No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/06/20 - Agenda Packet , AL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION COMMENTS AND MINUTES TUESDAY JUNE 20, 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 NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED 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. (Nancy) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 MASI - The design review of trash enclosures and the locations for them within the Masi Commerce Center, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -APN: 229- 011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. 5:40 p.m. (Steve R.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 10 HILLL IDE COM ITY CHURCH - Review of the design for a baseball field which is part of an approved Master Plan for a church consisting of a sanctuary, administration building, education/nursery building, and family center totaling 11,520 square feet on 8.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located at the southwest comer of Haven Avenue and Vista Grove Street, North of Hillside Road -APN: 1074-271-01. 6:20 p.m. (Scott) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-12 - CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT- Review of building elevations for two buildings within a previously approved water treatment facility in the Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and 6th Street -APN: 229-283-62. 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. Nancy Fong June 20, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 -MASI - The design review of trash enclosures and the locations for them within the Masi Commerce Center, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. Back rg ound: In late December of 1994,the applicant submitted a request to the Planning Commission for modifying eight conditions of approval. One of them was regarding the design features for trash enclosures. On January 25, 1995, the Commission modified this condition allowing the applicant to submit an alternate design for their review and approval. The Commission stipulated that if an alternate design is not approved by them, the design features for the trash enclosure listed in the condition of approval will remain. The applicant appealed the decision of the Commission and was heard by the City Council on February 25, 1995. The City Council affirmed the Commission's decision. On May 4, 1995, the applicant submitted plans for the alternate trash enclosure design to staff for review. After reviewing the plans, staff met with the applicant and gave him our design concerns so that he could revise the design to address them if he chose to. Attached is a copy of the revised plans for the alternate trash enclosure design. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. In February of 1981, the City adopted a standard drawing for trash enclosures as shown in Exhibit "A." In 1987, the Planning Commission established new design features for the trash enclosures for commercial centers. These features are: architecturally integrated into the design of the center; separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian door; large enough to accommodate two trash bins; roll-up doors; trash bins with counter-weighted lids; architecturally treated overhead shade trellis; chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. Since then trash enclosures in commercial centers have followed the design features listed above. A. Alternate Trash Enclosure Design, Based on reviewing the proposed alternate trash enclosure design against the above design features and the Commission's discussions of this issue at the January 25, 1995 meeting, staff has identified the following design and technical concerns: 1. Architecturally integrated into the design of the center. The proposed alternate trash enclosure design consists of the following features: precision concrete block wall for the enclosure; exterior wall surface is stuccoed with one coat, top of wall is treated with a cornice detail; the post for the overhead trellis is attached to the exterior of the wall, and metal gates swing out. Comment: Based on the building materials for the center, a smooth stucco surface for the outside wall is acceptable. The inside wall should be painted to match the color of the exterior wall. The cornice detail at the top of the wall is acceptable. However, the proposal to attach part way down the posts for the overhead trellis to the exterior wall surface of the enclosure is not acceptable. This feature is not used elsewhere in the center. The design concerns for the overhead trellis feature are further discussed in sections below. 2. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. The posts supporting the overhead shade trellis are attached to the exterior of the enclosure wall. The lumber size for the post is 4- inch by 4-inch, the cross beam is 2-inch by 6-inch, and the trellis is 3-inch by 3-inch at 6 inches on center. DRC COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI June 20, 1995 Page 2 Comment: By placing the support posts on the exterior of the enclosure wall, the trellis element and the enclosure wall are not integrated in their design. The lumber size for the trellis is not in proportion to the size of the trash enclosure. There is no architectural treatment to the end of the lumber. For comparison staff has included with this report an example of a design solution that follows the design features of a trash enclosure for commercial use (see exhibit "B"). 3. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include a self-closing pedestrian door. The proposed design consists of metal gates that swing out. To address the separate pedestrian door,the applicant proposes to use one side of the metal gate for pedestrian access by making the door 3 feet wide. Comment: The purpose of a separate pedestrian access is to provide easy access and convenience for the tenant to use the trash enclosure and less maintenance problem. Staff recommends that separate pedestrian access for trash enclosures be provided. 4. Roll-up doors. The applicant proposes metal gates that swing out instead of roll-up gates. The applicant also shows details for the gates hinges and latches. Comments: Staff believes that for swing out gates,they should be hinged to a separate 4- inch minimum steel pipe next to the enclosure wall. Staff found that the proposed cane bolt detail for the gate latch creates a maintenance problem. This style of gate latch is typical in older industrial or commercial areas. 5. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. None proposed by the applicant. Comment: None B. Location of Trash Enclosures and Landscaping Around Them All of the buildings except Buildings 5 and 6 are provided with free-standing trash enclosures. The locations for these free- standing trash enclosures are acceptable. Landscaping area around these trash enclosures are wide enough to plant shrubs and vines in the minimum and tress for the wider landscaped areas. Building 5 and 6 are Spaghetti Factory and Dennys, respectively. According to the applicant, the trash enclosures for these restaurants are integrated into the building envelope. A review of approved plans for the restaurants confirmed that. Staff recommends the same trellis design at the south and east elevations be provided to the trash enclosure for Spaghetti Factory. C. Technical Issues. 1. Modify the placement so that the metals doors, when opened, do not encroach into the required drive aisle and provide a concrete apron in front of each trash enclosure. 2. Increase the dimensions of the continuous concrete curb around the inside of the trash enclosure wall from 4-inch by 6-inch to 6-inch by 6-inch. 3. Parcel lines should be adjusted so that they do not cross trash enclosures. According to Building and Safety staff, building walls for trash enclosures placed at property lines must meet the 1-hour fire wall or setback 3 feet, if the trash enclosure is 150 square feet and over in size. DRC COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI June 20, 1995 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee direct the applicant to address the above identified concerns and issues and submitted revised plans for further Committee review. Desien Review Committee Comments: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong Attachments The Committee did not recommend approval of the alternative trash enclosure design and directed the applicant to submit revised plans for further review. The following are recommended improvements to the trash enclosure design. 1. Provide architectural treatment to the overhead shade trellis and use heavy lumber, similar to the attached example. 2. Provide a separate pedestrian access. 3. Provide self-closing metal gates. The gates, when opened, shall not encroach into the drive aisle. Provide metal sleeve to the cane bolt detail. 4. Consider placing the trash bins behind the gates to reduce the size of the enclosure. 5. Provide a continuous 6-inch concrete curb around the inside of the trash enclosure wall. city of rancho cucamonga STANDARD DRAWING .e =d a 1A J 4 v z Mak �-z �' a LLJ wpb n°� u 7 '— z `� g �l o �CN3 Z via Tj v LL) ZIL— V' S H r, YOonnor ENCLOSURE 901 w"ro Dom oe]eO.A® oma.M FRONT ELEVATION er oneo.c© r:rracm — a o 0 0 "m moo eeow Taw . e evnw0 meeDV 10P OF WW KAO _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ OQCeIeR r SIDE ELEVATIO REAR ELEVATION HT SIDE SIMILAR) Dow"& sm4w ow 44 TRELLIS (ROOF) PLAN .. m u _ nr � ■rrnrrnrr, r. rrrrrr = _ 4 I r _ . _ .. _ .. ..I.. .. _ _ _ �.I_ - iNw, I I I i :i i�j I u r s u u . 103 - o o- PC. I MA Y//"0 FRI lev 7111le r DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Steven Ross June 20, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH.- Review of the design for a baseball field which is part of an approved Master Plan for a church consisting of a sanctuary, administration building, education/nursery building, and family center totaling 11,520 square feet on 8.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Vista Grove Street,North of Hillside Road - APN: 1074-271-01. Design Parameters: The site is bounded on the north by Vista Grove Street and on the east by Haven Avenue. Paved parking for approximately 250 cars exists next to these streets. Single family homes are located to the south and west. The site's development is governed by an approved Master Plan(Conditional Use Permit 88-10) which has been partially implemented. Structures on the site include the permanent family center building as well as three temporary buildings. The master plan includes a sanctuary building in the northeast quadrant of the site and a baseball field at the southwest comer of the site. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: The approved Master Plan for the site contained a condition requiring that the "final design and materials of the baseball field parking area shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee." By including this special condition of approval, it appears that the Commission had several concerns about the baseball field. First,it is approved for use as a parking lot for 125 cars. It will be required once the sanctuary is built. The field also serves as an emergency access to the structures. Therefore, the field must be constructed to accommodate vehicles. Second, the field's proximity to and elevation above adjacent residences raises concerns about privacy. Every effort should be made to minimize the field's impact on adjacent residences. The church is going to great lengths to design a field which minimizes its impact on the adjacent residences. Fencing is being designed to contain all balls within the site and the landscaping is designed to create a heavy buffer between the field and its neighbors. The church has assured staff that the field will not be illuminated. Design Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The area of the field proposed for parking should be constructed to accommodate 125 automobiles in order to provide the required parking for the future sanctuary building. If the field is not designed to serve as a parking area at this time, it will have to be retrofitted when the sanctuary is built. 2. The field and its related structures and landscaping should be designed to provide a maximum amount of privacy for the adjacent residences: a. Ball field fencing should be designed to contain all balls within the site. b. If bleachers or other seating areas are proposed,they should be designed with the privacy of the neighbors in mind. DRC COMMENTS CUP 88-10 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH June 20, 1995 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the design for the ball field and allow staff to work out the details with the applicant. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Lary McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steven Ross The Committee approved the conceptual design for the ball field. They deferred review of parking on the field until an application for the future sanctuary building is submitted. Parking on the field will not be necessary until the sanctuary is built. The Committee recommended that landscaping around the field be designed with special consideration given to the neighbors' privacy as well as their views of the mountains. To address this issue, it was suggested that tall shrubs be planted to create a dense hedgerow about six feet tall. In addition, trees should be planted intermittently. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:20 p.m. Scott Murphy June 20, 1995 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-12 - CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - Review of building elevations for two buildings within a previously approved water treatment facility in the Heavy Industrial designation(Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and 6th Street - APN: 229-283-62. Background: In 1992, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 90-16 for the development of a wastewater treatment facility. The primary concern of the Planning Commission centered around visibility of the mechanical equipment from surrounding properties and the public streets. As a result, much of the attention was focused on the perimeter wall and landscape treatment to mitigate views into the facility. The design of the various buildings located within the complex was also reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Deshm Parameters: Since the original approval of the project, the applicant is exploring modifications to the design of the wastewater treatment system. In doing so, the functions and/or design of the buildings on-site will change as well. The number of employees necessary to run the facility will be dramatically reduced with the new design. As a result, the administration building has been scaled back. Also, the total number of buildings required to run the facility have been reduced. The prominent headworks building at the corner of 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue has been eliminated. The new design will no longer require the chlorination building, solids control building, or blower building. The design does include the need for a sludge building located at the southeast comer of the site, along the Etiwanda Avenue frontage. The design materials are consistent with the original approval. The buildings are designed with split-face block and standing seam metal roof. Precision block is used at selected areas to provide variation in texture and color. The roof color has been changed from red to blue. 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 sludge building, located at the southeast corner of the site, is in close proximity to Etiwanda Avenue. The building is also close to the Etiwanda Avenue access which may allow greater visibility of the structure. If possible, landscaping should be provided adjacent to the building to provide additional screening. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. The applicant has indicated that they would like to grade the entire site at one time. The construction of improvements, however, will be phased in over time. Those areas that do not receive improvements should receive landscaping(groundcover)and a temporary irrigation system or a non-irrigated hydroseed mix should be provided. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-12 - CHINO BASIN WATER DISTRICT June 20, 1995 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the elevations as submitted by the applicant. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the plans and recommended approval of the application subject to the wall along Etiwanda Avenue being designed with an 8-foot wall atop a 2-foot retaining wall. Berming should be provided against the street side of the wall to create the impression of an 8-foot from public view and to maximize the effectiveness of the landscape screening. The extensive landscaping proposed with the original Master Plan (CUP 90-16) should be retained. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS JUNE 20, 1995 t PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to a special meeting to be held on July 5, 1995, at 4:00 p.m., in lieu of their regularly scheduled meeting on July 4, 1995, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dan Coleman Acting Secretary NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT Notice is hereby given that the Rancho Cucamonga Design Review Committee at its meeting of June 20, 1995, adjourned said meeting to July 5, 1995, at the hour of 4:00 p.m. , to be held in the Rains Room of the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Said adjournment was passed by the following vote: Ayes: LUMPP, MCNIEL, COLEMAN Noes: NONE Absent: NONE Abstain: NONE June 21 . 1995 Date 4Jnenne Spikes ce Specialist II AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT I, Jeanenne Spikes, declare as follows: That I am an Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga; that at a regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Design Review Committee held June 20, 1995; that the members present authorized adjournment of said meeting to July 5, 1995, at the hour of 4 :00 p.m. to be located at Rancho Cucamonga Rains Room; and that a copy of said notice was posted in a conspicuous place near the door of the room in which said meeting was held, within 24 hours of adjournment. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 21, 1995, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. lA Je enne Spikes 4L, 0 ice Specialist II