Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/04/05 - Agenda Packet • ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY APRIL 5, 2005 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel CONSENT CALENDAR There are no items submitted. 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. (Doug/Willie) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-00033 - GMID ARCHITECTURE - A proposal.to construct a one-story in-line retail building of 14,980 square feet on a parcel of 1.29 acre in the General Industrial District (Subarea 12), located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Pittsburgh Avenue-APN:0229-263-48. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00770 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16300. 7:20 p.m. (Emily/Mark) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00794-EDDIEROWLAND-Arequestfora single-family residence in the Very Low Residential District(.1 -2 dwelling units per acre), located at 9010 Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-811-08. 7:40 p.m. (Emily/Cam) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00567-STEVE WU-A review of site plan and elevations for 8 single-family homes within previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16421, located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east of Hermosa Elementary-APN: 0201-182-03. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16421. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT • The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn April 5, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-00033-GMID ARCHITECTURE-A proposal to construct a one-story in-line retail building of 14,980 square feet on a parcel of 1.29 acre in the General Industrial District(Subarea 12), located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Pittsburgh Avenue - APN: 0229-263-48. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00770 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16300. Design Parameters: The site is a part of the recently approved Master Plan DRC2003-00770 for three 4-story hotels, which are as follows: Courtyard by Marriott, Hilton Garden Inn, and Hilton Homewood Suites. The Master Plan includes four restaurant building pads (which will come under a separate entitlement), which will front along 4th Street (see Exhibit "A"). This section of the previously approved Master Plan on Parcel 4 of the Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16300 is modified from a restaurant pad to a retail building with the primary retail use for the Ozel Fine Jewelry business. The applicant has worked closely with staff on a creative outcome that will enhance the entire master planned project. The architecture style is a mix of Georgian and Greek revival elements. The Georgian motifs consist of corner quoins and decorative keystones on top of Palladian style . arches. The Greek revival theme contains a portico with enriched pediments that are designed with unflutted columns at the primary entry,and there are two offset pediments, which flank the building. Underneath all of the pediments are dentils and a clock tower element that fronts 4th Street. This building is a great example of 360-degree architecture and the north and south (4th Street)sides of the building basically mimic each other. There are two different colors of limestone and various blended color schemes, which add subtle richness to the building. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The applicant has done an. excellent job of addressing staff's earlier recommendations, and no primary issues are proposed. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide a detail depicting the design and style of the proposed fountain that is to be visible from 4th Street. The design of the fountain must match the architectural style of the project. Provide a detail of the plaza area at the corner intersection at 4th Street and Pittsburgh Avenue; show any proposed trellis decor of furniture or seating walls. Plant six to seven trees along the retail storefront (north elevation) per City standard of one tree per 30 linear feet of elevation. This will necessitate adding triangular tree planters (see Exhibit "B"). Palm trees would be appropriate. • Delete both sidewalks within the landscape planter in the middle of the parking lot. They are not positioned correctly to be used, and even if they were, they would only be used by a small DRC COMMENTS D RC2005-00033 • April 5, 2005 Page 2 percentage of customers. The parking lot layout requires about 1/2 of the customers to go through this planter to get to the front doors. Two alternatives solutions are; 1) replace continuous planter with diamond-shaped planters (every 3 stalls) or, 2) stepping stones across the planter between each pair of cars. The Site Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan show tables and chairs within a plaza at the southwest corner of building; however, the project has been designed and parked for only retail using a ratio of one parking space per 250 square feet. Sit-down restaurants require one parking space per 100 square feet and quick-service food users (Starbucks, Quiznos, donut shop, etc.) require one parking space per 75 square feet. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: No exterior downspouts are to be visible on any of the buildings. 2. The parapets are to be high enough so as to screen all roof-mounted equipment. The warehouse areas of the building do not appear to have sufficient parapet to screen any HVAC units. 3. The transformers should be screened by decorative wall material, which matches the • architectural material of the building with landscaping in the front of the screen wall. 4. All freestanding lighting standards should be the same as the light standards for the entire master planed project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends once these minor modifications to the project have been completed, the Design Review Committee should recommend approval to the Planning Commission. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner:' Doug Fenn The Committee recommended approval subject to muting colors to the satisfaction of staff. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Emily Wimer April 5, 2005 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00794- EDDIE ROW LAND -A request for a single-family residence in the Very Low Residential District (.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 9010 Laramie Drive—APN: 1061-811-08. Design Parameters: The project is located on the north side on Laramie Street,west of Beryl Street, and is bordered by a 15-foot equestrian easement to the north. The proposed project is a total of 5,422 square feet. The lot coverage of the property is 24.98 percent, just below the 25 percent maximum allowed. Although the square footage of the house is quite substantial,the applicant has reduced the original square footage The applicant has proposed a 3,156 square foot tuck under the garage. The cut into the natural terrain is a total of 8.5 feet that requires Design Review and Planning Commission approval. The entries of the garage will face away from the street and public view. The applicant has met with the staff regarding the maximum height and square footage of the project. The square footage of the home has been reduced originally from 33 percent to 26 percent and finally to 24.98 percent (.02 percent below the maximum), and the retaining walls have been reduced in height. • 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. The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize grading, utilize architectural design techniques that allow buildings to follow the natural terrain, and preserve the natural topography. The Hillside Development Ordinance standard is to excavate underground or utilize below grade rooms to "reduce effective bulk and to provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces." Staff believes that the proposed design,with the below grade garage, is consistent with this standard and the surrounding area. 2. The retaining wall heights of 4 feet along the east and west property line exceeds the allowable 3-foot height. Redesign the retaining walls to terrace with a 3-foot planter between the walls as required by the Hillside Development Ordinance (see Exhibit "A"). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Because the project is at the maximum lot coverage allowed by the Development Code, no other enclosed structural additions may be added to the home on the main floor or in the rear yard area without the approval of a Minor Exception or Variance (approvable only by the • Planning Commission). DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00794— EDDIE ROW LAND • April 5, 2005 Page 2 2. The project will require Landscape Plans to be submitted by a licensed Landscape Architect prior to receiving Building Permits. The front yard landscaping and the slope planting are required by the Hillside Development Ordinance. 3. If the applicant would like to incorporate a corral into the rear yard, a separate exhibit illustrating the minimum 70-foot radius between the corral and the adjacent homes must be submitted prior to approval of the corral. The trail access ramp shown on the Grading Plan along the east property line does not comply with City standards because it would place corral within 30 feet of proposed home. However, there is sufficient corral area at the northwest corner of the lot adjoining the trail. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All of the walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls, shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face, or slumpstone with a trim cap). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the above requirements, and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Attachment • Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee recommended approval subject to working out the retaining wall with staff. THIS r.,h, NOT THIS 2,7 Y 3' or yi r • 4'+ 3' min .1 vl max • EXHIBIT "A" • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Emily Wimer April 5, 2005 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00567-STEVE W U -A review of site plan and elevations for 8 single-family homes within previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16421,located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east of Hermosa Elementary - APN: 0201-182-03. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16421. Design Parameters: The site is located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, west of Mayberry Avenue, and east of Hermosa Elementary School. The applicant is proposing eight single-family homes on a total of 3.17 gross acres of land. The property was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 23, 2003, for a General Plan Amendment to allow Low Residential requirements. On October 8, 2003, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16421 was approved by the Planning Commission and included adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Since the General Plan and Subdivision approvals, the applicant has submitted an application for Design Review of the eight lots. The elevations consist of three separate floor plans and 5 separate elevations. The applicant has incorporated cultured stone, decorative iron railings, tile accents, stucco trim and detail into all elevations and decorative scored concrete driveways. Plans A and B provide three-car garages, and Plan C provides a four-car garage. The site slopes just under 8 percent in grade,and does not require stepping of the floorplans. The floorplans range from 3,756 • square feet(Plan A), and 4,170 (Plan B)to 5,436 square feet(Plan C is a custom home). All homes are two-story. 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. To reduce the massing of all of the homes, staff recommends that the applicant incorporate full courtyard areas with lush vegetation surrounding each entry and surrounding the low courtyard walls. Vine pockets shall be incorporated on the low walls and stucco areas. Walls are limited to a 3-foot height in the front yard area. Because of the limited landscape area of Plan C, a custom Landscape Plan shall be submitted and reviewed for approval. 2. Provide significant articulation (i.e., horizontal movement of wall planes)of all four sides of the houses to avoid their"box-on-top-of-box"appearance. The Committee should carefully review the rear elevation of Plans A, Al, B, and BI to decide if the 11-foot wide bay pop-out provides enough movement in the footprint of the home. Staff suggests popping out the rear elevation, and adding a substantial enclosed balcony with a roofline to match the balcony. The faux balcony shall be expanded to create a useable depth (minimum of 5 feet). Staff also believes that the side elevations of Plans A, AI, B, and BI do not offer articulation because the homes have been designed at the minimum 5- to10-foot setbacks. 3. Increase architectural variation. Elevations for Plans A and Al are almost identical and would • benefit from roof form variations. Plans B and B1 are also very similar to Plans A and Al. A street scene front elevation should be provided showing all eight lots in relation to each other, with accurate side yard setbacks. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00567 • April 5, 2005 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Although the front setbacks provide +/-5 foot variation as required by Code, there is opportunity on all lots for even greater variety. The proposed average rear yard setback is 65 feet and could easily be reduced. Add larger variation to the front yard setback, stagger the house footprint to provide movement. 2. If possible, provide reverse plotting on a few lots for streetscape variety. All homes have been plotted with garage on the downhill side of the lot. 3. Front entries of all homes shall provide upgraded detail including stucco surrounds on the double door entries, as well as the windows above, to match all surrounding windows. 4. On all elevations that depict a stone material midway up the chimney,the stone veneer should continue up on the entire chimney fagade. 5. Decorative wrought iron gates on entries and side yard areas shall be upgraded with detail and trim to have a finished appearance. 6. Driveways should smoothly flare-out to full width, not abruptly change width at right-of-way line. • 7. Whenever possible, side yard retaining walls should be eliminated in the front yard setback and replaced with slopes. It appears from Grading Plan that these retaining walls are typically only 18 to 24 inches high near the street. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face or slumptone). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that project be redesigned and return to Design Review Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The applicant presented revised plans addressing all issues,except retaining walls. The Committee recommended approval subject to working out the retaining walls with staff. • DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00567 • April 5, 2005 Page 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS April 5, 2005 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. R ly submi Brad Buller • Secretary •