Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/12/05 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY DECEMBER 5, 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. (Steve) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13835 (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-20) - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously County approved subdivision map consisting of 78 lots on 20 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue - APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04 and 18. 5:40 p.m. . (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-3' FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a lube facility within an existing commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. 6:10 p.m. (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-95-2i 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. DRC AGENDA December 5, 1995 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. ADJOURNMENT I, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 27, 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. Steve Hayes December 5, 1995 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13835 (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-20) - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously County approved subdivision map consisting of 78 lots on 20 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue - APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04 and 18. Design Parameters: The 20-acre site was approved for subdivision into 78 single family lots by the County of San Bernardino on December 19, 1988. The subdivision was then annexed to the City and a Development and Annexation Agreement was adopted relative to the development of this subdivision. Essentially, the agreement stipulated that the project shall be developed using the development standards for the Low Residential Development District, with the exception of certain specific development standards. In addition, the City included design standards within the Development Agreement to assure that the development of this subdivision would be somewhat consistent(albeit on smaller lots)with the design criteria specified within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The site currently has a few assorted structures on it with a scattering of mature Eucalyptus trees on the property. The applicant has applied for a Tree Removal Permit to remove the existing trees on the property. No public improvements exist along the project frontages of Highland and Rochester Avenues. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 percent. For the Committee's information, the applicant has submitted a Minor Exception application for minor setback variations on some of the most difficult lots within the subdivision. A total of 10 lots will be effected by this application and staff will review each situation individually to assure that the setback exceptions will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. 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. In attempting to meet the specific design guidelines included within the Development Agreement, the applicant has designed a house, the Plan 4, which has a two-car swing in garage and a separate one-car garage which faces the street. This plan is plotted on 50 percent of the lots to meet the criteria of the Development Agreement. In most situations, staff would feel that the use of a particular model on 50 percent of the lots on a project of this scale may be excessive, but in this particular instance, it is justified because of the lot constraints and the applicants effort to address the requirements of the Development Agreement. DRC AGENDA TRACT 13835 - SHEFFIELD HOMES December 5, 1995 Page 2 2. For all four building footprints, the applicant is proposing four different architectural treatments. However, none of the styles directly reflect the recommended themes (i.e. Victorian, California Bungalow, California Ranch and Mediterranean) as recommended in the Development Agreement, but the agreement does allow for other integrated design themes, as deemed acceptable to the Design Review Committee. Therefore, the Committee may wish to comment on the architectural themes to determine whether they are consistent with the intent of the Development Agreement. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Where wood siding is used as a primary material on the front elevation, it should be used to a greater degree on the side and rear elevations of the residence. 2. On the Plan D elevations, the applicant should clarify the use of the window trim for the Committee to determine whether the application of the trim is acceptable. 3. The wood trellis element over the garage on the Plan 3 Model should be revised to be a more integrated element of the building. 4. The wood shutters on the Plan 4B elevations should either be eliminated or provided on both sides of the small windows above the garage. 5. In an effort to provide a more interesting streetscape, front yard setbacks should be staggered in areas where identical front yard setbacks are proposed for a long row of homes. 6. A minimum of 20 percent of the lots should be plotted to allow for recreational vehicle storage access in the side and rear yards. 7. Driveways should be paired up wherever possible to provide larger shared front yard areas for adjacent units. 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 3-foot wide landscape planter area should be provided between walls in situations where retaining walls are used to mitigate slopes (i.e. north side of Vintage Drive). 2. Any walls adjacent to sidewalks should be moved back 5 feet behind the sidewalk to allow for landscaping in the area between the wall and sidewalk. DRC AGENDA TRACT 13835 - SHEFFIELD HOMES December 5, 1995 Page 3 3. Any retaining walls exposed to public view should be composed of a decorative material or have a decorative exterior finish. 4. Perimeter walls should have pilasters incorporated into their design. 5. Where brick and rock accent materials are used, they should be carried to a logical termination point on the side elevations of the houses. 6. Thicker or double timber elements should be used on all front porch support columns. 7. If river rock is proposed as an accent element, then real river rock should be used. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with any unaddressed items from the issues referenced in this report as Conditions of Approval, as deemed appropriate by the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Heinz Lumpp, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions of approval: I. The Committee suggested that the applicant could pursue an amendment to the Development Agreement to request a reduction or waiver of the requirement to provide at least 50 percent of homes within the project with side-on garages without addtitional footprints being added to the project. 2. Upgraded driveway treatments should be provided within all driveways, especially on lots where the Plan 4 is proposed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 3. On the Plan 4 model, the third car garage space should be increased to 20 feet in depth when proposed as a garage space. 4. An enlarged detail of the wood trellis over the garage on the Plan 3 model should be provided for review and approval of the Planning Division. 5. All other secondary and policy design issues should be addressed by the applicant or these items will be included as Conditions of Approval for the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Scott Murphy December 5, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a lube facility within an existing commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 -APN: 229-031- 37. Design Parameters: The site is located to the southwest of the In-N-Out Burger facility. The drive-thru lane for In-N-Out Burger extends to the northeast corner of the site. The pad was previously planned as a retail pad. The pad has been rough graded and landscape improvements have been installed along the south side of the lot, adjacent to the drive aisle. 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. During the peak hours for In-N-Out Burger, the drive-thru lane stacking extends beyond the proposed exit for the lube facility. As a result, the customers exiting the lube facility will be obstructed until vehicles move forward in the drive-thru lane. 2. Detailing proposed at the entry and to cantilever the trellis members is inconsistent with previous approvals. All details used for the building should be consistent with the approved architecture for the center. 3. Because of the location proposed for the facility, the service bays will be visible from the surrounding drive aisles,the existing freeway off-ramp, and the future freeway off-ramp. No method of screening is proposed. 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 indicated on the Site Plan, the operational realities of this type of facility is that vehicles will be parked at the bay entries waiting their turn for servicing. The staging of the vehicles is comparable to a drive-thru lane and should be screened. 2. The 2:1 slope on the southeast side of the building should be minimized/eliminated by exposing the exterior basement walls and providing additional architectural treatment. DRC AGENDA CUP 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS December 5, 1995 Page 2 Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by the parapet or secondary roof screen. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the application and direct the applicant to revise the plans in accordance with the above-referenced comments. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the application and recommended that the project be referred to the Planning Commission. The Committee felt there were significant issues with the location of the facility, the ability to screen the bays from surrounding areas, and the potential conflict with the stacking for In-N-Out Burger that warrant consideration by the full Commission prior to any discussion on the architectural design. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Scott Murphy December 5, 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. Design Parameters: The site is currently developed with a 111,325 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. Background: On September 19, 1995, the Design Review Committee reviewed the application and recommended that the traffic circulation across the front of the main entry be resolved prior to any further discussion of the architecture. The Committee noted that the cones remain across the front entry despite comments from the Price Costco representatives that the cones would be removed. Even if the cones are removed, the Committee expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians entering and exiting the entry, given the close proximity to the drive aisle travel lanes. The whole issue needs to be reviewed by the applicant and return for Design Review Committee review and approval. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. To address the Committee's concern of pedestrian safety at the main entry, the applicant is proposing a redesign of the entry doors. The sliding doors at the north side of the vestibule will be removed and replaced with the precast wainscot and storefront glazing. New doors will be provided on the east side of the vestibule. This orientation will allow customers to exit the building onto a sidewalk before crossing the drive aisle. Also, this arrangement would allow Price Costco to close the easterly doors in the event of Santa Ana winds and maintain access to the building. To further emphasize the new access to the main entry, the applicant is proposing extension of the accent paving to the east and west in relation to the anticipated exiting movements of the customers. DRC AGENDA DR 95-23 - THE MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP December 5, 1995 Page 2 2. With the expansion of the building, the applicant is proposing to extend the colonnade to the west across the front of the addition and turn the corner to the south consistent with the current design. The extension of the colonnade, however, eliminates the symmetry of the entry. To balance the front elevation, staff recommends one of the following: a. The colonnade could be extended to the east to help balance the entry but will not match the new addition. b. The existing entry could be retained with no addition on either side. This would retain the emphasis at the main entry rather than emphasizing the entire northwest building corner. 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 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: 1. 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 any remaining design issues. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the application and found the modifications adequately addressed their safety concerns. The Committee did, however, request that the realigned drive aisle approach the intersection south of In-N-Out Burger at closer to a 90-degree angle as conditioned with the previously approved application for Price Costco (DR 95-18). The revised plans should be submitted for review prior to approving the project. DRC AGENDA DR 95-23 - THE MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP December 5, 1995 Page 2 2. With the expansion of the building, the applicant is proposing to extend 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. To balance the front elevation, staff recommends one of the following: a. The colonnade could be extended to the east to help balance the entry but will not match the new addition. b. The existing entry could be retained with no addition on either side. This would retain the emphasis at the main entry rather than emphasizing the entire northwest building corner. 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 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 ssues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. 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 any remaining design issues. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher,Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the application and found the modifications adequately addressed their safety concerns. The Committee did, however, request that the realigned drive aisle approach the intersection south of In-N-Out Burger at closer to a 90-degree angle as conditioned with the previously approved application for Price Costco (DR 95-18). The revised plans should be submitted for review prior to approving the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS December 5 , 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aw Brad Buller Secretary