The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995/01/31 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JANUARY 31, 1995 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker John Melcher 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. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 5:00 p.m. (Steve Hayes) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14116 - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved residential subdivision consisting of 18 lots on 3.7 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre) located on the south side of Highland Avenue, west of the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 1076-611-03. 5:40 p.m. (Steve Hayes) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-40 TACO BELL CORPORATION - A request to construct a 1,989 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru on a 0.73 acre parcel within an integrated 82 acre shopping center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-30. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes January 31, 1995 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14116 - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved residential subdivision consisting of 18 lots on 3.7 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located on the south side of Highland Avenue, west of the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 1076-611- 03. Design Parameters: This controversial subdivision was appealed and conceptually approved,in essentially its proposed configuration by the City Council on February 3, 1993. The only difference between the conceptually approved Tentative Map and the proposal before the Committee tonight is that the new map has been reduced from 19 to 18 lots. This has been done to allow for the product type the applicant has used previously in the City (The Canterbury tract, on the west side of Haven Avenue across from Chaffey College)to be constructed on these lots. In order for this to occur, a lot was eliminated and the remaining lots widened along the east side of Los Osos Way (Lots 7-10). Other than this minor revision, the subdivision map is in substantial conformance with the previously approved Tentative Map (street configuration, lot layout, paseo location, etc.). The subdivision is bounded by the future Foothill Freeway corridor on the north, single family homes on the south and west, and the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel on the east. No significant structures or vegetation exist on the property. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 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: Site/Grading/Wall Plan: 1. The Plan 1 (one-story)model should be plotted on a greater percentage of lots to create greater unit variety within the project. 2. A greater percentage of lots should be plotted to allow for recreational vehicle storage access on the garage side of the residence. A minimum of 20 percent of the lots is recommended to meet the intent of this issue. Architecture: 1. As noted earlier, the architecture is essentially identical to that used in the Canterbury project across from Chaffey College. Staff would recommend that the Committee visit that project in preparation for this item. Staff feels that some of the detailing and use of accent materials should DRC COMMENTS TT 14116 - SHEFFIELD HOMES January 31, 1995 Page 2 1 be revised to upgrade the appearance of the homes. Specific examples will be highlighted by staff at the Design Review Committee meeting. Examples include,awkward mixing of wood and stucco details,lack of or inconsistent approach to wrapping siding/veneer materials around comers at front entry walk, no decorative wall caps, and garage door color. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. All perimeter walls should consist of a decorative material or finish, including the wall around the southernmost portion of Lot 18, if this portion is not granted to the property owner to the west(can be a Condition of Approval for City Planner review). 2. The ultimate design of the freeway sound wall should be coordinated for consistency with other subdivisions in the vicinity (can be a Condition of Approval for City Planner review). 3. The slope in the rear yard of Lot 16 is excessive and should be broken up by constructing a retaining wall. By doing this, additional usable rear yard area will be available. 4. The width of each drive approach, at the property line, should be reduced as to not exceed 40 percent of the lot frontage dimension. A 16-foot drive approach exceeds this standard on eight of the 18 Lots: 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18. Lots 4, 16 and 18 should not exceed the minimum drive approach width of 12 feet. 5. The return wall on the north side of Lot 7 should be located as far back from the street as possible to minimize the tunnel effect within the paseo connection(Lot A). 6. The design of the paseo connection to Deer Creek Channel is currently being reviewed by staff. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to insure that all concerns are addressed by the applicant. 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, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from public streets, should consist of a decorative exterior material or finish including decorative cap. 2. Pilasters should be incorporated into the design of all perimeter walls exposed to public view (i.e. along Highland Avenue and Deer Creek). 3. Decorative paving in individual driveways should consist of various pattems/textures of concrete, as well as the walkway leading to the front door,to the satisfaction of the City Planner. DRC COMMENTS TT 14116 - SHEFFIELD HOMES January 31, 1995 Page 3 4. Chimney cap treatments should integrated and treated to be consistent with the chimney, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5. Some units should be replotted to avoid identical or similar elevations being plotted on adjacent or across the street lots, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. Porches should be increased in depth (5 feet proposed) to be more functional. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions, as deemed appropriate by the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Lumpp, McNiel, Coleman Staff Planner: Dan Coleman (for Steve Hayes) The Committee recommended approval subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall study the feasibility of providing RV storage space on the garage side. 2. The architecture was acceptable as presented; however, if a bonus room option is offered, then the siding/veneer material should wrap the comer. 3. All secondary issues and policy issues as recommended by staff, the except porch design are acceptable as proposed. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Steve Hayes January 31, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-40- TACO BELL CORPORATION-A request to construct a 1,989 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru on a 0.73 acre parcel within an integrated 82 acre shopping center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-30. Background: This item was reviewed by the Committee (McNiel, Lumpp, Coleman) on January 17, 1995. At that meeting,the Committee recommended that the item be brought back for further review of the Committee. Of particular concern was the overall architectural concept,which the Committee recommended significant revisions in order to be consistent with the Foothill Marketplace architectural theme. Specific recommendations included deleting the compound arches and using cut stone round columns. At the time of comment preparation,the revised plans had yet to be received by staff. An oral presentation will be provided by staff at the meeting. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION: Members Present: Lumpp, McNiel, Coleman Staff Planner: Dan Coleman (for Steve Hayes) The Committee recommended approval subject to the following: I. Provide shade trellis/trees in outdoor dining area. 2. Provide decorative hardscape in outdoor dining area. 3; Tower height should be increased in height to provide sufficient space between cornice and tile roof. 4. Compound arches on towers should have minimal reliev (i.e., I inch). 5. Column materials should be decorative cast stone (not stucco) to match the shopping center. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS January 31, 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary