Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/05/21 - Agenda PacketDATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM June 1, 1992 ACTION AGENDA Residential/Institutional Design Review Committee Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate) Steve y ~,A~ss Ha e ociate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAy 21, 1992 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. Please review the attached plans, visit the project sites, and write down your comments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Committee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Committee and distributed to the Commission and Council. AS always, feel free to contact the appropriate project manager (noted in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting date, if you have specific questions related to the scheduled projects. Dinner will be provided between 5:00 p.m. - 5:45 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:45 p.m. - 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:40 p.m. Please notify our department if you will be unable to attend the meeting, or if you will be late, so that the dinner can be properly ordered and the necessary arrangements made. 6:40 - 7:00 (Tom) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-03 - YONG CHA GONZALES - The request to permit commercial uses within a residential structure totaling 1,500 square feet on 0.167 acres of land in the Special Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Estacia Court - APN: 208-153- 01. 7:10 - 7:30 (Tom) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-21 L.A. CELLULAR The development of a cellular telecommunications facility consisting of a 12-foot by 30-foot equipment building and a 60-foot monopole located on a fully developed industrial site in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9320 Hyssop Drive - APN: 229-321-02. DRC AGENDA MAY 21, 1992 Page 2 7:40 - 8:00 (Tom) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23 - R.K. DEVELOPMENT - The development of a single family house totaling 5,007 square feet on 0.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5041 Beryl Street - APN: 1061-821-15. 8:00 - 9:00 (Scott) PLANNING COMMISSION Uniform Sign Program WORKSHOP Foothill Marketplace SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 - 7:00 Tom May 21, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-03 YONG CHA GONZALES - The request to permit commercial uses within a residential structure totaling 1,500 square feet on 0.167 acres of land in the Special Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Estacia Court - APN: 208-153-01. Design Parameters: The application involves the conversion of a historic landmark single family residence into an antique store. The project proposes installation of a parking lot, landscaping, trash enclosure, and right- of-way improvements to bring the site into compliance for development of a commercial project site. However, the garage, was determined not to be historically significant because of alterations and will be removed. A landmark alteration permit from the Historic Preservation Commission will not be necessary as the Commission was informed of proposed site improvements at their initial review. Historic Preservation staff will review the project application for consistency with previous comments and direction from the Historic Preservation Commission. The major design constraint which limits the level of improvements is the small parcel. Due to setback requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and parking requirements of the Development Code, a Variance application was submitted for a reduction in the number of parking spaces by one space. This project is located within an Activity Center of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Activity Center parkway improvements are not recommended at this time by staff as it would create a piecemeal installation of these improvements. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The trash enclosure should be located at the southwest corner of the structure. The landscape planter along the west side of the structure should be expanded to accommodate the enclosure. The trash enclosure should be designed to be compatible with the structure. The location should be revised as the currently proposed location does not allow for adequate access to the enclosure, and locating to other areas of the site does not appear feasible. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 92-03 - YONG CHA GONZALES MAY 21, 1992 Page 2 Provide interlocking pavers in the project driveway extending from the south side of the sidewalk to the adjacent parking spaces. 3. Landscaping should include trees, shrubs, groundcover, areas. Design Review Committee ACtion: Members Present: John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn and turf The Committee recommended approval with the following comments: The applicant should consider designing the parking spaces to accommodate recent "ADA" legislation regarding handicap accessibility- This will necessitate expanding the Variance request for a reduction in the parking setback off Estacia Street. Provide interlocking pavers in the project driveway extending from the sidewalk to the adjacent parking spaces. The trash enclosure should remain at its proposed location, however, access to the enclosure should be from the alley to the south. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 - 7:30 Tom May 21, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT 91-21 - L.A. CELLULAR - The development of a cellular telecommunications facility consisting of a 12-foot by 30-foot equipment building and a 60-foot monopole located on a fully developed industrial site in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9320 Hyssop Drive - APN: 229-321-02. Background: On October 17, 1991, the Committee (Chitiea, McNiel, Kroutil) reviewed the previous development proposal but did not recommend approval as the establishment of a cellular telecommunications facility within a vineyard appeared as an "oasis" of development and that when viewed from the freeway it would have a negative visual impact. The applicant was encouraged to relocate their facility away from the freeway to an existing industrial site where the equipment could be adequately screened or placed within a building. The revised development package proposes the placement of their facility at a fully developed industrial site. The 12-foot by 30-foot equipment building will be placed inside the industrial building and placement of the 60-foot high monopole is proposed in a landscape planter area at the northeast corner of the building. Staff The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant is proposing to paint the monopole to r~tch the adjacent building. Should that portion of the pole projecting above the building be painted smog gray to blend in with its surroundings? The masonry enclosure provided at the base of the monopole should be designed, finished and painted to match other walls on the project site. 3. Landscaping, including shrubs, vines, and groundcover, should be planted on three sides of the monopole security wall. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-21 - L.A. CELLULAR MAY 21, 1992 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Committee recommended approval with the following comments: 1. The monopole should be painted a single color to match the building. 2. The masonry enclosure should be painted concrete to match the building. 3. Landscaping should be planted around the enclosure- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 - 8:00 Tom May 21, 1992 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23 R.K. DEVELOPMENT The development of a single family house totaling 5,007 square feet on 0.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5041 Beryl Street - APN: 1061-821-15. Design Parameters: This application pertains to the development of a single family house on property subject to requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The project site is located on the east side of Beryl Avenue and single family homes are situated directly to the north, east, and south. Vegetation consists of native grass and weeds and the grade slopes approximately 10 to 12 percent from the northwest. Existing topography is not natural slope, during development of an adjacent parcel a significant level of fill was placed on the lot, most of which has since been removed- This application is not subject to Planning Commission review and approval- Staff Co"~nts: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad design issues discussion regarding this project: will be the focus of Committee The house design is contrary to the intent and requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance- Specifically, the floor configuration is not sensitive to the existing grade which falls approximately 8 feet from front-to-back of the proposed house. The house should be redesigned to conform to the existing contours using various techniques as described in the ordinance, including but not limited to, stem walls and split level foundations to minimize the effective bulk on the exterior of the structure- The proposed fill grading which raises the finish elevation at the southeast corner of the structure so the overall height does not exceed the building envelope, is not an acceptable design solution- In the development of a hillside residence some amount of fill is expected, however, it should be kept at a minimum and follow the existing contours of the site so the resulting grade can appear as natural as possible. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-23 - R.K. DEVELOPMENT MAY 21, 1992 Page 2 The proposed grading scheme is inconsistent with the intent and criteria of the ordinance. Specifically, the 2:1 slope should be redesigned to appear more natural through the use of variable slope gradient, rounding off the top and toe, and following the existing contour pattern. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The architectural design should be revised to provide 360 degree architectural treatment- The use of masonite siding appears as an after thought and should either be substantially increased or removed from the elevations. Expand the use of Palos Verde stone veneer- Suggested locations include: the entryway columns, below the living room windows on the west and south elevations, and expanding the base element on the north elevation. The 8:12 roof pitch creates too massive of an appearance and should be lowered. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The 1. Committee did not recommend approval for the following reasons: The Committee determined that the proposed design concept was contrary to the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Specifically, the Committee noted that the house was designed with a flat first floor, a large lower level which required cutting into existing grades, and the southeast corner of the house was 10 feet above existing grade requiring extensive fill and retaining walls- The Committee also noted that the house appeared to be three stories on the east elevation. 2. The house design and grading scheme should be revised to reduce the amount of cut and fill. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-23 - R.K. DEVELOPMENT MAY 21, 1992 Page 2 The roof pitch should be lowered from 8:12 to 6:12 or similar to reduce the roof massing and overall structure height. The Committee recommended that the applicant make significant modifications to the design concept to the satisfaction of staff before returning to the Design Review Committee.