The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/10/20 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: October 26, 1992 i~ION CO~ TO: FROM: Design Review Con~nittee Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Dan Coleman Peter Tolstoy (Alternate) Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW CO~ITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1992 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. Please review the attached plans, visit the project sites, and write down ~our con~nents using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Committee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Committee and distributed to the Commission and Council. AS always, feel free to contact the appropriate project manager (noted in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting date, if you have specific questions related to the scheduled projects. Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 5:40 p.m. Please notify our department if'you will be unable to attend the meeting. 5:40 - 6:00 (Steve R.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-16 - V & L REPAIR The development of a 6,000 square foot building for Major Automotive and Truck Repair On 1.62 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 13063 Whittram Avenue - APN: 229-162-06. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council P~ CONS]~,'~ C~.LEND~ T~I'~4S A~ENDA October 20, 1992 DR 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION ( Steve H. ) Committee Action: ~eview of site plan The Committee (Melcher, McNeil, Coleman) felt the site plan overlay was acceptable in concept and directed the applicant to revise'the site and grading plan accordingly for the next available Design Review Committee Consent Calendar. In addition, the applicant should submit a Variance application for the one building to curb setback of less than 13 1/2 feet, which will be processed concurrently with the Design Review application at the Planning Commission meeting. (The Minor Exception application can be submitted following approval of the Planning Commission.) DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 - 6:00 Steve Ross October 20, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-16 - V & L REPAIR - The development of a 6,000 square foot building for Major Automotive and Truck Repair on 1.62 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 13063 Whittram Avenue - APN: 229-162-06. Background: The applicant first submitted a Preliminary Review application to the Planning Division in July 1990 for the construction of a 6,000 square foot building for a truck repair business. At that time, he was informed that major automotive and truck repair was not a permitted use in Subarea 15, and that an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan would be required to allow the use on the property. The amendment was subsequently processed and approved by the City Council in March 1991. The applicant also began processing a Conditional Use Permit to allow the proposed use on the site, but never provided staff with a complete application. Staff visited the site in August 1991 and found that the applicant had illegally constructed a building without proper City permits or approvals. Staff then required the applicant to submit a new Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of the building. Since March 1992, the applicant has been attempting to submit a complete application. Design Parameters: The site is located on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Pecan Avenue. The area is characterized by trucking firms, salvage yards and recycling facilities. Several non-conforming residences exist in the area. The lot to the north of the site is vacant, a residence is located on the west, a salvage yard is located to the east, and the AT & SF Railroad is located to the south. The project site contained two existing 28' x 60' metal buildings in addition to the new 50' x 120' metal building for which the applicant is seeking approval. V & L Repair utilizes the two westerly buildings and most of the property for its major truck repair business, while the easterly business and a portion of the adjacent storage yard is leased by a welding company which does business with the applicant. Staff Comments: The following co~unents are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-16 V & L REPAIR OCTOBER 20, 1992 Page 2 Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The Committee should determine whether the metal building is "architecturally designed and compatible with the surrounding land use and architecture," as required by the Industrial Area Specific Plan. At a minimum, the applicant should add matching treatment to the south and east walls where the paint booth is located. The Committee should also review the level of improvements that it feels are necessary to upgrade the site. At a minimum, staff recommends that the following upgrades be required: a) Construction of a parking lot with landscaping. b) Repainting the older buildings to match the new building. c) Improving the design of the front wall by adding columns, a cap, and a stucco coating. d) Replacement of the rolling chain link gate with a decorative metal gate. In addition, staff will work with the applicant to meet the streetscape and on-site landscape requirements of the Industrial Specific Plan. These will be addressed during the Technical Review Committee meeting. Site Development Co~unents: 1. See the attached Site Plan and Design Review Committee comments regarding the minimum level of landscaping and aesthetic improvements which will be required for the site. An Off-site drainage easement is required from the property to the west to allow the increased flow (created by the proposed increase in impervious surfaces) to pass through this site. This easement must be obtained prior to scheduling for the Planning Commission. Building "C" must be "floodproofed" to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide an analysis showing that this is possible. 4. See the attached Draft Standard Conditions. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-16 - V & L REPAIR OCTOBER 20, 1992 Page 3 Desipn l~view C~-,,,,,lttee Action: Members present: Larry McNeil, John Melcheri Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Ross The Committee recommended approval of the project and made the following comments: All of the improvements required by the Planning Division should be completed within six months of the Planning Commission approval date. Matching building walls should be added to the building on the south and east sides of the spray booth to be consistent with the exterior treatment used on the building. If these walls interfere with the functional requirements of the spray booth, the building could possibly be extended further south to enclose the washing area and storage container. Another alternative would be to construct a partial wall above the spray booth, and paint the rest of the spray booth to match the building. The two other buildings on the site should be painted to match the new building. Streetscape landscaping should be installed between the curb and the block wall west of the driveway, and along the parkway on the east side of the driveway. The design of the existing block wall should be upgraded by adding a decorative cap along the top, and by constructing pilasters at the ends of the wall and on the east side of the driveway. The existing rolling chain link gate shall be replaced with a decorative metal gate to screen the interior of the site as much as possible. The Committee also suggested adding a Condition of Approval which would require modifications to building "A." This would include relocating the roll-up doors to the south side of the building as well as the installation of streetscape landscaping if that building were vacated for more than 180 days, or when future development were proposed on the property, whichever came first. The Committee reminded the applicant that technical issues which have to be addressed proceed to the Planning Commission. there are several major before the applicant can