HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/04/28 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY APRIL 28, 1998 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Bill Bethel Rich Macias Nancy Fong
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel
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.
(Alan) DESIGN REVIEW 97-44 FOR TRACTS 15727-3 & -6 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES INC -
The review of the building elevations, detailed site and grading plans for 85 single
family units in Phases 3 and 6 of Tract 15727; the perimeter wall plan and fences; and
the landscaping plans for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map consisting of 342
single family lots on 82 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre) between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel -APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
Related File: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404.
7:40 p.m.
(Rebecca) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE
COMMUNITIES: The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations
and detailed site plan for 191 single family homes on 40 acres of land in the Village of
Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan located at the southwest corner of
Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. .
8:20 p.m.
(Rebecca) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to
revisit the color striping issue on the previously approved public storage facility on 2.96
acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and
Red Oak Street -APN: 209-491-82.
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.
NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
DRC AGENDA \
April 28, 1998
Page 2
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.
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 23, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center rive, Rancho Cucamonga.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Alan Warren April 28, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW 97-44 FOR TRACTS 15727-3 & -6 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES INC - The review of
the building elevations, detailed site and grading plans for 85 single family units in Phases 3 and 6 of
Tract 15727; the perimeter wall plan and fences; and the landscaping plans for a previously approved
Tentative Tract Map consisting of 342 single family lots on 82 acres of land in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
Related File: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404.
Design Parameters:
The 82-acre site lies at the juncture of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and Fourth Street,
and bordered on the north by Sixth Street. The project site has been rough graded with the approval
of the first two tract phases. The site was rezoned early in 1997 to Low-Medium and an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was completed to assess impacts of the land use change and the residential
development potential. As part of the EIR process, certain mitigation measures were identified that are
design related. The measures that are pertinent to the subject phases include the following:
1. Solid perimeter walls, where needed, to a height (8 feet 7 inches) sufficient to attenuate off-site
noise.
2. Inclusion of historic themes in the project design.
3. Adequate storage space will be provided for each dwelling unit to ease separation of recyclable
materials.
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. The applicant has worked diligently adhere to the design issues of the first two phases as
follows:
Site Plan: Phases 3 and 6 contain the larger lots within the development averaging 7,400 square
feet for the combined phases. The phasing lines conform substantially to the phasing
approved for Tentative Tract 15727. The front setbacks conform to Development
Code variation and minimum average requirements, as well as the side and rear yard
minimum requirements, for all lots.
Architecture: With Phases 3 and 6 being the larger lots, the applicant is proposing 3 basic floor
plans of 2,126, 2,630, and 2,740 sq. ft., each with four model elevations. With reverse
floor plans and two side garage variations, each phase has at least eight possible floor
plan configurations. With the experience of Design Review Committee review and
approval of Phases 1 and 2, Griffin is proposing model elevations that satisfy minimum
"360 degrees" architecture policy by including the following:
1. Secondary accent material in the gables or add gable frieze bands on all side
street elevations; and
2. Major side and rear elevation windows on second floors are provided with
decorative shutters, if shutters are provided on the front elevations, as well as
stucco or wood surrounds on all windows.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-44 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
April 28, 1998
Page 2
Staff believes the elevations can further be improved by including the following:
3. Expanded porches (to the right of the front door) should be required on all two
car garage options of Plan 1. The plans presently call only for expanded
porches as an option for the bedroom 5 option. The extended porch should be
required for all bedroom, den and library options of Plan 1.
4. On Elevation C, Plan 1, the eave overhang above the front windows should
extend across the entire entry/porch elevation rather than stopping part of the
way across.
Materials: Staff believes the materials requested for these phases are acceptable and superior
to those approved for Phases 1 & 2. The applicant is requesting, therefore,
authorization for these material schemes to be applied in a similar fashion to Phases
1 &2 (instead of the previously approved material/color schemes). It is recommended
that if the Design Review Committee approves these materials/color schemes for
Phases 3 & 6, that they be approved for all phases of Tract 15727. The two materials
boards will be available at the meeting for comparison. The coded elevations
(colored) in the Exterior Materials Schemes booklet do not reflect the actual colors.
The elevation colors (as shown) are simply used as codes for the materials' scheme
charts. The "Cobble Aspen" trim should be called out as "native rock cobblestone" as
required by Planning Commission policy.
Walls: The combination retaining wall and perimeter tract wall along the western boundary
will be constructed with these phases. The design, in keeping with the Master Plan
of Walls, provides for two types of block (slump and split face) divided by an extruding
block as a dividing accent line. Cobblestone pilasters are located at the property lines
to Lot 28, Phase 3.
The most recent noise study states that 7-foot perimeter walls are only needed along
the Fourth Street frontage for sound attenuation. The wall height (less the retaining
portion) along the west boundary is 6-foot in height. Staff believes the wall height
should be increased to 7feet (from the Fourth Street wall to the last pilaster) to ensure
that any noise from Fourth Street directed to the first few side lots is sufficiently
attenuated. Based on the top of wall heights provided, this additional 1- foot should
not extend the over all (retaining + perimeter tract) height beyond the maximum
approved during the Tentative Tract process.
In addition, the applicant is requesting to add monument signing at each Fourth Street
corner similar in design to the City's entry signs. Staff believes the concept has merit
but has concerns regarding the potential long term maintenance requirements of the
sign faces. City maintenance experience does not favor granite due to irrigation spray
residue buildup. Also, the monument wall cannot be higher than 4 feet (Sign
Ordinance 14.20.080.3). It is recommend, therefore, that the entry monument be
allowed at a reduced height and that any sign face (24 square feet maximum) be
limited to recessed letters within concrete subject to City Engineer and City Planner
approval. The grading and plant material placement should also be subject to City
Engineer and City Planner approval and may not be as depicted on the conceptual
plan.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-44 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
April 28, 1998
Page 3
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 front entry/porch structures of all elevations of Plan 1 should not exceed 14 feet in height
(as presently scaled).
2. The stucco corbels (#13 Materials Legend) adjacent to the front windows on Elevation B, Plan
1, should match the corbels on the entry columns. The corbels should also be included on the
side column elevation of the entry structure.
3. The rear yard retaining wall on Lot 26, Phase 3 should be extended, or returned at a less severe
angle, to provide 15 feet of level area from the northwest corner of the house.
4. On the right elevation of Plans 2 and 3, the large second floor window should have mullions as
the first floor windows directly below. These windows will be visible from the street frontage.
5. The perimeter walls along Golden Oak are to be located outside of the landscape easement and
the 8-inch wall width reduces the side yard dimension for those Lots (39, 40, etc.) along the
street. The houses should be shifted westerly to insure that 5 feet clear is provided between the
perimeter wall and the house.
6. Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds shall be painted an
alternate complementary trim color.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy or were included in
Phases 1 and 2, and should be incorporated into Phases 3 and 6 without discussion:
1. All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from the streets, should consist
of a decorative exterior material or finish including a decorative cap (as provided in the Master
Plan of Walls).
2. Provide double fascias along all eaves. Eave overhangs shall be at least 18 inches all around.
3. Provide a minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on corner side yards and sidewalk.
4. Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain, paint or water seal.
5. Chimneys (and caps) should be integrated and treated to be consistent with the house design,
to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
6. Decorative paving in individual driveways should consist of various patterns/textures of concrete,
as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
7. Native rock should be used where cobblestone is called out. Other forms of stone/masonry may
be manufactured products.
8. Eighteen feet of driveway area should not exceed 7.5% slope. This was the maximum driveway
slope approved for Phases 1 and 2.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-44 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
April 28, 1998
Page 4
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Architectural Elevations with Colors and Materials, Site Plans, Landscape
Plans, and Wall Plans be approved subject to recommendations contained in this report and final City
Engineer and City Planner approval.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
Of the items discussed in the staff comments, the applicant agreed to include the following numbered
items listed in this report, as conditions of approval:
Major Issues - Architecture Items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Walls - the applicant agreed to raise the wall at the southwest corner of the site
for sound attenuation purposes but not to exceed the height approved with the
Tentative Tract approval. The Committee concurred with this position.
Secondary Issues - The applicant agreed to Items 1 , 3, 4, and 5.
The Committee and staff agreed with the applicant's suggestion regarding Item
2. The applicant will provide an alternate design in projecting the single garage
door wall with a stucco corbel to match the opposite house wall, subject to City
Planner approval.
Policy Issues - The applicant agreed with all the policy issues, consistent with City policies.
The Design Review Committee recommended approval subject to the items listed above and the
following conditions:
1. Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds without shutters or other
decorative details shall be painted an alternate complementary color (from the approved
colors/materials schedules).
2. Two monument signs are approved for each corner of fourth Street and Golden Oak Drive
subject to City Planner and City Engineer approval. The sign face shall comply with Sign
Ordinance height and size requirements. The sign face shall be concrete with painted recessed
letters. The City Engineer and City Planner may consider and approve alternative sign face
material, similar to that proposed by the applicant, only if maintenance cost concerns can be
sufficiently resolved. Otherwise, only concrete may be used for the sign face.
3. The new materials/color samples are approved for all phases of the project, subject to providing
detailed production sequence sheets for City Planner's review and approval, prior to building
permit issuance.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 28, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES:
The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single
family homes on 40 acres of land in the Village of Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan
located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13.
Design Parameters:
The subject site is a 40-acre site bounded to the north by the future Route 30 Freeway and to the south
by Rancho Cucamonga High School. A single family tract backs up to the site on the west and a flood
control retention basin is due east (across Rochester). The main entrance to the subdivision will be
from Rochester Avenue, with a secondary access along Highland Avenue. The site slopes from north
to south. There are 70 trees on the property, including scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, Walnut, of which 56 are
heritage trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. All are proposed by the developer
for removal.
Background:
This project was reviewed as Pre-Application Review 97-12 by the Planning Commission on October
22, 1997, see attached minutes. The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on March 31,
1998 and focused on major architectural issues. Design Review Committee requested the applicant
incorporate architectural revisions and enhance side and rear elevations, see attached minutes. There
were other issues that time did not permit discussion, which should be addressed tonight.
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. Elevations have been enhanced to address issues identified at the last meeting.
2. Project entry streets were revised to replace curb adjacent sidewalk with landscaped parkways.
Landscape opportunities at Rochester Avenue entry where sidewalks abut perimeter walls
should be explored.
3. The freeway sound wall is an issue for this tract as well as other tracts along the corridor. Staff
and developers are pursuing the matter with SANBAG and Caltrans in an effort to locate sound
walls at the freeway shoulder where they will be most effective and minimize their height.
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 associated Tree Removal Permit requests removal of all 70 trees. One healthy tree, in
particular, is worthy of preservation: a 40-foot tall Italian Stone Pine shown in the rear yard of
Lot 37. This tree is a rare specimen of this size in the area. The preferred scheme is to preserve
the tree in-place by redesigning the Tract. Redesign would eliminate cut or fill, or construction,
within drip line of tree. The arborist report states that this tree cannot be relocated; therefore,
any removal would require replacement with the largest nursery grown specimen available.
2. Lark Avenue has been modified to allow on-street parking.
DRC COMMENTS \'
TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES
March 31, 1998
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. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of sidewalk and
any walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti
potential. Corner side yard walls should be shifted to provide a 5-foot wide landscape area
between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy.
2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or
be composed of a decorative block material.
3. Bands of special paving should be incorporated into long driveways throughout the subdivision.
4. Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme walls.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as
recommended above.
Attachment: Planning Commission Minutes dated October 22, 1997
Design Review Committee Minutes dated March 31, 1998
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) recommended the project be brought back to the Committee
with the following revisions:
1. Elevations should be revised to "de-emphasize"the garage. This should be a comprehensive
approach to include various techniques. For example, front porches should be expanded beyond
the 6-foot depth shown. House plans without porches should be revised such that entry
statements and courtyard features become more dominant. Garage doors should be upgraded
architecturally (sectional steel doors with a variety of window patterns). Front yard landscaping
exceeding minimum requirements and decorative driveway treatment will further this goal.
2. Side and rear elevations facing streets should have additional enhancements.
3. Additional details are needed to indicate the location of project boundary walls and landscape
treatment along public streets, particularly where side yard retaining walls abut the sidewalk.
Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) areas should be clearly indicated.
4. The Committee agreed that freeway sound wall issues would be deferred to a later date.
5. The Committee agreed that the significant tree in the rear yard of Lot 37 may be removed with
mitigation that specimen size trees be used along entry streets.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
October 22, 1997
Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: Larry McNiel
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: Michael Vairin, Steve Cameron, and Terri Sacco - Fieldstone
Communities, Inc.; Bradley Hay - Hunsaker and Associates; Brett
French - David Evans and Associates
NE'r/ BUSINESS
PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 97-12 - FIELDSTONE COfAMUNITIES INC. - The revie...,
of conceptual subdivision mapping, site planning, and street scene elevations for a
proposed 229 lot single family residential subdivision (Tentative Tract 15814) on
approximately 35 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential Develoomenl District
(4-8 dv:elling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester
Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13.
Erad Buller, City Planner, opened the meeting by summarizing the previous workshop and the
purpose of the second meeting, which was to allow the development team to receive comments from
a greater number of Commissioners relative to the revised conceptual plans.
Michael Vairin, Fieldstone Communities, Inc., oresenled the revised plans for the project to the
Planning Commission pointing out that the number of units had been reduced to 191 and highlighting
the modifications that attempted to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the
previous Pre-Application Review meeting. Mr. Vairin summarized the information contained in the
table comparing the previous submittal with the new proposal, which he felt helps make the project
be classified as "innovative." He explained in detail how the proposed front courtyard concept would
be administered. He noted that all front yard landscaping will be provided by the developer,
addressing a previous concern of the Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked the developer for clanrlcaticn about the proposed front courtyard/porch
areas and what would be the minimum treatment in cases where the buyer did not either want or
could not afford additional amenities within these areas.
Mr. Vairn stated that the minimum treatment would be concrete stepping stones or a pad area with
a love wall or fence with pilasters.
Mr. Buller asked the minimum size of this area.
i
Chairman Barker noted that ease of access (everyday and emergency) should be a primary concern
in subdivision design. \
Commissioner Macias noted that drivers have a tendency to cut corners on knuckles and curves
when driving and thought lessening the number of turns is desirable.
Chairman Barker acknowledged that the revised plans address some of the previous concerns
raised by the Commission and are substantially better then the plans seen at the original Pre-
Application Review.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes -3- October 22, 1997
Mr. Vairin responded that it would be a minimum 10 feet by 10 feet.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what the perimeter wall treatment is proposed.
Mr. Vairin stated that the Victoria theme wall would be used along the project perimeters.
Commissioner Tolstoy noted his concerns with calling the project "innovative" when a front-on
garage was being utilized on every house within the project.
Mr. Vairin highlighted the architectural exhibits from the previous meeting and explained how the
garages were designed so that they do not dominate the streetscape.
Stave Hayes, Associate Planner, outlined staffs concerns with the revised plans that the Planning
Commission should consider in their analysis of the project.
Chairman Barker pointed out the lack of vehicle parking areas given the current design of the cul-de-
sac streets, where curb cuts and driveways dominate the straetscapa.
Commissioner Bethel indicated he was looking forward to the formal development package and how
the appearance of the landscape concepts, building elevations, and front porch areas work out. He
stated that he was expecting even the basic design of the courtyard area to be something different
from the normal front porch and something to give this project a certain uniqueness. He noted his _
concern with traffic flow in the cul-de-sac areas where a large number of driveways are proposed
in a relatively small area. He did not object to the unique interior design concepts involved with the
"home fitting" program, but noted his concern with the relatively low ceiling heights proposed on most
homes.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any cross-lot drainage will be proposed for any portion of the site.
Ear. Vairin responded that no cross-lot drainage is proposed.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that another point of vehicular access may be needed for the project and
asked if a different access plan that eliminates access to Highland Avenue could be pursued.
Buller recommended that this access net be eliminated given the constraints on the other street
frontages.
Chairman Barker recommended that another access be provided that serves for emergency
purposes only.
Commissioner Macias expressed his agreement with the previous comments of the other
Commissioners relative to access and the limited amount of parking in the cul-de sacs. He was
looking forward to a plan that will give a better feel of the typical street scene with the project. He
also stressed the importance_ cf sensitivity in the design of the courtyards and porches and
expressed his desire for variation in the elevations and garage doors.
Chairman Barker felt some of the of=_-sheoad lots on the south side of the subdivision are awkward
and should be redesigned in away that v:culd also allow for more parking on the cul-de-sac or
knuckle areas.
The Commission raised the question to st=aff regarding any policies on the number of houses that
are served by one vehicular access point.
far. Buller replied there_ is no written policy regarding that issue.
=C
, ,djourne_d Minutes -2- October 22, 1997
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren March 31, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES:
The proposed subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 191 single
family homes on 40 acres of land in the Village of Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan
located at southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13.
Design Parameters:
The subject site is a 40-2cre site bounded to the north by the future Route 30 Freeway and to the south
by Rancho Cucamonga high school. A single family tract backs up to the site on the west and a flood
control retention basin is due east (across Rochester). The main entrance to the subdivision will be
from Rochester Avenue, with a secondary access along Highland Avenue. The site slopes from north
to south. There are 70 trees on the property, including scrub Oaks, Eucalyptus, Walnut, of which 56 are
heritage trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. All are proposed by the developer
for removal.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion. .
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. Site Plan:
a. Project entry streets are shown with curb adjacent sidewalk which is uncharacteristic for
the area. More attractive landscaped parkways should be considered.
b. The Highland Avenue sound wall height to mitigate freeway noise is under review at this
time. SANBAG assumed that the freeway sound walls would be located at the shoulder
(closest to the travel lanes); however, Caltrans has recently indicated they will not allow the
sound wall at the shoulder, which would result in a 37-foot high sound wall at the tract
boundary. Staff will be pursuing this issue further with Caltrans. Sound walls will also
"wrap around" the corner for most of Rochester Avenue.
2. Architecture:
a. The proposed elevations should be enhanced as follows:
large areas of blank walls should be eliminated.
roof lines should be varied to a greater degree.
plan variety should be incorporated to minimize the "boxy" appearance of models.
360 degree architecture accent treatment, such as shutters or secondary materials,
should be used on side and rear elevations.
b. Front courtyard areas were presented to the Planning Commission in a Pre-Application
Review as a basis for using "innovative" development standards. Staff is concerned that
courtyards are not on all (or nearly all) lots and the diversity of materials and creativity of
i
design has diminished.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES
March 31, 1998
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. The associated Tree Removal Permit requests removal of all 70 trees. One healthy tree, in
particular, is worthy of preservation: a 40400t tall Italian Stone Pine shown in the rear yard of
Lot 37. This tree is a rare specimen of this size in the area. The preferred scheme is to preserve
the tree in-place by redesigning the Tract. Redesign would eliminate cut or fill, or construction,
within drip line of tree. The arbcrist report states that this tree cannot be relocated; therefore,
any removal would require replacement with the largest nursery grown specimen available.
2. An additional 4 feet of right-of-way will be required along Lark Avenue to allow on-street parking
to alleviate overflow high school parking in the neighborhood. This change will shift the proposed
slope adjoining Lark Avenue and will reduce rear yards somewhat.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be 'provided between the back of sidewalk and
any walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize gra`iti
potential.
2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or
be composed of a decorative block material.
3. Bands of special paving should be incorporated into long driveways throughout the subdivision.
Perimeter walls should match Victoria theme walls.
Staff Recommendation:
Sta recommends the Design Review Committee continue the matter to allow the applicant to address
issue areas.
Design Review Committee Action:
Me-,hers Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Star Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
At the meeting, the applicant presented potential revisions to the elevations (Plans 1 and 3) in response
to the architectural issues identified by staff. The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) indicated the
architectural revisions were acceptable and that further enhancements of this nature for the remaining
house_ plans as well as side and rear elevations should be explored. The Committee recommended that
the project be brought back to the Committee as follows:
1. Incorporate revisions to elevations as presented at the meeting and carry out similar
enhancements (details, ornamentation) on remaining house plans.
2. Enhance side and rear elevations, particularly on corner lots.
3. Replace wood fencing in court yards with more durable yet decorative material.
DRC COMMENTS \
TT 15814 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES
March 31, 1998
Page 3
4. Provide details of sound wall - identify noise impacted and design solutions.
The applicant ageeed to modify the Site Plan to provide landscape parkways on entry streets, curb-
adjacent sidewalk along Lark Avenue, and incorporate policy issues in Design Review Committee
comments.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 28, 1998
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to revisit the color
striping issue on the previously approved public storage facility on 2.96 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow
Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street -APN: 209-491-82.
Staff Comments:
Background:
The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the Public Storage project on three
occasions: December 16, 1997, January 6, and January 20, 1998. The original proposal had the
purple, orange, and yellow color banding on the entire building. At its last meeting, the color banding
was reduced to the office segment. The Committee expressed concerns with the color banding
throughout the process and recommended the color banding be removed.
On January 28, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the development proposal and discussed
color banding alternatives with the Sign Program. The Commission approved the project with a
requirement that the color striping and Sign Program be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
On April 1, 1998, staff received a letter from the applicant, see attached. The applicant advised staff
they have explored alternatives and do not feel that any accomplish the desired effect.
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting they be allowed to paint the color bands on the office building for a field test.
The matter would have to be deferred for 6 to 12 months while the building is under construction.
If the Committee entertains a field test, staff recommends the southern elevation be used as a test
panel, prior to final inspection. The striping would have to be removed (if denied) or completed (if
approved), prior to occupancy. If the Committee feels a field test would not be productive or beneficial
to the process, the Committee may forward the matter to the full Commission for action.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications
as recommended above.
Attachment: Letter from Applicant
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee agreed to the applicant's request for a "field test" subject to requirements:
Prior to final inspection, the south or east elevation, as directed by staff when the building is further
along in its construction, shall be used as a test panel. The striping shall be removed if denied, or
completed if approved, prior to occupancy. The applicant shall provide a letter to the Planning Division
agreeing to the requirements stated herein, prior to performing the test striping on the structure.
T [ M
D C
JEFFREY A. MATZEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. %'o L
CONSULTING PLANNING DESIGN
I932
March 31, 1993
Brad Buller, Associate Planner V°•9 coy
Rebecca Van Buren, City Planner °
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Building and Safety Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730
Re: Development Review 97-38
Public Storage, Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Brad and Rebecca:
Thanks again for the approval of our Public Storage Project at your meeting on January 28, 1993.
As expressed in your approval letter dated January 29, 1998, we have one remaining issue with
the Design Review Committee which we are anxious to resolve, i.e., the "color striping on the
office cornice element" referred to under Resolution 5.2. As documented in your approval letter,
the Commission has empowered the Design Review Committee to work directly with us to
resolve this particular issue.
While we feel we have been very conscientious and accommodating of staff suggestions during
the course of our Design Review Committee process, our client feels strongly about the precise
location of the color striping on their building. In this case, we have been unable to find a
solution which would satisfv both the needs of our client, and apparently, the needs of the City.
As we left this issue at the January 28 meeting, alternate suggestions included color striping: 1)
on a monument sign. 2) around the recessed sign at the office corner, 3)just above the glass line,
or 4) to lose the color striping altogether.
At this point, we agree with the client that color striping, if it is going to exist at all, is the most
aesthetically pleasing, is contextually correct, and specifically serves the clients needs in the
location in which it was presented January 28, 1998. To this end, our client, feels their only
options are to have the striping approved as is, or eliminate it.
As a point of negotiation, we propose your approving the color band as is, allow our client to
paint the color striping on the building and invite the Design Review Committee staff to review it
in its completed form. If the Design Review Committee Ends it to be offensive in any way, or
out of context with its surroundings, our client will kindly (at their cost) paint the striping out to
match the field color of the building prior to occupancy to the satisfaction of the Design
-us Orr» • Suit=- 3.200 ' Costa Masa. California 92325 • Phone: (71 a) 5'6 9335 • .a:c (71 a) Sao 2024 • email:jma-ao acl.=
Brad Buller
Rebecca Van Buren
March 31, 1995
Page Two
Review Committee. We are quite confident and hopeful, however, that once the project is
complete, the Committee would see the color striping as an appropriate and aesthetically pleasing
feature of the building. It is our hope that you will accept this proposal as a viable solution.
Please feel free to contact me directly to further discuss our position. We look forward to hearing
from you at your earliest convenience and to a successful resolution to the color striping issue.
Sincerelv,
JE F i\IATZEK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
A. iVlatzek
President
1:\yldlo
CC' Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage
Joe Linden, HBI
Craig Combs, C4C
lil n]Ifnui Dtiv, • jui:c 3-330 Cosa NlI s) • Czliiornia 9�52i Phony (7I-)i-6-933i
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
APRIL 28, 1998
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary