-pane
windows, fake attic vents with wood trim, cornices, projecting wall dormers, cupolas, etc.,
should be used to help in providing a complete 360 degree architectural treatment on all
elevations.
C. Vary roof designs along the rear elevations of Plan 2 and Plan 3. The rear elevations of
these two plans appear identical. These plans back on to public viewing areas along
Archibald Avenue and Lemon Avenue. Varying the roof systems to a greater extent will
provide a greater variety of roof lines exposed to public view. Cupolas, roof dormers, and
projecting wall dormers could be added to enhance the visual character of the rear facing
homes along Archibald and Lemon Avenues.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY
January 20, 1998
Page 2
d. Plan 3 has a side-on garage with a rear garage wall that could be enhanced by adding a
multi-pane window, dormer, etc.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1: Accent base treatments used on front elevations, such as rock, should be wrapped around on
the garage side elevations to the point where it is anticipated the return wall will be constructed.
2. Continue garage roof along the side of the house in Plan 1 and Plan 2.
3. Flip Lots 10 and 19 to create larger front yard areas.
4. Provide extra deep corner side setbacks for two-story houses on corner lots.
5. One story massing is preferred on corner side yards. Previously approved home design included
a single-story plan with loft element and massing appeared single-story.
6. Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots. Lots 19 and 20, and 33 and
34 show the same plans side by side.
7. Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on house, such as stone.
8. Provide a variety of garage door treatments with varying window options.
9. Provide return walls between houses.
10. Return walls and corner side walls to be decorative and compatible with the architectural style
of the homes.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Provide decorative perimeter fencing at tract edges and along street. This was a condition of
tract approval agreed to by the applicant.
2. Retaining walls exposed to public view to be decorative masonry.
3. Provide minimum 5 foot setback between fencing on corner side yards and sidewalk.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications
as recommended above.
Attachments
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY
January 20, 1998
Page 3
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo
The applicant agreed to address all the major, secondary, and policy issues outlined by staff. The
Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to incorporate the comments into revised plans, and
return to Design Review.
I L
7Z
Project: n 97-37
ClTY OF RA6�CH e UCAMONGA Title ZA 77OjY
Date:
iiii �I
II
v
s�Yl ■ �
r�jay,•`::,� - ,�� �T� -��. - v�
•I • •
C
I
1
1111111 II it
M� m Tent. Tact 74459
CHAW-,O, INC,
.Illtll��l�
~`
... some :t
loose
some
ANNE
ILI I LIM- 0
a.
Illllullr_ --- =
u■■
mum
III�III II!'
I U II Olul�
�•.- � � iii l as
aoaal,
. . �- Hill
oil
an
.;�
goo■ .11 of
oft
I� � ! �1 11i ���I �•I I f�liiii l ; .. ul, lil���� �iil � ������.� �I �'� I I,�
•I (n
—ti
O IiIIII
ED
El
l
.---------- �- i •.
III(
I
Tent. Tract 14459
::..
.�,. . ;, L.A. CHANCO, INC.
•� ...
1.: 22532 C • 3+rwY M yyl. x270 D� 8 /(77 � /
i
�swim
w.
ut....ttuWl j)s.
. r •
v�'6�r- L;1�� � 4�1 - •�'Na�
�
�� I
s
t • � I �•, ut�t�l�7mbo :0 '
iI - ,qtr A�.tit,• �
J �ter./—y.�o.:r'> �♦'�:®r'_►�
nn
eggs
long _ .■
ig I, - �yi• � p
Jill!III III Jill, 11111111111111111111111 111111111 11111 1 1 !ill 1I!!jI
I
IIII� _
MINE
an
IRS
a gal
•
•� � sue_:: is.. i�.•!!ea.
-
pII����mm��
u�:wau�lll IIIII�II� IAWII — ..111
_ III o
• •■■t
....:
MIN a
..�Illllgl
i .
�hN-2�7-1998 1b11 C818) 912-7245
P.02
ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY, INC.
� A 1 8645 E. GAL Avafua, SURc 205, Cllr OF IN n CALIFORNIA 9 1 748
TELEPHONE: (B 18) 654-$5G I FACSIMILE: (8 1 6) 9 1 2-7045
January 20, 1998
Ms. Cecilia Gallardo R E C E l V E Q
Page 1
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga JAN 2 0 1990
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807 Cily of Rancho Cuczmonga
Rancho Cucamonga Californ a 9]729 Fanning Civision
Subject: Design Review n 97-37, Response to Planning Design Rn,iew Committee comments.
Dear .
Cealfz:
Below are the responses to the commcats from the Design Review Committee.
1. Architecttn-yl: ...
a. '-Fhe side and rear elevations do not exhibit suer cient front cleration details to
Commft-nit
satisfy 360 architectural policy. Additional upgrading of the side and re
elevations of all plans should be d scussed to the satisfaction of the Design Review
Response:
The Developer will have the Architect add these distinctive types of elements to
the individual plans.
b. "Pop-outs or variations in the building plane on side and rear elevations.
nuwtivrani arr:wtac'txal embellishments such as additional window shutters, pot
shelves, multi-pane windows, fake attic vents with wood trim, cornices projecting
wall dormers, cupolas, etc., should be used to help in providing a complete 360
degree architectural treatment on all elevations."
Response:
The 10.-request seems to be very similar to request "a.". The developer will have
the Architect add these distinctive types of elements to the individual plans.
j.;N-20-1998 16:11 (816) 912-7045
Page 2
C. "Vary roofdesigns along the rear elevations of plan 2 and plan 3. The rear
elevations of these two plans appear identical. These plans back on to public
viewing areas along Archibald Avenue and Lemon Avenue. Varying the roof
systems to a greater extent will provide a greater variety of roof lines exposed to
public view. Cupolas, roof dormers, and projecting wall dormers could be added to
enhance the visual character of the rear facing homes along Archibald and Lemon
Avenues."
Response:
The developer will have the Architect add these types of elenems to the individual
plans, as well as, the landscape plan has also addressed the issue of view corridors
along Archibald Avenue.
d. Pan 3 has side on garage with a rear garage
" wall that could be enhance by adding
a mufti-pane window, do=' e c,
Response:
Although a window in the rear garage wall would add some architectural detailing,
they, in some, if not most homes where this occurs, have a tendency to look
unsightly, due to "garage clutter" that can be seen through the window. We would
prefer to address this issue with architectural detai!ing, such as fake window with
stucco covered foam trim, or as shown on the s^e plan have the return wall for
yard fencing start at no more than Eye to six feet E-om the front corner of the
garage. This, with a column veneer return from the front towards the rear and/or a
change in the roof line would seem to be a better solution to the situation.
Secondary Issues:
1 "Accent base treatments used on front elevations, such a rocl, should be wrapped
on the garage side clevatioos to the point where it is anticipated the return wall will
be constructed."
?.a4
Page
Response:
We agree with this, however, to unilaterally apply all "Accent base trezmxrns" "to
the point where it is anticipated the return wall will be constructed"may not be the
best solution for all elevations. We would suggest that a logical stoppmg point
should be used, such as, a roof line above or some offset in the wall in question,
or, if at that area a coltunn detailing is being used such as the front of a garage or
porch, then a logical stopping point on the side elevation would be the size of the
cohimt>, such as, 18" or 24". Landscaping w ll also help to address some of the
areas of concern.
2. "Continue garage roof along the side of the house in plan 1 and Plan
Response:
We agree, however, the roof should have logcal stooping points such as five to six
feet from the front of the garage towards the rear, or in some cases, the point of
the intersecting return wall.
3. "Flip lots 10 and 19 to create larger front yard areas."
Response:
Lot 10, this is a Plan Type 1, the design matches the right of way, in that it steps
back towards the front porch. We have moved this home towards the rear of the
lot an additional 3' for a total of 34' of from yard setback, however, this plan could
be flipped if needed. We would prefer to pot flip plan types if possible, as the
utility plans have been completed by eaginee:in&
Lot 19, this lot has been re-plotted from a plan type two, to a three plan, this
should solve this problerrl
ij!o) :!c r'd47 P.05
Pzee 4
4. "Provide extra deep comer side setbacks for nvo-story houses on corner lots."
Response:
We have a total of four comer lots, (1, 12, 15 & 31) due to the finished elevation
after gradin-2 three of the lots will have, an elevated screen wall with an extra five
feet of landscaping, as well as, from one to eight feet of additional side yard
setback. The remaining lot is located on a"knuckle" pordon of the proposed
street, and is very open, with no opposite comer lot, this lot, also has an additional
three feet of side yard setback.
Lot 1, this lot has an 18's de yard setback, eigbt feet more that the required 10'
side yard setback. In addition, this lot Kill have an elevated screen wall with an
extra five feet of landscaping. Tnis is due to the fnished elevation after grading.
Lot 12, this lot has a 13' side yard setback, three feet more that the required 10'
side yard setback. Lo addition, this lot will have an elevated screen uall with an
C.x= hve feet of landsrzping. This is due to the finished elevation after grading.
Lot 15, this lot has an 11' side yard s>back, ore foot more than the required 10'
side yard setback. In addition, this lot will have an elevated screen wa1 with Five
foot of extra landscaping. This is due to the nnished elevation after grading.
Lot 31, this lot is located on a "Knuckle" portion of the proposed meet, and is
v--r-; opeq with no opposite corm lot, in addion, this lot has a 13' foot side yard
setback, three feet more than rite required 10' side yard setback.
J.riV-20-177G lo:.IG 1515) 512-7045 P.06
-
Page
5. "One story massing is preferred on corner side cards. Previously approved home
design included a single-story plan with loft Jemeni and massing appeared single-
story."
Response:
This project, contains only four comer lots, three of which (lots 1; 12 & 15) are
located along the existing street, (London Avenue) with the other, (lot 31)located
at the intersecting comer of Via Esperan7a and Caledon Place (these are proposed
new streets.)Due to limited number of corner lots and the fact that the two
projects adjoining the proposed development (the single family homes to the east
and the condominiums to the south) do not have this type of"single-story
massing", and,the fact that we have reduced the over all `massing"of the project
by approximately 15% to 20% from the "previously approved"home designs, as
well as the fact that we have incrmsed the side yard setback on these corns, lots
from, one to eight feet. We think that the proposed home desi�ms are very
compatible with the surrounding developments. Also, single story home designs
would require more lot coverage.
6. "Avoid ide Ttical or similar elevation schr_aes plotted on adjacent lots. Lots 19 and
20 and 34 show the same plans side by side."
Response:
We have re-plotted the lots in questioa, to eliminate this problem, and, have
addressed this situation with architecture (we are providing, in addition to three
plan types with three elevations each, we also will be providing six different color
schemes.)
7. "Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on house, such as stone."
Response:
Our solution, would be to add additional "accent trim" to the chimney stacks. This
has worked well in this and other communities and would be compatible with the
surrounding developments.
Page 5
g. 'Provide a variety of garage door 4 eatments w ith varying window options."
Response:
We will be using a metal roll back garage door with a factory installed white finish.
This type of door provides option.; with regard to it's look using varying window
types. We would agree to include"varying window options" as a standard feature.
(Typically, we offer windows in a garage door as an option.)
9. 'Provide return walls between houses."
Response:
We have included tlLSe on our fence plan, and are proposing to use a stucco
covered masonry wall, with a wooden gate on one side of each home.
7 Q. -R-- m walls and comer side walls to be decorative and compatible with the
architectural style of the homes."
Response:
We are proposing to use slump-stone type masonry walls to match the proposed
slump-stone vralls along Lemon Avenue.
Policy Issues: ...
]. `Provide decorative perimeter fencing at tract edges and along street. This was a
condition of tract approval agreed to by the applicant."
Response:
We are proposing to use slump-stone masonry wall with a stucco color coat on the
street side with stone veneer cov=ad pilasters at each property line and the natural
slump-stone on the homeowner's side, this is proposed for the wall along
Archibald Avenue and is intended to match the existing property line wall to the
south. The wall along Lemon Avenue is proposed to be constructed using slump-
stone with slump-stone pilasters at each property line. This is intended to match
the existing property line wall along the development to the east.
j AN-20rtsse io:t3 (eta) 512-7245 F..�
Page 7
2. "Retaining walls exposed to publi-c view to be decorative masonry."
Response:
We are proposing to use a "slump-stone"type, masonry wall at these locations,
similar to the material that will be used for property line wall along Lemon
Avenue.
3. "Provide minimum 5 foot setback between fencing on corner side yards and
sidewalk."
Response:
The walls at lots 12 & 15 have been shifted to allow for the five foot setback
betweeo the fencing and the sidewa-1k. Lots 1 t 31 already have the required
setback shown.
Alpha Service and Technology is asking that Design Review 97-37 be approved including the
above mernioued "Responses" to the items in the Design Review Com..-,,te,'s comments.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing you
tonight at the &-sign review meeting.
Sincerely
Cliff Vail
Projea Manager
IU -: P.9=
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes February 3, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN -
A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of
Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue -APN: 229-263-01, 02-, 03 and 06.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised building and Site Plan and recommended approval
of the project subject to the following conditions:
1. The final location of and the amenities within the outdoor plaza area for the north office area as
well as the amenities within the southerly plaza area should be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. A dense landscape palette, including evergreen shrubs and shrub hedges, should be used in
conjunction with the proposed wrought iron fence along the south property line to form an
effective screen in lieu of a solid screen wall.
3. All previously mentioned design policy issues from the January 20, 1998 Design Review
Committee comments will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the
project.
i
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
r
February 3, 1998
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
l� i