HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/12/19 - Agenda Packet - (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY DECEMBER 19, 2000 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
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
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.
(Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-17 —
RANCHO CUCAMONGA RV AND BOAT STORAGE — A request to construct a
Recreational Vehicle and Boat storage facility on a 3.7 acre site in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located in the Southern
California Edison power line easement adjacent and west of the Day Creek Channel—
APN: 229-021 47.
7:10 p.m.
(Emily) ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-63—HAY-
A request to develop a 32,300 square foot industrial building on 2 acres of land in the
General Industrial District(Subarea 6)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on
the.west side of Utica Avenue just north of Jersey Boulevard -APN: 209-491-19.
7:30 p.m.
(Warren) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69 — ROBERT K. LAIRD - A request to construct a
6,348 square foot single family home on .71 acres of land within Tract 11626 in the
Very Low Residential District, located at 8923 Laramie Drive—APN: 1061-801-06.
7:50 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72—FRITO
LAY-A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito
Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in Subarea 5(General Industrial)of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan located at 9535 Archibald Avenue -APN: 210-071-28.
ra
DRC AGENDA
December 19, 2000
Page 2
8:20 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-74 —
CENTEX — A request to construct six single family homes within Tract 12659 on
3.6 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District(0 to 2 dwelling units per acre)of
the-€ti,.,,a^aaepeei#io Plan lesa#e
of
Wilson Avenue -APN: 255-511-01 through 06.
8:40 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-64—CCWD-
A request to construct a 32,200 square foot warehouse building and a 9,999 square
foot vehicle maintenance building on 5 acres of land in Subarea 17(Industrial Park)of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at 10440 Ashford Street-APN: 1077-401-01,
11, 12, and 13.
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
7:00 p.m. Douglas Fenn December 19, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-17 — RANCHO
CUCAMONGA RV AND BOAT STORAGE—A request to construct a Recreational Vehicle and Boat
storage facility on a 3.7 acre site in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial
peci is an,
the Day Creek Channel—APN: 229-021-47.
Design Parameters: The vacant site is located in the Southern California Edison easement adjacent
to the Day Creek Channel north of Arrow Route. It is currently used as a container plant nursery.
The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. No structures are on the site and
along the east property line is a Eucalyptus windrow. The site is south and adjacent to the future
Jack Benny Drive. To the immediate west of the site is Stadium Self-Storage located on Arrow
Route. Immediately south of the site is Arrow Route. Across Arrow Route is the Watson 1-15
Business Center. Bordering the east side of the property is Day Creek Channel and the 1-15
Freeway.
The project will include approximately 200 on-site spaces of enclosed, covered and open storage.
The proposed buildings include a 1,034 square foot office building and three recreational vehicle
and boat storage buildings totaling 46,122 square feet,and approximately 29,964 square feet will be
provided for out door recreational vehicle and boat storage. (No storage will be permitted or is
designed under the 81-foot wide existing electrical easement)
The architectural style of the project is a Spanish style with tower accent elements and recesses to
create variety to the building fagade. These tower element are also on the north side of the side
buildings that will front the future Jack Benny Drive. The buildings incorporate two different building
materials such as:stucco finish,and split-face block. The buildings(as seen from the existing ands
future public right-of-ways)are well articulated with vertical and horizontal changes and recesses to
the building planes.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
Maior Issues: There are no major issues because the applicants has addresses design and
architectural issues prior to full submittal.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide additional berming along Arrow Route.
2. Access gates shall be opaque.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend
approval subject to the above modifications .
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Douglas Fenn
The Committee recommended approval subject to secondary issues.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Emily Wimer December 19, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-63—HAY- A request to
develop a 32,300 square foot industrial building on 2 acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 6)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of Utica Avenue just north
of Jersey Boulevard -APN: 209-491-19.
Design Parameters: The site is currently vacant and slopes less than 2 percent. The site is
surrounded to the north by three multi-tenant concrete tilt-up buildings. The site is surrounded to the
east by several multi-tenant light industrial buildings. A vacant field exists to the west with one
vacant concrete tilt-up industrial building. The site has street frontage along Utica Avenue with two
proposed drive approaches. Truck loading is proposed on the south side away from the street
frontage. The building shape is designed to screen the trailer parking and enhances the southeast
building entryway. No trees exist, however shrubs and debris exist along the west side.
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. Incorporate the blue reflective glazing into the north and south elevations.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide Landscape berms in front landscape areas to provide visual interest .
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. No exterior downspouts shall be visible from the street. Exterior downspouts are only
allowed in the loading area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved subject to the above
comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Emily Wimer
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A vertical band of tinted glazing shall be added to the north elevation to add visual interest
from public view.
2. Berming at the front of the property shall be added at the northeast frontage to help screen
and provide ululation.
3. Downspouts shall be located in the loading areas and scuppers shall be screened from
public view.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m. Warren Morelion December 19, 2000
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69–ROBERT K. LAIRD- A requestto construct a 6,348 square foot
single family home on .71 acres of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District,
located at 8923 Laramie Drive–APN: 1061-801-06.
Background at id Desip i Pa,a,, et ,s. TI ie -sit e .28 — .3 of Traet 11626, whieh is an 82-lot
subdivision that was approved in 1983. To date, there are approximately 30 vacant lots left within
the Tract, including 6 that are being constructed at this time. The lot is located on the south side of
Laramie Drive and slopes southerly(front to back)at approximately 11 percent. A survey of existing
houses within the Tract has shown that there are two two-story homes with the same architectural
style proposed. The homes used terraced walls, contour grading, and vegetation to address the
hillside conditions and soften their appearances.
The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home that will step southerly with the lot's
natural grade, resulting in a three-story design. The top two floors of the home front Laramie Drive
and will be visible from the street. The bottom level is only expected to be visible from adjacent
properties to the sides and rear of the property. A detached garage will be one-story and located in
the southwest corner of the lot. The construction of the project will require a vertical cut/fill of more
than 5 feet and a combined cut and fill of 2,298 cubic yards of dirt. Because the cuttfill exceeds
5 feet in height and 1,500 cubic yards, this project requires Design Review Committee review and
recommendation and Planning Commission action, according to the Hillside Development
Regulations. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed project meets the intent of
the Hillside Development Regulations.
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. Grading: The primary issue is whether the proposed project meets the intent of the Hillside
Development Regulations. The purpose of the Hillside Development Standards is to
minimize grading and building mass. A survey of existing homes in Tract 11626 showed
that there are two two-story homes with the same architectural style as the proposed home.
Significantly,several of the homes within this tract were used as examples of what the city
did not want to allow in hillside areas. In particular, massive homes with tall, blank walls. It
appears that one home has one-story above the first level and the other has two. Each
home has used a combination of terraced walls,contour grading,and vegetation to address
the hillside conditions. There are a number of design techniques outlined in the Hillside
Development Standards,which would address the issue. For example,the applicant could
reduce the size of the proposed home to two stories, which would reduce the amount of
grading caused by an additional floor at the rear of the home. To further reduce the
grading, the applicant could reduce the size of the detached garage, or relocate it. The
applicant could also reduce grading by reducing the length/size of the driveway servicing
.the detached garage.
2. Building Height: In addition to minimizing grading and building mass, the Hillside
Development Regulations requires that single-family homes be limited to 30 feet in height,
16 feet for structures in rear property setbacks. To reduce the project's height from 32 feet
8 inches to a maximum of 30 feet, the applicant could reduce the size of the home to two
stories or redesign it to fit the height requirement. The detached garage in the rear property
could also be reduced from approximately 17 feet to a maximum height of 16 feet by being
redesigned. The applicant is in the process of filing a Minor Exception that would allow up to
a 10 percent increase in height for each structure. This would allow the project, as
proposed, to meet all height requirements.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-69— ROBERT K. LAIRD
December 19, 2000
• 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 Provide mature landseaping around three steFy areas ef heme tO Feduee building height and
mass.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that with the secondary issue addressed the proposed
project meets the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. Addressing the building height will
still require approval of a Minor Exception prior to issuance of building permits.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Warren Morelion
The Committee approved the project due to special circumstances surrounding the development of
Tract 11626. The Committee felt that because the Tract was approved and development was
allowed to take place in the neighborhood prior to adoption of the Hillside Ordinance, that strict
interpretation of the Ordinance for this project would be out of character with existing development in
the neighborhood. The Committee felt that hillside conditions created by the project's design could
be addressed with a south elevation revision, and by planting mature landscaping around the
• building to soften it's appearance. The Committee also felt that the 32-foot 8-inch height created by
the projects "three-story" design would not be a problem if the height increase is approved with a
Minor Exception.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:50 p.m. Brent Le.Count December 19, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 — FRITO LAY - A
request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres
of land in Subarea 5 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at
9535 Archibald Avenue -APN: 210-071-28.
Design Parameters: The Frito Lay site is developed with rather functional looking buildings and
various tanks and loading facilities. The proposed addition would close off the northern most
driveway entrance on Archibald Avenue and replace it with landscaping. Much of the site is
surrounded by a high architectural screen wall so the industrial aspect of the facility is not visually
prominent from Archibald Avenue or Fourth Street. The office area at the northwest corner of the
site however is exposed and visually prominent from Archibald Avenue. The building incorporates
two primary building materials along with glazing and wall reveals. The entries to the building are
located on the south and north elevations with minimal visual presence relative to Archibald Avenue.
The office addition is proposed to be one story.
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. The proposed addition is a significant opportunity to create a high quality image for Frito Lay.
The building design lacks visual interest and wall articulation. While this may be acceptable
for the other parts of the building that are behind the architectural screen wall, the office
expansion is visible from Archibald Avenue. Therefore, provide substantially more glazing
and architectural features commensurate with the office function of the building. The entry
portion on the south elevation with horizontal and vertical change of plane, curved feature
over entry doors, and glazing represents the minimum acceptable level of articulation for the
remainder of the expansion.
2. Provide enhanced entry statement by either relocating entrances to more visible locations
relative to Archibald Avenue or through the use of architectural focal features such as a
towers, domes, massing, color, trellises, etc. and landscaping.
3. The applicant is proposing painted concrete tilt-up and a band of texcote(looks like stucco).
Staff does not believe this meets the intent of Industrial Area Specific Plan requirement for
two primary exterior building materials. From public view along Archibald Avenue, the
texcote finish may not be distinguishable from the painted concrete walls.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. All roof drain features shall be located behind the parapet and inside the building walls.
2. Provide a minimum 2-foot deep parapet return wherever vertical change of plane occurs to
ensure a quality look and avoid a fin like appearance.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be completely screened from all off-site views.
Parapets shall be designed to screen roof equipment rather than relying on roof screens.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-72— FRITO LAY
December 19, 2000
Page 2
2. A minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall plus one tree per 30 linear feet of
property line plus one tree per 3 parking spaces shall be provide.
S. Provide 7 h Ca c, tables, and nh;+'ir-s n outdoor employee eating area
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above
comments and brought back for further review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The applicant did not present revised renderings to address the design issues identified in the staff
report. Further,the architect indicated that the colored renderings,colored elevations,and building
materials sample board were inconsistent and were incorrect. The applicant stated that there was
significant Corporate level resistance to any design changes,claiming that any change will cost too
much money and exceed the project budget. The Committee explained the City's goals to create a
high quality community and the importance of their project at a major City gateway and along a
Special Boulevard. The Committee indicated that the proposed design was not acceptable and
offered several examples of recently completed projects, which inspire creative solutions. The
Committee informed the applicant that if they chose, the project could proceed to the Planning
Commission without a recommendation for approval from the Committee. The applicant said they
wish instead to resolve the design issues with the Committee.
The Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staff's comments and be brought
back for further review. The Committee recommended that the applicant restudy the architectural
design to provide a higher quality appearance, particularly through articulation and materials,and to
avoid large expanses of blank walls. This may include use of additional glazing(or reorientation of
the glazing without an increase of the total glazed area), use of eyebrows and other decorative
features to accentuate windows, insetting windows to provide a sense of depth,decorative cornices,
creative use of colors, etc. The Committee recommended that the applicant visit and study several
different examples of quality architecture: 1)the Catellus/GATX buildings on Milliken Avenue,south
of Foothill, 2) CCWD administrative headquarters, and 3) new office buildings directly across the
street from Frito Lay (at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street). The
Committee made it clear that they are not necessarily requesting that the design incorporate
different materials or more expensive materials than are proposed but that the materials be
assembled in a more architecturally integrated fashion. Furthermore, it is not necessary to change
the interior floor plan or relocate the building entry points.
7
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count December 19, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-74—CENTEX—A request
to construct six single family homes within Tract 12659 on 3.6 acres of land in the Very-Low
Residential District(0 to 2 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located on the west
—side Of ti—anda Avenue south ef VV*'sen Avenue APN.! 255 511 01 through 06.
Background: The six lots represent build out Tract 12659, which was originally approved by the
Planning Commission on November 13, 1985. On July 9, 1997, the Commission approved
Development Review 97-10 for homes within the main portion of the tract to the west of the subject
lots. These homes have been constructed.
Design Parameters: The six lots have been rough graded and frontage improvements including
curb and gutter, Class I Bike Path, and driveway approaches have been installed. Due to the
location and elevation of the existing driveway approaches, portions of on-site driveways will be as
steep as 12 percent. Typically,single-family homes are allowed to have maximum driveway grades
of 5 percent. In this case;however,there are large driveway areas that are relatively flat to allow for
safe and convenient parking of vehicles so absolute compliance with the 5 percent policy isn't
necessary. There is an existing private horse trail along the west edge of the lots, and a public
horse trail and Bike Path along the north boundary of tract(within Metropolitan Water District right-
of-way). There are two home plans proposed, each with a reversed footprint. Plan 1 (3,717 square
feet) is one-story and has a ranch, bungalow, and traditional style, and the Plan II home
(4,710 square feet) is two-story and has a ranch and bungalow style. The garages are placed well
behind the front of the homes. The home design incorporates the use of traditional materials and
building forms consistent with the Etiwanda Area and with the existing homes to the west. The
fronts of the homes are very tastefully designed and will enhance the Etiwanda Avenue street
scene. The sides and rears of the homes however receive far less articulation, use of special
materials, and visual interest than the fronts. The issue of 360-degree architecture is particularly
crucial for this project, as all sides of the homes will have visual prominence due to the size,grade,
and location of the lots.
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. Upgrade the side and rear elevations of the homes to provide further 360-degree
architectural quality. This can be accomplished by adding features from the front of the
homes including divided light windows, shutters, pot shelves, stone veneer, trim lines,
dormer and bay windows (including metal roofs).
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Retaining walls located in front yard areas shall be limited to 3 feet in exposed height. All
other retaining walls not visible from the street shall be limited to 4 feet in height. In all cases
the retaining walls shall be constructed of gray split face block to match the existing walls
within the remainder of Tract 12659.
C 2. All wood and other siding/veneer materials shall wrap outside corners and terminate only at
interior corners or other logical stopping point (e.g. chimney).
3. Provide side yard fencing and return fencing between homes.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-74—CENTEX
December 19, 2000
• Page 2
i
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
i All ground Fneunted equipment, ineluding aiF eenditieners and Edisen boxes, shall be fully
screened from off-site views. This may require the construction of low walls as no property
line fencing is proposed.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments. The applicant agreed to the
design revisions.
7
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:40 p.m. Brent Le Count December 19, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-64—CCW D—A request to
construct a 32,200 square foot warehouse building and a 9,999 square foot vehicle maintenance
building on 5 acres of land in Subarea 17 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
Incater! at 104 4fl Achfnrd Street—APN- 1077- 401 01, 11, 12, and 13
Background: On January 25, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 94-39 with an associated Master Plan for the development of Cucamonga County Water
District headquarters consisting of administrative offices, a maintenance warehouse, vehicle
maintenance, and a fueling station.The individual buildings require Design Review approval. The
administrative offices were approved in July of 1996 and have been built.
Design Parameters: The current proposal is for the warehouse and vehicle maintenance buildings
and includes a pipe storage area at the west end. The 5-acre site is vacant but the frontage is
improved with private street, curb,and gutter. The site is located west of the existing administrative
office site and will share the eastern driveway entrance with the office. There is a flood control basin
to the north, existing industrial buildings and the Cucamonga County Water District administrative
offices parking lot to the south and vacant land to the west between the site and Center Avenue.
The site sits approximately 10 feet below the level of the southern rim of the flood control basin to
the north. There are single-family homes to the west across Center Avenue and to the north across
Church Street from which the facility will have some visibility. The Conditional Use Permit/Master
Plan requires an 8-foot high screen wall surrounding the perimeter of the site to provide screening.
The proposed project has a low,curving, linear design and the overall building shapes,use of colors
and materials and water theme consistent with that established by the existing administrative offices
building.
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 project is tastefully designed to compliment the existing improvements. There are no
major issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide specimen size(24-inch to 36-inch box size)trees at the driveway entrance points to
provide enhanced entry statement.
2. Provide a landscaped planter along the south side of the east-west trending parking strip
near the center of the site to satisfy City standard of 1 tree per 3 parking stalls which is
intended to shade 50 percent of the pavement surface.
3. The angled retaining walls along the south side of the building shall be of a material that
matches or is complimentary to the building materials, such as split face block, but not
precision block.
4. Provide decorative paving for the western driveway to match that of the existing facility to the
east.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-64—CCWD
December 19, 2000
Page 2
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
I All root and gro,ind-ma,inted equipment shall he f,ill screened ro ff-St - V
2. Materials stored within the pipe storage area at the west end of the site shall be stacked no
higher than the height of the surrounding screen walls.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments and the following additional
comment:
1. Steel is an acceptable material for the angled retaining walls along the south side of the
building.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
n
DECEMBER 19, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Thc leiorc v no public comments 8t this tlm@
��rv�r v o
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad uller
Secretary
C
F
C