Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/09/19 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION COMMENTS AND MINUTES TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp John Melcher Nancy Fong Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel 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. (Miki) DESIGN FVI W FORTRACT 1356 _ RALECO - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved residential subdivision consisting of 21 lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of Summit Avenue (Wilson Avenue) and west of San Sevaine Wash Place - APN: 226-291-12; 226-301-19 through 28; and 226-311-4 through 8 and 22-26. 5:40 p.m. (Dan) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-20-KATEL RTT -A request to construct a 2,940 square foot drive-thm restaurant on 1.11 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to be located at the southwest comer of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-77. 6:10 p.m. (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FVI W 95-22 PRAIRIE PACIFIC INV STM NT - A request to construct a 158-unit, three-story senior apartment project in the High Density Residential designation(24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), located on the south side of Base Line Road,west of Archibald Avenue-APN: 208-031-75. Associated with the application is Development Agreement 95-01. DRC AGENDA September 19, 1995 Page 2 6:40 p.m. (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-23 -THE MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP: A request to construct a 24,045 square foot addition to an existing commercial building (Price Club) in the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between I-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-35 and 43. 7:10 p.m. (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH-A request to construct a church facility and school consisting of a 31,017 square foot church, a 28,480 square foot community center,a 16,460 square foot education center,a 10,898 square foot parish center office, a 9,400 rectory,a 10,110 adult education and youth center, a 5,180 square foot chapel, and a 9,387 square foot adult center on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation(1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225- 171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Associated with the application is Variance 95-04 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. 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 I, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist Hfor the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 7, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Miki Bratt September 19, 1995 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13566 - RALECO - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved residential subdivision consisting of 21 lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Residential District(24 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of Summit Avenue(Wilson Avenue)and west of San Sevaine Wash Place-APN: 226- 291-12; 226-301-19 through 28; and 226-311-4 through 8 and 22-26. Background: On August 1, 1995, the Design Review Committee (Barker, Lumpp and Fong)reviewed the project and requested revisions. Attached is a copy of the August 1, 1995 Design Review Committee action comments. Revisions have been received and reviewed by staff. The following are staff comments on the revised plans. Staff Comments: The following 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. (Major issues have been addressed by the applicant however, a few issues must still be resolved): Architecture: 1. The Design Review Committee requested that the product on Lot 4 be changed to increase backyard privacy. Because the one story design does not fit on the lot, a more compact two-story plan has been sited and placed at the front setback line. 2. The Committee emphasized the requirement for design elements on the side and rear elevations. In reviewing the revised one-story plan, staff found that vents have been added to the side and the rear elevations, stucco-over trim around the windows have been added to the rear elevation, and stone veneer base has been extended from the garage front to the side elevations for a distance of 5 feet. For the two-story plans, staff found that vents, stucco-over trim around windows, multi- pane glass for some of the windows have been added to the rear and side elevations. Staff believes that the level of detailing is still lacking especially for the side-on garage side elevation. Additional details and elements should be provided such as pop-out windows, door, extend the stone veneer base, etc. , 3. The Design Review Committee has requested that where four-car garages are offered, they shall be mitigated with design treatment. The design of the 4-car garage is essentially the same one as reviewed by the Committee on August 1, 1995. 4. The applicant did not provide the sides and real elevations for two of the three architectural style of the two-story plans for staff to review. 5. Porch designs have been dimensioned and meet the 8 feet by 10 feet minimum requirement. 6. Materials for perimeter and garden walls have generally been called out. Wood fencing is specified for the south perimeter wall. The Design Review Committee requested concrete block to withstand wind and consist of decorative material or finish. 7. Five lots have been plotted to allow recreational vehicle storage access on the garage side of the residence which meets the 20 percent requirement. RV access should be indicated and access gates specified for garden walls. DRC AGENDA DR 13566 - RALECO September 19, 1995 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. (The applicant has responded to the Planning Commission policy issues. The following policies will be included in the conditions of approval): 1. All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from public streets, shall consist of a decorative exterior material or finish including decorative cap. 2. Where river rock is called out, it shall be native rock and not manufactured rock. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to address the identified concerns before forwarding the project for City Planner approval. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Miki Bratt The Committee generally approved the additional detail illustrated at the meeting, cleanup items are discussed below: 1. Side elevations shall be enhanced, especially side entry garage sides of two-story plans. (Lot 9 was discussed as an example). Functional windows are preferable to non-functional detail, but trim features such as siding, or fascia treatment consistent with front and rear elevations may be used. Indicate garden wall height by dashed lines and label. 2. Side views for all plan variations shall be illustrated. For ease of comparison side views may be dimensioned at a smaller scale and incorporated into one blueprint sheet. 3. Offsets, or other design features, shall be used for all front-on four-car garage plans. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Dan Coleman September 19, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-20 - KATELARI - A request to construct a 2,940 square foot drive-thru restaurant on 1.11 acres of land in.the General Industrial District(Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to be located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street-APN: 209- 491-77. Design Parameters: The site is located on a vacant parcel directly across the street from the new Department of Public Social Services building. This parcel is part of Parcel Map 12848 for which a master plan for 3 office buildings was prepared(see Exhibit "A"). This project proposes to modify the Master Plan in two ways: 1)reduce the parcel size through a lot line adjustment from 2.44 acres to 1.11 acres, and 2) replace one office building with the fast food restaurant (see Exhibit "B"). The Planning Commission has adopted its Resolution No. 88-96 which contains policy prohibiting drive-thru facilities at intersections except within an approved master plan. The Commission's policy also discourages corporate architectural styles. 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: A. Site/Landscape Plan: 1. The proposed master plan is contrary to the Planning Commission policy prohibiting drive-thru facilities within 300 feet of any intersection. 2. The proposed parcel width of approximately 210 feet is contrary to the Industrial Area Specific Plan minimum parcel width of 300 feet along Arrow Route due to its status as a Special Boulevard. This requirement would be waived if the proposed Master Plan is approved by the Planning Commission. B. Architecture: 1. Revise elevations, in particular the building form,consistent with Industrial Area Specific Plan policy: "the design of buildings and site plans should be compatible with surrounding land use and architecture". It also states that "building materials,colors, and textures shall be compatible with those of adjacent or nearby buildings. "The Department of Public Social Services building, the only adjacent building on the south side of Arrow Route, features sandblasted concrete tilt-up. The industrial buildings to the north and south are painted concrete tilt-up construction. The proposed elevations have a "corporate" style typical of fast food restaurant chains (tile mansard roof and stucco) which is contrary to the Commission's policy to provide compatibility with surrounding buildings. a. Delete tile mansard roof element and gables. b. Add freestanding wall elements at pick-up window and patio and connect these to building with a trellis. Examples of these elements can be found on the Department of Public Social Services building next door and the State Farm Insurance building on Milliken, north of 4th Street. C. Use smooth finish stucco or sandblasted concrete. DRC AGENDA CUP 95-20 - KATELARIUS September 19, 1995 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. Some turf should be used along both street frontages consistent with the neighborhood. 2. The drive-thru screen wall should have a decorative cap. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Decorative paving should be used in the drive entry throat from Arrow Route in keeping with the importance of this street as a Special Boulevard. Attachments: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee did not recommend approval of the architecture. The applicant was given direction to start over and design building compatible with surrounding buildings. The Committee also expressed concern that the project was inconsistent with interim drive-thru policies. The Committee recommended that the applicant meet with Building & Safety Division to deterrrnne ADA accessibility requirements. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Scott Murphy September 19, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-22 - PRAIRIE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS - A request to construct a 158-unit, three-story senior apartment project in the High Density Residential designation(24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-031-75. Associated with the application is Development Agreement 95-01. Background: In 1988,the City approved a General Plan Amendment and Development District Amendment to change the designation on the site from Low Residential to High Residential, Senior Housing Overlay District. In conjunction with the application, the City also approved a Development Review for a 177-unit senior apartment project. The three-story project was designed as two "U-shaped" buildings around a central courtyard area. Parking for the project was provided around the perimeter of the site. Access to the site was available from Base Line Road. Emergency access is provided by a gate along the west side of the Rancho Cucamonga Library site. Design Parameters: The site is located between existing one-story, single-family homes on the west and the Rancho Cucamonga Library and commercial center on the east. The property to the south is contains a two-story, single family residence. The portion of the residential site immediately south of the project, however, is vacant. With the previous application,the site was graded to conform to the requirements of the previous project. Two building pads have been created in the central portion of the site. Street improvements were installed by the City as part of the Base Line Road widening project several years ago. The site drops roughly 8 feet from Base Line Road to the first building. The entire site falls approximately 20 feet from Base Line Road to the south property boundary. The grades along the west property line are within a couple feet of the existing grades for the single family residences. Neighborhood Meeting: In anticipation of the Development Review process, the applicant has already conducted a neighborhood meeting to enlist concerns from the adjacent property owners. On August 29, 1995, several of the property owners attended the meeting. The main concerns of the attendees are as follows: 1. The previous developer of the site removed the rear wall of the neighboring properties, leaving the homes exposed to the subject site. The owners were very concerned about the safety of their homes and requested assurances from the developer that the perimeter wall would be constructed prior to construction of the buildings. The applicant indicated that the wall would be the first thing constructed if the project went forward. 2. The residents did not want trash enclosures located adjacent to their lots. They were concerned about the smell, flies, etc. emanating from the enclosures being so close to their property. 3. Tall evergreen trees should be provided along the west property line to provide buffering and privacy for the single family homes. 4. Initially, a few of the homeowners expressed concern about the impact three-story structures would have on their privacy and views. By the end of the meeting,the height of the structures did not seem to be a major issue. The wall construction and landscape installation seemed to address most of the concern. DRC AGENDA DR 95-22 - PRAIRIE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS September 19, 1995 Page 2 Development Agreement: In conjunction with the application, the applicant has submitted an application for a Development Agreement. A Development Agreement is a requirement of any Senior Housing project in order to lock in the rental rates,tenant qualification criteria, and the term of the affordability. In addition,the applicant is also requesting a Development Agreement to address deviations from the Development Code requirements. The deviations include the following: 1. The maximum building height within 100 feet of single family residential shall be limited to single story. The applicant is proposing an 81-foot setback to the three-story structure. 2. Private open space shall be provided at a rate of 150 square feet for ground floor units and 100 square feet for the second and third floor units. The applicant is proposing patios/balconies as small as 100 square feet for the ground floor units and 95 square feet for upper units. 3. The minimum one-bedroom unit size is 650 square feet. The applicant is a proposing 533 square foot one-bedroom unit with the application. 4. Laundry facilities shall be provided at a rate of one washer and dryer for every five units. 5. A minimum of five different recreational amenities are required for the 158 units. The applicant is proposing five amenities but some are duplications. 6. The minimum building setback from the drive aisle is 20 feet. In some locations, the proposed setback is 9 feet. 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. Additional variation should be provided in the roof line of the east and west 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. A columnar evergreen tree should be provided along the west property boundary. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Additional trash enclosures should be provided along the west side of the project so that residents will be within 150 feet of an enclosure. Given the concerns of the neighborhood, placement of these enclosures will be more difficult. DRC AGENDA DR 95-22 - PRAIRIE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS September 19, 1995 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the application subject to conditions deemed appropriate to address the previously mentioned issues. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp,John Melcher, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the application and recommended approval. The applicant should work with staff to address the landscaping along the west property line. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Scott Murphy September 19, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-23 -THE MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP: A request to construct a 24,045 square foot addition to an existing commercial building(Price Club)in the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between I-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-35 and 43. Desien Parameters: The site is currently developed with a 11,325 square foot Price Club facility. Parking for the building is provided to the north and west. Truck loading is provided at the southeast corner of the building. With the application,the applicant will be extending the building to the west roughly 66 feet. Three rows of parking will be eliminated with the expansion. Based on previous actions by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission,the applicant is showing the relocation of the northerly east- west drive aisle to create a four-way intersection south of In-N-Out Burger. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. With the expansion of the building,the applicant is proposing to extent the colonnade to the west across the front of the addition and turn the comer to the south consistent with the current design. The extension of the colonnade, however, eliminates the symmetry of the entry. The colonnade could be extended to the east to help balance the entry but will not match the new addition. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed,and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. As with the previous application, the traffic cones from the front of the entry should be removed to allow vehicular access across the drive aisle to the east. This drive aisle is a major component of the interior circulation system and blocking aisle forces additional traffic to the north, congesting the other drive aisles. Traffic control measures (e.g. speed bumps, signage, etc.) can be installed to regulate speeds across the front of the store. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: I. Materials should be consistent with the existing facility. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the application subject to conditions deemed appropriate to address the previous issues. The Environmental Assessment is subject to Planning Commission approval. Unless otherwise desired, the Development Review application will be approved by the City Planner. Desien Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy Continued to October 3, 1995, at the request of the applicant. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Scott Murphy September 19, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH-A request to construct a church facility and school consisting of a 31,017 square foot church, a 28,480 square foot community center, a 16,460 square foot education center, a 10,898 square foot parish center office, a 9,400 rectory, a 10,110 adult education and youth center, a 5,180 square foot chapel, and a 9,387 square foot adult center on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Associated with the application is Variance 95-04 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. Design Parameters: The subject site is subject to the design guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The property is unusually shaped. The street frontage on Etiwanda Avenue is roughly 331 feet and extends westerly for 619 feet. The property then expands in a north-south direction creating a rectangle measuring 1970 feet by 639 feet. An emergency access easement is provided to Summit Avenue to the north. The property slopes approximately 3 percent from north to south. Eucalyptus windrows border the site and extend into the site. The property is surrounded by residentially zoned property. As a condition of approval, street dedication is being requested for the future extension of Vintage Drive along the south property line. Vintage Drive, a collector street, will eventually extend from Etiwanda Avenue to Milliken Avenue. Variance Request: With the Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant will be requesting Planning Commission approval of a Variance to exceed the maximum allowable height of 35 feet. The church and the community center are 61 and 55 feet in height, respectively. The church tower is upwards of 85 feet in height. Tree Removal Permit: The applicant will also be requesting approval of a Tree Removal Permit to remove the existing Eucalyptus windrows around the perimeter of the site. While the majority of the windrows are off-site, the site grading and retaining walls installation will impact the root system of the trees, leading to their ultimate death. As condition of approval will require replacement planting consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan guidelines. 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. As previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing two structures, the church and community center,that exceed the maximum height requirement. The Etiwanda Specific Plan(ESP)provides design guidelines which describe the desired architecture as "low profile, rather than massive." The project design must also be guided by site specific factors, such as views and surrounding development. With the potential for single family residential homes adjacent to the project, staff is concerned about the impacts of the building heights on the neighboring properties. DRC AGENDA CUP 95-16- SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH September 19, 1995 Page 2 2. In order to minimize the impacts of the building heights, the Committee may wish to consider alternative building locations. The church building and community center building could be placed along the north-south axis of the site, to provide greater setback from the single family residential areas surrounding the property. The applicant has explained the reasoning behind the building orientation and will be presenting this information to the Committee. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. While no specific architectural style is required within the Etiwanda Overlay District, the use of field stone as a major design element is strongly encouraged. The building designs do not incorporate the use of river rock. The applicant has provided an"Architectural Style Narrative" for the Committees consideration. Most of the descriptions and photographs provided in the "Architectural Style Narrative" by the architect are examples from outside the Etiwanda community. Given the large setback of the chapel from Etiwanda Avenue, it may be more appropriate to introduce some decorative entry walls and monumentation which incorporate river rock. 2. More parking spaces should be located in closer proximity to the church building. Presently,the majority of parking spaces are located at the rear flf the site with the church located towards the front of the parcel. As with the building orientation,there are specific design considerations by the applicant that will be presented to the Committee to explain the site planning for the church. 3. The use of standing seam metal roof has been allowed by the Planning Commission in limited amounts. Large expanses of the metal roof are discouraged. A flat concrete tile would be preferable. 4. The gates at the entry and exit drive aisles should be relocated closer to the street to prevent vehicles from entering the site only to have to turn around within the drive aisle when gates are closed. 5. The grading of the site should be revised to minimize the retaining wall heights along the property lines (shown up to 10 feet high). Of particular importance is the south property line because of the impact/visibility to adjacent properties. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans the address the design comments deemed appropriate. The plans should be resubmitted for additional Committee review. Attachments: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: David Barker, John Melcher, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the application and felt that the architectural style proposed by the applicant was not consistent with the rural character of the Etiwanda area. The design appears too urban for the setting. Also, the tallest/largest structure is proposed to be located at the narrowest, most constrained portion of the site. The applicant should explore shifting the structure to the west. The Committee suggested a Planning Commission workshop may be appropriate to discuss the application and possible solutions/directions. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS September 19, 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. J Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary