Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/10/17 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION COMMENTS AND MINUTES TUESDAY OCTOBER 17, 1995 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp John Melcher Nancy Fong Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Lary McNiel 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. (Dan) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-20 - KATELARIUS - A request to construct a 2,940 square foot drive-thin restaurant on 1.11 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 8)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to be located at the southwest comer of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street -APN: 209-491-77. 5:40 p.m. (Steve) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15707 - RITTENHOUSE - The proposed development of a 5 unit detached condominium project on 1.0 acres of land in the Medium Residential Development District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cuesta Drive -APN: 202-025-01. Related Files: Variance 95-05, Tentative Tract 14208, Variance 94-03. 6:10 p.m. (Alan) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO 95-02 - RALPH KAR BIAN - A request to construct four concrete tilt-up warehouse buildings totaling 236,068 square feet on 10 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard, 1227'±east of White Oak Avenue. - APN: 209-143-29. DRC COMMENTS October 17, 1995 Page 2 6:40 p.m. (Scott) MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-15 - CAMPOS - A request to modify a previously approved application to remove 2 historically significant houses and expand the restaurant from 1,600 to 2,530 square feet on a 0.85 acre parcel in the Specialty Commercial designation(Subarea 3)of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues -APN: 208-153-08 through 11 and 223. 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 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist Hfor the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 5, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Dan Coleman October 17, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-20 - KATELARIUS - A request to construct a 2,940 square foot drive-thru restaurant on 1.11 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to be located at the southwest comer of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street-APN: 209- 491-77. Background: On September 19, 1995,the Design Review Committee (Lumpp, Melcher, Fong) reviewed the project and requested that the architecture be completely revised to be compatible with surrounding buildings and eliminate the "corporate" style typical of fast food restaurants. The applicant has been working with staff on these revisions. Major revisions, as suggested by staff, include: deletion of tile mansard roof and gables, addition of projecting fascia elements at pick-up window and patio. Design Review Committee also asked the applicant to contact the Building& Safety Division regarding compliance with ADA. 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. Add detail to south elevation, such as the 2 foot by 2 foot appliques. 2. Increase depth of support posts at front entry from 8 inches to 18-24 inches to match posts used at pick-up window. 3. Add solid roof or shade trellis, within stucco fascia surround, over drive-thru lane at pick-up window. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Staff believes that these are minor details and can be conditioned: 1. Some turf should be used along both street frontages consistent with neighborhood. 2. The drive-thru screen wall should have a decorative cap. 3. Two-foot x 2-foot applique should be inset(recessed)into stucco wall or surrounding by built-up stucco molding to give a more finished appearance. As proposed they are simply "applied" to stucco surface. 4. Two-foot by 2-foot applique is shown as either ceramic tile or painted stucco. Does Committee have a preference? 5. Cornice molding should wrap around ends of parapet returns on south elevation to give a finished appearance (see attached sketch). 6. Are the proposed accent colors acceptable: Blue Green "Jade" (2-foot horizontal band; cornice; metal flashing parapet cap; 2-foot by 2-foot applique), and Brick Red (3-inch metal channel recess 'stripes;' over front entry door)? DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-20 - KATELARIUS October 17, 1995 Page 2 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 should be used in drive entry throat from Arrow Route in keeping with the importance of this street as a Special Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to conditions deemed appropriate to address the previously mentioned issues. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee recommended approval of the architecture,subject to the following conditions;however, noted that the proposed land use is inconsistent with adopted Planning Commission policy. The full Commission must address the issue of whether the use is appropriate at this location: 1. Submit color samples prior to Planning Commission. The Committee expressed concern with colors, particularly the contrast between the Jade green and the Brick red. 2. Wrap entire parapet with cornice molding. 3. Recessed metal channel should be widened to about 6 inches. 4. Sign area on west elevation should provide gap from tile medallions. 5. The remaining issues identified by staff should be conditioned. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Steve Hayes October 17, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15707 - RITTENHOUSE - The proposed development of a 5 unit detached condominium project on 1.0 acres of land in the Medium Residential Development District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 202-025-01. Related Files: Variance 95-05, Tentative Tract 14208, Variance 94-03. Design Parameters: This project is an expansion of a previously approved project (Tract 14208) which is currently under construction. The new portion of the project continues the established east/west street to become a finished cul-de-sac, with the new 5 units plotted at its terminus. The applicant is proposing to utilize the same common open space area,amenities and visitor parking as provided within the larger portion of the project area, approved under Tentative Tract 14208. The site is bounded by residential development on all sides, except east, where a flood control channel currently exists. A number of trees exist on the portion of the site approved under Tentative Tract 14208, but none exist on this portion of the site. This application will not require extensive grading, as the rough grading and design for this portion of the site has already been reviewed by staff. A summary of the related request for Variance 95-05 is attached. 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. As stated earlier, this portion of the site does not include any common open space, amenities, or visitor parking. These elements are all inclusive within the larger portion of the overall site area,previously approved under Tentative Tract 14208. The applicant has submitted a variance to address the issue of common open space. The Planning Commission granted a Variance for Tentative Tract 14208 to reduce the common open space requirement from 35 percent to 25 percent. The proposed cul-de-sac will eliminate 625 square feet of common open space and further reduce this percentage. The Committee should comment as to whether this request is acceptable in terms of the master planned design for the project as a whole, or if this project should be redesigned to incorporate the required elements. 2. The proposed number of units is too much for this difficult piece of land. Staff recommends deleting one unit to address these concerns: a. A lack of a front yard(other than driveways) for units 1, 2, and 3 Plan does not show entry walks which will exacerbate this problem; b. Awkward relationship between units because of tight setbacks and orientation of entries and living areas; and C. A cul-de-sac dominated by concrete driveways. 3. The proposed architecture,perimeter walls and other walls and fences are identical to those used on the 20 units previously approved under Tentative Tract 14208. Staff finds these elements to still be acceptable and would recommend that no further modifications be made. DRC COMMENTS TT 15707 - RITTENHOUSE October 17, 1995 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. Solid decorative block walls should be used between units to screen the private yard areas from public view. 2. The landscape and streetscape design used within the project and along Base Line Road should be consistent with that approved for the balance of the project area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide a strong pedestrian connection between the new units to the common open space area. 2. Pilasters should be a minimum size of 2 feet square and be consistent in design with those used within the balance of the project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans and return for additional Committee review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Heinz Lumpp,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The Committee directed the applicant to revise the Site Plan for the October 31, 1995 Design Review Committee meeting addressing the following issues: 1. The drive aisle on the new project and the related project to the west should be relocated back as close as possible to its originally approved condition, lining up with the drive aisle on the west side of the north/south Linden Lane,so that the amount of common open space area is no less than originally approved under Variance 94-03. 2. The units within the new project should be replotted and spread out to minimize the amount of pavement in the front yard areas and to reduce the number of awkward relationships between adjacent units. 3. The Committee preliminarily recommended against the proposed modification from standard windows with mullions to vinyl windows with no mullions. However, the Committee did note that they may reconsider this item after visiting the manufacturing plant where the windows are made. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Alan Warren October 17, 1995 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 95-02 - RALPH KARUBIAN - A request to construct four concrete tilt-up warehouse buildings totaling 236,068 square feet on 10 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial designation(Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard, 1,227 feet±east of White Oak Avenue. - APN: 209-143-29. Design Parameters: In addition to the issues listed in the initial Design Review Comments, the Design Review Committee raised the following issues at the July 18, 1995 meeting: The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Fong) felt generally that the site was too "tightly" developed with little side yard landscaping and minimum drive aisle and parking dimensions on the interior parking and truck maneuvering areas. Also, it was thought that not enough architectural embellishments were provided for the side and rear elevations. This point was especially critical on the rear elevation which faces directly to the Metrolink station to the south. As a result of these concerns, the Committee did not recommend approval and directed that a revised plan be resubmitted for the Committee's review. See attached minutes from July 18, 1995 Design Review Committee meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: 1. The applicant has not addressed the Committee concerns with inadequate landscaping along side property lines and"loosening up"the parking and circulation dimension for better maneuverability and more parking. Staff believes the site should be "loosened up" as a trade-off for the applicant's request to eliminate the full 5-foot side yard setback requirement via the Master Plan approval. The applicant intends to provide analysis regarding other site configurations at the meeting. 2. Regarding the landscaping issues, 5 feet wide (36 feet to 39 feet length)planters have been added at the corners of each building adjacent to the side property lines. These dimensions appear to line up with building panel lines and therefore,present an appropriate location for the wall line offsets. 3. The revised Landscape Plan indicates significant plantings of Canary Island Date Palms along the rear property line. In response to staff s concerns regarding tree planting in this area,the applicant has submitted a letter from his landscape designer indicating that the plantings should not cause any damage due to the 7-foot to 8-foot depth of the sewer line, (see attached letter). The palm plantings greatly enhance this view of the site. Staff, however, recommends grouping some of the trees to "frame" select portions of the architecture. In addition, staff believes climbing evergreen vines (not continuous plantings)will additionally improve this view. Vine pockets with bubblers should be provided at the base of the south property line building walls. The rear yard also appears to be divided between planted and non-planted areas. Unless the non-planted area is needed for drainage or some other purpose, staff recommends that the entire rear yard between the walls and the property line be planted. 4. As requested, a continuous wall has been provided across the space between the two rear buildings. The wall exhibits the same design features as the buildings and has an offset gate for rear property maintenance purposes. In general, staff believes the rear elevation view has been significantly improved with the additional detailing and landscaping. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-02 - RALPH KARUBIAN October 17, 1995 Page 2 5. The "tuck under" office windows are now indicated to have at least 4 feet in depth from the main wall line. The Committee requested a depth in excess of 4 feet. If this is not sufficient, staff recommends that it be increased to 4-1/2 feet. 6. Additional architectural detail has been provided on the long expansive east and west property line walls of each building. These details help to visually reduce the expanse of wall area. 7. The inclusion of return walls on the parapet extension have been noted on the plans (Sheet A3). Staff recommends that they provided at least 3-foot return. 8. The Site Plans indicates the location of a monument sign on the east side of the driveway,just inside the line of sight. The tenant signing is proposed on the parapet extensions. While this is permitted under Sign Ordinance provisions, staff believes that it may be too high to provide good visibility. Staff recommends that the Master Sign Plan provide for tenant signing on the main building wall. Staff Recommendation: If the Committee feels that the project is still too "tight" and the applicant does not wish to redesign, the Committee may forward the project to the Planning Commission with a denial recommendation. If the Committee determines that the site plan is acceptable,then approval subject to conditions to address the items listed above would be appropriate. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee recommended approval of the application subject the following conditions: 1. The Committee preferred that the form liner portions of the buildings remain unpainted, but requested that the blue color remain as an accent feature. The applicant is to work with staff for the use of blue elsewhere on the buildings. The color scheme is to be provided to the Planning Commission at the environmental assessment determination. 2. Additional planting along rear property line is required. This is to be in the form of the following: a. Expanded planting area within the proposed rear setback not used for surface drainage. b. Vine plantings and irrigation against the building walls visible from the Metrolink Station, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. C. Intermediate size (6-10' height) plantings between the rear property line palms, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. d. The palm plantings may be grouped to enhance the view of the building from the Metrolink Station. Such groupings should be arranged so as not to block significant architectural features. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-02 - RALPH KARUBIAN October 17, 1995 Page 3 3. The buildings shall not be used for any retail commercial activity due to the minimal parking accommodations and the shared car and truck drive aisle design. An exhibit shall be included with building leases informing leasees of this restriction. 4. The comer entry features shall be provided with an enhanced offset of at least 1.5' beyond the building wall. 5. The extended parapet feature along the side building walls is to be deleted. A typical roof equipment screen detail, that incorporates design elements of the architecture, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner. An exhibit of the approved equipment screen detail shall be included with building leases informing leasees of the requirement to screen roof equipment. 6. Parapet wall extensions at the building corners are to have "kick back" return walls to ensure a substantial architectural appearance to these elements. The return walls are to be located at that point of the parapet extension. 7. A master sign plan, in conformance with the Sign Ordinance provisions, should be submitted indicating where tenant identification(wall and monument) signs are to be located. The Committee recommended approval for the project, subject to the above-mentioned conditions, and directed that revised plans be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Scott Murphy October 17, 1995 MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-15 -CAMPOS-A request to modify a previously approved application to remove 2 historically significant houses and expand the restaurant from 1,600 to 2,530 square feet on a 0.85 acre parcel in the Specialty Commercial designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues - APN: 208-153-08 through 11 and 223. Background: On January 11, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 93-15 to construct a 1,600 square foot restaurant and to convert four single family residences to commercial uses. The application included the construction of a new drive approach on Foothill Boulevard accessing parking areas at the rear of the site. The drive approach on Foothill Boulevard will be the only approach allowed between Archibald and Klusman Avenues. Reciprocal access easements/rights in favor of the other property within the block were required of the applicant with the original approval. Related to the Development Review application were a number of Variance requests to reduce the required parking for the site and to reduce the required side and rear setbacks. The setback Variance approvals allowed the applicant to locate the parking and drive aisles at the property lines. The parking Variance allowed the applicant to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 35 to 25 for the four homes and the 1,600 square foot restaurant. Since the original approval, the applicant has been in negotiations with the restaurant operator and potential lenders. Based on discussions with both parties,the applicant has discovered that the restaurant operator will not commit to the site with the current number of parking spaces available. Also, potential lenders on the project feel the parking is inadequate to sustain the development. As a result, the applicant sees no alternative but to revise the site plan to provide additional parking. The originally approved Site Plan and elevations are attached. Design Parameters: The plan submitted by the applicant requires the removal of two of the four single family residences and the construction of new parking. The two residences were designated by the Historic Preservation Commission as "Local Landmarks." The primary considerations to designate the structures as local landmarks were that these homes represented the last remaining bungalows from the 1910's and 1920's and the setting of the four homes together. The removal of the residences will require a Landmark Alteration Permit to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The parking would be located in the central portion of the site,parallel to Foothill Boulevard. Under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan(FBSP)requirements,the parking is required to be set back 50 feet from the curb within the activity center. Because of the limited depth of the site, the applicant is proposing a 38-foot setback. The applicant will be submitting a Variance application for the Planning Commission's consideration. Also, the application includes the expansion of the restaurant from 1,600 square feet to 2,530 square feet. DRC COMMENTS DR 93-15 - CAMPOS October 17, 1995 Page 2 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 main issues surrounding the modification is the removal of the two residences. The issue, however,requires input from the Historic Preservation Commission. The Committee may wish to review the site plan and forward comments to the Historic Preservation Commission for their consideration. This item will be scheduled for the November 8, 1995, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. 2. With the removal of the residences, parking is proposed along the activity center frontage. Normally, the parking would be set back 50 feet from the curb. With the Variance request, the parking is proposed 38 feet from the curb. If the Variance is approved by the Planning Commission, extensive landscaping should be provided behind the formal activity center hardscape to screen the parking area. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The restaurant has been expanded slightly from 1,600 to 2,530 square feet. Although the proportions are different, the architecture of the restaurant remains consistent with the previous approval. Staff Recommendation: The Committee may wish to refer the application to the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission numerous application accompanying the modification. Any design comments should be forward for their consideration. Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the application and recommended the policy issues be resolved with the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission prior to any further discussion on the site layout. The Committee recommended that the applicant provide a sketch of the site plan showing the drive approach on the west side of the parking area as requested by staff. Also, the Committee recommended that the applicant indicate where the residences would be relocated. In the past, one house was left on blocks for several years before it was demolished because of extensive vandalism. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS October 17, 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary