The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005/02/01 - Agenda Packet - (2) ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2005 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Commi ee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher 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. (Tabe/Shelley) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00260 - PETE VOLBEDA - A request for a single-family residence on Laramie Street in the Very Low Residential District—APN: 1061-801-30. 7:20 p.m. • (Mike/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445- MARK CAPELLINO-A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 11 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-01185 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00804. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:40 p.m. (Mike/Willie) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-01057-TOM IRVIN (FOR IMPASTATO) -A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total floor area of about 4,900 square feet(footprint approximately 3,600 square feet)on a parcel of 27,829 square feet in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5347 Carnelian Street - APN: 1061-261-04. Related Files: Hillside Design Reviews DRC2001-00354 and DRC2004-00101, and Minor Exception DRC2002-00135. 7:50 p.m. (Dan/Mark) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00850—AIM ALL STORAGE—Arequestto modify approved elevations to change the roll-up door color to a dark red within a public storage project under construction at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the 210 Freeway. r DRC REVISED AGENDA February 2, 2005 • Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tabe Van der Zwaag February 1, 2005 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00260 - PETE VOLBEDA - A request for a single-family residence on Laramie Street in the Very Low Residential District—APN: 1061-801-30. Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Districts. The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lots size and configuration. Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved bythe City Planner. However, because of the amount of excavation proposed, the project has been forwarded to the Design Review Committee for discussion. This project also requires the review and approval by the Planning Commission because more than 5 feet of cut is proposed. Design Parameters: The existing topography slopes from about 2,230 feet on the north (rear)side of the lot to about 2,200 feet on the south (front) side. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family residence with a detached 3-car garage. The first floor of the house will have three stepped pads, totaling 2 feet of stepping, with finished floor elevations of 2,212 feet, 2,213 feet, and 2,214 feet (moving from the front to the rear). By comparison, the existing grade falls 7 feet within the same house footprint area. • The garage will be inset into the hillside to the rear of the residence and will have a finished surface elevation of 2,215 feet. The depth of excavation, or "cut," that will be required to construct the garage will vary between 5 feet at its front to 8 feet at its rear(see Exhibit "B"). The north and east walls of the garage will act as retaining walls to the adjacent slopes. The garage, and the stairway leading to the roof top deck of the garage, will obscure the majority of the excavation: The applicant proposes 584 cubic yards of export. The applicant also proposes excavating between 6 feet and 6.25 feet at the front of the residence in order to construct a circular driveway and formal entrance stairway (see Exhibit "B"). The circular driveway will create a 6-foot grade difference, as viewed from the street, between the applicant's lot and the lot to the north. Excavation throughout the rest of the property will be 5 feet or less. Two retaining walls, 3 feet in height, are proposed along the southeast property line in order to construct a driveway. Additionally, a 4-foot high retaining wall will be incorporated into a set of stairways leading to the main entrance of the residence. The overall height of the structure will not exceed 30 feet measured from the finished grade. Lot coverage will be 25 percent—the maximum permissible in the Very Low Residential District. 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. Grading Concept: The proposed grading scheme does not meet the intent of the Hillside • Development regulations to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00260— PETE VOLBEDA . February 1, 2005 Page 2 Staff believes the following are not consistent with the concept of"minimal grading":the entire lot is being graded; only 2 feet of stepping in the main house is proposed compared to 7 feet of existing fall; and extensive excavation is proposed, much of it to accommodate the detached garage at.the rear (uphill) of the lot, and resulting in 584 cubic yards of export from site. The applicant is proposing the maximum excavation ("cut") or fill allowed in the Hillside Overlay of 8 feet for the garage. Amounts in excess are discouraged, and when viable alternatives exist, staff will suggest to the applicant that they seriously consider those alternatives first. The applicant was informed that both the garage and circular driveway would need to be modified in order to reduce the amount excavation. He was also informed that if these changes were not made that the plans would need to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. The applicant has responded in writing that he does not wish to modify the plans to correct the excess grading issue (see Exhibit "C"). Development Code Section 17.24.070.6.11 establishes the following criteria for the Planning Commission to allow 8 feet or greater excavation: "Cut or fill slopes shall not exceed 8 feet in height at perimeters of the site or elsewhere without the use of walls, terracing, and other mitigating measures, such as contour grading or landscape buffering, and then only as approved by the Planning Commission after conclusive demonstration that such cut or fill heights will not adversely affect adjacent properties, views, landforms, or other significant considerations not specifically discussed here, and that they are absolutely required to accomplish land development under extreme or unusual circumstances and conditions."[emphasis 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. Slope planting does not meet minimum City standard of: Slope banks 5 feet or greater in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for erosion control. Slope banks 5 feet or greater in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical and of 2:1 orgreater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 square feet of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Maintenance by a Homeowners'Association may be required by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis." [emphasis added]This will be a standard condition of approval. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee not approve the proposal as submitted. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Stewart, Coleman • Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag The Committee felt that the design was typical for the neighborhood and recommended approval as proposed. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith February 1, 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 11 parcels in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street-APN: 02097211-19. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-01185 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00804. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 - MARK CAPELLINO-A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street- APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. Background: This application was previously reviewed by the Committee on November 2,2004. At that time, several architectural and landscape design issues were raised that the Committee indicated must be corrected (see attached November 2, 2004, Design Review Committee Action Comments). The applicant was directed to revise the application and resubmit the plans for a follow-up Committee review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. The basic design parameters remain unchanged from the previous submittal. The majority of the design revisions requested by the Committee have been completed, as noted below. Staff believes that the project is • now representative of the City's design characteristics and standards. Issue #1: Architecture —All building elevations, except those with a zero setback at the property lines, should have spandrel glass and physical articulation of the wall planes in order to achieve 360-degree architecture as noted below: • The southwest corner of Building#7 and southeast corner of Building#9(adjoining wall planes at theirsouth elevations)must incorporate horizontal and vertical articulation of the wall plane, raised cornices/parapets, and spandrel/vision glass. These parts of the building are at the end of the entry drive aisle and must provide a focal point. Solution: The parapets at the described location have been raised 2 feet higher than the parapets of adjacent panels and cornices to match the "tower" elements have been applied. The wall plane of these corners project outward from the primary wall plane 5 feet, providing additional physical articulation. Spandrel glass, sandblasted finish, and vertical reveals are now included. • The east elevations of Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7 must have spandrel glass panels. It is not necessary to articulate these elevations because of the practical limitations of the rail spur alignment on the east side of the project site. Solution: The east elevation of the most visually prominent building along 6th Street, Building 1, has two 5-foot by 6-foot spandrel glass panels and, at the top half of the "tower"element on the southeast corner, one 10-foot by 6-foot spandrel glass panel. The east elevations of the other buildings, which are not visually prominent from 6th Street, do not have spandrel glass. • The west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9; the north elevation of Building 10;and the south elevation of Building 11 must have spandrel glass and physical articulation. DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 — MARK CAPELLINO • February 1, 2005 Page 2 Solution: The west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8 now incorporate wall planes that, at unequal intervals between 50 to 80 feet(horizontal measurement), project inward/outward by 2 to 3 feet. The north elevations of Buildings 5 and 10 and the south elevations of Buildings 3 and 11 each incorporate a wall segment that is inset 2 feet from the primary wall plane. A 2-foot higher parapet is provided at the segments where the wall planes have been articulated. Added definition has been provided at the southwest corners (Buildings 2, 6, and 9), at the northwest corners (Buildings 1, 4, and 8), and the southeast corner (Building 1) by incorporating physical "pop-outs"and raised parapets that create"tower"elements. All tower elements include spandrel glass on their upper sections and, depending on visibility and location, vine trellises or spandrel glass on their lower sections. Issue #2: Landscaping— The Committee requested changes to the landscaping as noted below: • The area in the parking lot directly in front of Buildings 7 and 9, at the end of the drive aisle, should incorporate a landscape island with an art piece. The Committee indicated that the applicant could forego some of the parking at this location and still fulfill the parking requirement for the overall site. Solution: The applicant has eliminated the parking stalls and replaced them with an outdoor employee eating area and landscaping. See Major Issues below for additional discussion. • The 3-foot wide(including 6-inch curb)landscaped area at the west sides of Buildings 2, 4, 6, • and 8 can be eliminated and, in exchange, the landscape area along the west property line can be widened to compensate. • The landscaping around each trash enclosure can be minimized to vine pockets only. • The rail spur easement along the east perimeter of the site shall incorporate landscaping throughout its entire length. Solution: The applicant has revised the landscaping at the west side of the project site and around the trash enclosures, and has added ground cover within the rail spur alignment along the east side of the project site. Issue#3: Material/finish—Form-lined concrete as proposed by the applicant is an acceptable finish. Sandblasting will not be required. Solution: The applicant has elected to apply bands of sandblasted finish to all elevations along the base and at mid-height of each building and on the panels of the tower elements. 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 applicant has requested clarification on the artwork requested in front of Building 7 and 9. They have modified the building elevations and open area as noted above in a manner that they believe adequately creates a focal point at the north end of the drive aisle. Only three palm trees are proposed for this 60-foot long space. Staff recommends a stronger, more creative landscape design including, but not limited to, canopy shade trees or trellis structure. The Committee should also discuss whether public art should be provided. DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 — MARK CAPELLINO • February 1, 2005 Page 3 2. The applicant is providing ground cover with irrigation within the rail spur alignment. Although the Committee requested trees and shrubs, the applicant requests consideration of ground cover only as this condition is temporary until a rail spur is constructed by others. Staff recognizes that any landscaping in the rail spur area is "throw-away;" however, recommends adding trees and shrubs along side of Building 1 only because of its prominence to 6th Street, a designated special boulevard. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Decorative paving shall be provided at the primary vehicular access point on to the site, behind the right-of-way line extending at least 20 feet deep into site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval to the Planning Commission subject to the above recommendations. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Stewart, Coleman • Staff Planner: Mike Smith The Committee recommended approval subject to: 1. Providing creative landscaping and benches within the employee eating area in front of Buildings 7 and 9. 2. Add trees and shrubs along the east side of Building 1. The applicant asked if they could pave or gravel access along the east property line (where future rail spur/siding is); however, the Committee did not recommend this. The applicant asked if they could replace sand blasted concrete to form liner for more color flexibility in the future when repainting the buildings. The Committee recommended approval of form liner. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Mike Smith February 1, 2005 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-01057 - TOM IRVIN (FOR IMPASTATO) - A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total floor area of about 4,900 square feet(footprint approximately 3,600 square feet) on a parcel of 27,829 square feet in the Very Low Residential District, located at 5347 Carnelian Street - APN: 1061-261-04. Related Files: Hillside Design Reviews DRC2001-00354 and DRC2004-00101, and Minor Exception DRC2002-00135. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner: Mike Smith Committee approved project. • • . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Dan Coleman February 1, 2005 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00850—AIM ALL STORAGE—A requestto modifyapproved elevations to change the roll-up door color to a dark red within a public storage project under construction at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the 210 Freeway. PLANS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING Design Review Committee Action: Members Present Fletcher, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner: Dan Coleman Committee approved project. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • February.1, 2005 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Zlrad Buller Secretary •