Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/11/01 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY NOVEMBER 1, 1994 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp John Melcher Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker 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. 5:00 p.m. (Beverly) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-18 - AMERICAN KLEANER - The addition of 120,535 square feet to an existing 134,952 square foot manufacturing building on 5.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9000 Rochester Avenue-APN: 229-262-1 and 31. 5:40 p.m. (Nancy) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT - The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for ten lots within a recorded tract map of 33 lots in the Hillside Residential District, located on the north side of Almond Street at Crestview Place -APN: 200-441-39, 41, 45-47, 52, 53, 57, 58, and 65. 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 5:00 p.m. Beverly November 1, 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-18-AMERICAN KLEANER - The addition of 120,535 square feet to an existing 134,952 square foot manufacturing building on 5.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9000 Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-262-1 and 31. Design Parameters: The proposed building expansion will add 120,000 to an existing warehouse/manufacturing building. The site can accommodate the required parking and landscaping for the proposed use. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. All parking should be screened from public view with mounding, landscaping and low walls. 2. A plaza should be provided where employees can rest and eat lunch. It should be oriented away from public entrances to buildings and loading areas or/and other high traffic areas. Benches, tables, shade trees or structures should also be provided. 3. South and west elevations should be upgraded with additional articulation or with an additional material such as spandrel glass. The walls proposed are too blank. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Two primary building materials should be provided. Such materials could include concrete, textured concrete, textured block, brick, granite, marble or other similar materials. 2. All roll-up and service doors should be painted to match the main building colors. 3. The screening of any roof mounted equipment shall be integrated into the building design by extending the parapet walls. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of conditions with the Committee's approval. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION• Members Present: Heinz Lump, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Beverly Luttrell DRC COMMENTS DR 94-18 AMERICAN KLEANER November 1, 1994 Page 2 The Committee (Melcher, Lumpp, Coleman) recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. All parking should be screened from public view with mounding landscaping and low walls consistent with the existing streetscape along 6th Street and Rochester Ave. 2. A plaza of sufficient proportions to meet the needs of anticipated staff size should be provided where employees can rest and eat lunch. It should be oriented away from public entrances to buildings and loading areas and/or other high traffic areas. Benches, tables, shade trees or structures should be provided. 3. The proposed south and west elevations should be a continuation of the existing elevations with regards to materials and color. 4. All roll up and service doors should be painted to match the main building colors. 5. The screening of any roof mounted equipment shall be integrated into the building design by extending the parapet walls if necessary. 6. The screen wall shall be tilt-up concrete with sandblasting and a color band to complement the building. The wall shall be ten feet in height (minimum) and shall have landscaping in front of it to soften its appearance. View obscuring gates shall be provided where gates are proposed. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Nancy Fong November 1, 1994 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT- The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 10 lots within a recorded tract map of 33 lots in the Hillside Residential District, located on the north side of Almond Street at Crestview Place - APN: 200-441- 39,41,45,46,47,52,53,57,58 and 65. Back round: The tract was originally approved by the Commission on September 23, 1981, and was recorded in 1986. On August 24, 1988, the Commission approved a design review for 23 lots within the tract, specifically lots 2- 12, 15-19, 22-27, and 30. On August 8, 1989, the Commission approved a second design review for another 5 lots, specifically lots 1, 14, 20, 21, and 29. On January 18, 1990, the Design Review Committee approved the building design for lot 13. The approved elevations consisted of 3 floor plans with 3 elevations for each one. Two of the floor plans were single story. The size for the 3 floor plans ranges from 2,850 to 3,600 square feet. The architectural styles were a mix of Tudor, Traditional and Mediterranean. The developer was Sahama/Nordic, who had submitted for plan check between 1989 and 1990 but did not obtain building permits. Subsequently, the approvals for the two design reviews have lapsed and the property has reverted back to the lender, Westinghouse Credit Corporation (WCC). WCC has named the project as Skyline Estates and attempted to sell the lots as custom home sites. Woodbridge Development company is interested in taking over the development of the site and has submitted for design review of 10 lots. Design Parameters: The site is constrained by a couple of environmental features. They are: the Cucamonga Fault Zone which runs through in a east/westerly direction across the middle of the tract, the high power transmission lines from Southern Edison Company that run along the southern tier of lots within the tract; slopes ranging from 15 to 30 percent for some lots; and the site being in a high fire hazard zone. Public improvements including the trails are in place except for street trees and driveways; however, the grading for the site has not been accepted by the City's Building and Safety Division. The development plans (grading and elevations) submitted by the applicant are similar to the plans that were previously approved by the Commission. Only two floor plans are used, a single story and a two story, ranging from 3,200 to 3,600 square feet in size respectively. However, the elevations show some noticeable changes.. Attached for the Committee reference are the previously approved grading plan and elevations. In addition, homes within this tract are now subject to the Hillside Ordinance since the previously approved design review has expired. Staff Comments The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: DRC COMMENTS DR 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT November 1, 1994 Page 5 1. Grading. The proposed grading concept is to use raised foundations for creating a level finished floor. The stem walls range from a height of 2 to 5 feet Although this concept achieved one aspect of the Hillside Ordinance of minimizing grading, it does not address reducing the building bulk of the houses. The addition of a 2 to 3 feet stem wall to a single or two story home may not add to the bulk of the building. However, the addition of a 3 to 5 feet stem wall makes the bulk of a two story home more massive. The DRC should determine if the proposed grading is consistent with the approved plans or if further revisions are needed. The following lots could have stepped foundations instead of raised ones: lots 4, 6, 10-12, 17, 23 and 30. 2. Elevations. The level of architectural elements and detailing for the proposed one story home need to reflect the same level of quality as in the previously approved plans. The proposed elevations A (Mediterranean) for the two story home is comparable to the approved one. However, elevations B and C need to be improved to the same level of detailing as in the approved ones. The wood siding and brick veneer of the approved elevations have been eliminated from the proposed 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. Instead of creating a flat usable 15 foot rear year area, the applicant should consider developing plans that use decking for the yards areas (side and rear). Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. An 18-foot depth of driveway in front of the garage that is less than 5 % slope for lot 10. 2. Retaining wall should have a decorative cap. 3. For lots that can accommodate a horse corral, concepts of a 24 by 24 feet corral and a 10-foot wide access to the trail should be provided. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plans after receiving direction form the Committee prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION: Members Present: Heinz Lump, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee did not recommend approval of the project because the design does not meet the intent of the Hillside Ordinance. The Committee provided the following directions to the applicant: DRC COMMENTS DR 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT November 1, 1994 Page 2 1. House design (single and two story) should fit the contours of the lots by using a mix of techniques listed in the Hillside Ordinance, such as stepped foundation and stem wall. For example if stem wall exceeds 2 feet in height, stepped foundation should be used. 2. House design should have a custom look and should set an example for the tract. 3. The building mass of the two story house should be reduced. 4. The elevations for single story house with the design solution (lower pitch roof, addition of hip roof, and addition of field stone material) presented at the meeting is acceptable. 5. Revised plans should be submitted for further Committee review. DRC COMMENTS November 1, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary