HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/02/01 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2000 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
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.
NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
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
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 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 27, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga.
f
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 15, 2000 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:00 p.m.
(Doug,).. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-46 - CABOT-
The following items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. 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.
7:10 p.m.
(Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND .DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-61 —
HOGLE-IRELAND—The development of a 92,590 square foot industrial building on
4.68 acres of land in General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan located on the north side of 7th Street between Archibald and Hellman
Avenues - APN: 209-171-18.
7:40 p.m.
(Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16051 -
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES -A residential subdivision of 78 single family lots
on 15.63 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northeast corner of Base Line
Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45. Related file: Development
Review 99-48.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-48 -
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES- The design and building elevations and detailed
site plan for Tentative Tract 16051 consisting of 78 single family lots on 15.63 acres
of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the
Victoria Community Plan, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45. Related file: Tentative Tract 16051.
DRC AGENDA. ;
February 15, 200
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn February 15, 2000
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-46 — CABOT
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee approved the applicant's revision of the office elevation entryway and modified the
45-foot average landscaping along Sixth Street.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Doug Fenn February 15, 2000
r
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-61 — HOGLE-IRELAND
— The development of a 92,590 square foot industrial building on 4.68 acres of land in General
Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the north side of
7`h Street between Archibald and Hellman Avenues -APN: 209-171-18.
Design Parameters: The site is a 4.68 vacant acre parcel. There are two mature Eucalyptus trees
in the middle of the site, a tree removal permit will be required to replace these trees. There is no
other significant vegetation on the site. The site slopes from north to south at an approximately
2 percent. The site is surrounded by industrial development to the north, east and west. To the
south across 7th Street are single-family residences. The proposed building is designed to be
utilized multiple tenants.
The building design will be oriented to front at least 157 lineal feet along 7th Street and the length
of the building (approximately 580 feet) will be along the east property line. The building will be
divided into six units with an average size of 15,500 square feet and each unit will have 800 square
feet of office space. The storage and loading areas face the west portion of the site and do not front
the 7th Street right-of-way. The building design features a raised 2-foot high parapet over the office
entryways of the building. The facility has weak 360 architecture. Most of the detail articulation is
along the front of the building and east elevation; however, the remaining portions (especially the
west side) of the building are very plane and simple (see major issues). The color variation of the
building is, of a "timeless gray," "smoky candle" and "twain blue" color scheme on a concrete tilt-up
facade (small amounts of sandblasted concrete) with blue reflective colored glazing accents.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues:
1. Provide more sandblasted concrete in office portions. The amount provided is minimal and
does not meet intent of Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158.
2. Provide stronger vertical relief(increase the heights of the parapets) over office entryway(s),
and for the portion of the building that fronts 7th Street and portions of the building that is
visible from the public right-of-way.
Secondary Issues:
1. Provide pedestrian plaza screen walls, minimum 4 feet high, around outdoor employee
eating areas:
2. For the main central loading area that is located in the middle of the building area, provide
5-foot wide landscape planters along the sides of the screen wall. This will help soften the
appearance of the screen walls.
3. The applicant should consider how to address severe Santa Ana winds, which may affect
truck loading operations. 'Due to driveway location policies, the building cannot be reversed
on-site; therefore, alternate methods should be explored.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. Provide tables and chairs for outdoor employee eating area.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-61 — HOGLE-IRELAND
February 15, 2000
Page 2
i
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the modification as recommend above.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee approved the applicant's project subject to revisions to the entryways and more
sandblasted concrete to the building elevations. Sandblasted concrete should be located higher
up on elevations, instead of at the ground plane.
Provide stronger color contract consistent with colored elevations.
Provide pedestrian plaza screen walls, minimum 4 feet high around outdoor eating area.
r
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Rudy Zeledon February 15, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16051 - RICHMOND
AMERICAN HOMES-A residential subdivision of 78 single family lots on 15.63 acres of land in the
Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan,
located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45.
Related file: Development Review 99-48.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-48 - RICHMOND
AMERICAN HOMES-The design and building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract
16051 consisting of 78 single family lots on 15.63 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue -APR 227-091-45. Related file. Tentative Tract 16051.
Background: The project site was not part of the Victoria Planned Community; however, was
incorporated into the Victoria Community Plan in 1988. The tentative map application follows a
General Plan Amendment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment adopted for the project site
(May 1991), which changed the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
Design Parameters: The project site is located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Rochester Avenue. The project site is bordered by a vacant parcel land to the north, which is
currently being utilized by the City as a temporary storage yard. To the west the project site is
bounded by Rochester Avenue, Base Line Road to the south and the Southern California Edison
Utility Corridor to the east. The site is currently vacant except for some scrub vegetation and has
a natural slope of approximately 2 to 4 percent from north to south.
The site is proposed to be developed under the Center Plot Development Standards of the Victoria
Planned Community. The proposal is for the subdivision of 15.63 acres of land into 78 single-family
lots. The lots will range in size from 5,803 square feet to 11,385 square feet, with an average size
lot of 6,563 square feet.
Three two-story house plans are being proposed, each having three different elevation styles.
House Plan 1 is proposed to have a 3 car side-on garage. House Plans-2 and 3 are proposed to
have 3 car front-on garages, with the option for a den or office in place of the third garage. Lots that
side or rear on to Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard are proposed to have enhanced rear
and side elevations to include second-story pop-outs (option for 6-foot deck), wood shutters, and
corbel detail to second story windows.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. Provide greenbelt"paseo" trail connection at intersection at Base Line Road and Rochester
Avenue Tract 13281, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester
Avenue, included a trail connection, at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and
Rochester Avenue. The purpose of the "paseo" connection is to provide a convenient
pedestrian access from the subdivision to the bus bay on Base Line Road (see Exhibit"A").
DRC COMMENTS
TT 16051 & DR 99-48 — RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
February 15, 2000
Page 2
Without a trail, the nearest access would be 500-600 feet away at "A" and "E" Streets.
Greenbelt trails are one of the dominant features of the Victoria Planned Community.
2. The Planning Commission's Residential Design Guidelines requires a project of this size
(78 single family homes) to have a minimum number of 7 floor plans and 4 elevations per
each floor plan. The project is proposing 6 floor plans (reverse footprints included), with
4 elevations per plan. Either provide a 7`h floor plan or introduce a side-on garage for house
Plan 2 or 3.
3. Provide 360 degree architectural treatment to all elevations by using the "Enhanced
Elevations" on all- lots. Architectural details proposed on all front elevations, shall be
incorporated into the side and rear elevations. These architectural details shall include
window mullions, wood shutters, and potshelves.
4. Elevations - Staff believes the homes are attractive; however, suggest the following
refinements:
A. Plan 1
1) The three house plans proposed are overly boxy and do not have enough
variation. Additional architectural treatment is needed to help differentiate the
dwelling units from one another, which could include but is not limited to the
following detail (see Exhibit "B"):
a. Changes in roof level and plane.
b. Second story recession and projections.
c. Additional window treatment.
2) Wainscoting treatment shall be continued along the entire lower building plan of
the garage and carried around to the side elevation and end at the return wall or
logical point.
B. Plan 2
1) To avoid a streetscape dominated by 3-car garages, the 2-car garage with window
option shall become a standard option; therefore making the 3-car garage
proposed a bonus option.
C. Plan 3
1) Continue the wainscoting treatment along left side of the 2-car garage. In
addition, carry the treatment around to the front and left side of the 1- car
garages.
2) To provide addition variation between the elevations, vary fenestration treatment
to second story windows.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 16051 & DR 99-48 — RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
FEBRUARY 15, 2000
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. Vary the design of chimney stacks proposed per Plan. Consider the use of accent materials
used on the houses, such as brick or stone
2. The proposed project does include special landscape treatment to the northeast corner of
Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue; however, the design should be consistent with the
design and layout used and on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester
Avenue.
Policy issues: The following items area matter of the Planning Commission and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Provide recreational vehicle storage (12-foot minimum side yard) on at least 20 percent of
the lots as required by the Victoria Community Plan (Ordinance 287). Although this is a
"technical issue" the project must be redesigned to comply, which will mean the loss of
about 6 lots. Only 3 out of the 78 lots are wide enough to accommodate a 12-foot side yard
for RV storage.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the project be revised and returned to the Design
Review Committee, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner Rudy Zeledon
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments with
the following changes:
1. The proposed paseo connection, introduced by the applicant at the meeting, was
conceptually approved by the Committee members.
2. The introduction of an additional Floor Plan was not needed. The Committee felt that
there was enough variation between the six Floor Plans being proposed.
3. The Committee was satisfied with the four elevation styles proposed for house Plan 1.
The Committee determined that as a whole, the three house plans being proposed had
significant architecture variation that would provide for a varied streetscape.
4. Enhance the side elevations of all house products, by incorporating the use of window
mullion treatment as shown on all front elevations.
z
-nTT--1
ry J
ao 2
06 -d5
TT
P4anuany J91sayo0�1
r V
V
a� CD
EUT
14 _1
:f� 00000000• rVN 3L WI i
I p a
c
ild.l I � h •
G I,rl.
rid
111� li �,yS •.
•t _n :�. y. �•�r'. _ `� i11 t'�••+ Ill` s_ `�* ~ s _.,"�. f, `' •,' t
111 :�' ` � ����.{{ ��••SS
tit 111
� I.. :• iii r�},�1 '2 � ^; s '� .� 'i i {' ' ,
.J �l wFW• '�\r`Nll�l '� •11 •I +,�r - :'t.•`,\' 117 '3 �:,�'IY f: :`]'•.
•,s"A. � + i`\ •7.-iii ,1� 1
1 lil ;* r 111 1'1. •,,• _�� .. r +.• ' ,y
---- -----..... . lei
el
j• it _ :�• iii• ..`� ,� � ` ,r-r •f;>. ,�. '�� -.r—rl lii al-.,
ii; �- �• i; 't i i ; Y iii - riii ': ,\ iii '
M1I iii
- - - ° � ��� .>: II •:, �• iii ^� f
.! `� N ..' t\•• _ ' •111, ('■", L tt. ., J
All
Sit
Y r''+•- rii !1 � "' {el. :7 rr i. n. ? ;l :;: : ¢i
� ..� _ -' ,' �••i•: r. lil . iii �-y[ •¢1 J, t��'�•1
�"• i - ;;i ti'X � �� � ..Y t •+ .>, lit � ,'
Cc
tx
161 lit 1!1 1!! _- r. fii , �\p ` �•
— _. ;i. -. iri ° - iii ii �t'� :a• ii rii �►•_ :f1 rii V;1., �� I � ��.'I
_........_..............................................................................._.................. �.5......� �......... ....................._
---•�P•oy
R
j I
' t/■■ ;
film
rte .�-��� � �1 ��• �.-. .•c�'.1.
vow Vie_
COM
Ma
MEN
Imb
•. • 1}`� 411
�M
i 101�II6 _
�■�� 'iIIIIIIRII
} �t� •O � n III"" ,
;f • 91QI0 .fit 3t!�: o . �'� ., ;a
_ vLt
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
FEBRUARY 15, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
f