city of san dimas development plan review board agenda … · development plan review board agenda...

C I T Y OF S AN D I M A S D E V E L OP MEN T P L A N R EV I E W B OA RD A GE N D A

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2020 at 8:30 A.M. 245 EAST BONITA AVENUE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE Consistent with Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20, and N-35-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health Safer at Home Order, the regular meeting of the Development Plan Review Board will not be physically open to the public and the meeting will take place via teleconference and video conference.

To maintain public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can participate by using Zoom Meeting by using the link

provided below:

https://zoom.us/j/92541880120?pwd=c2RTVWVqWHVsT1pCVlBkMEMzS280UT09 Meeting ID: 925-4188-0120 Password: 243376

Or join by phone: 1-213-338-8477

Meeting ID: 925-4188-0120 Password: 243376 For those wishing to speak during the public comment portion of the agenda, press *9 and we will select you to speak from the meeting queue. Please note that your phone number will appear on the screen unless you first dial *67 before dialing the numbers as shown above. Please note: All members of the public calling or logging into the meeting will be muted so that the meeting can proceed. You may call (909) 394-6250 to provide comments or concerns to be passed along to the Development Plan Review Board. All comments (written and verbal) must be received by no later than August 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. to ensure that Planning Staff has time to provide the emails and type verbal comments for the Board prior to the beginning of the meeting. You may also submit comments via email to [email protected] Comments will then be read and incorporated into the public record, with a maximum allowance of five minutes per individual comment, subject to the Chairman’s discretion. If a comment is received after 1:30 p.m. but before the conclusion of the meeting, based upon its time stamp, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. CALL TO ORDER

https://zoom.us/j/92541880120?pwd=c2RTVWVqWHVsT1pCVlBkMEMzS280UT09

mailto:[email protected]

DPRB Agenda for August 13, 2020

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 23, 2020 1. DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Associated Project: ACCELA PROJ-19-0081 Continued from the June 25, 2020 DPRB meeting. A request to construct a new 1,765 square-foot, one-story single-family residence at 345 W. Third Street. The proposed dwelling unit will be architecturally designed as a Craftsman that includes a 105 square-foot covered entry way. The request was previously approved as a remodel that consisted of a 664-square foot addition to the existing single-family residence. The existing unit at the project site was demolished and no longer constitutes a remodel. Therefore, the new proposed dwelling unit must be designed to meet the Town Core Design Guidelines. The existing 484 square-foot two car-garage will remain in place. The subject property is located in the Town Core and zoned Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR). Applicant: Bostany Design APN: 8386-013-054 Planner: Marco Espinoza Zone: SF-DR 2. DPRB Case No. 20-0010

Associated Project: ACCELA PROJ-20-0038 A request to remove all of the existing wood siding on an existing one-story 928 square-foot single-family historic house with a 576 square-foot detached two-car garage, and replace it with James Hardie Plank lap siding. The Applicant is also proposing to remove all of the existing windows and replace them with vinyl windows. The subject property is located within the Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR) Zone at 240 W. Third Street. Applicant: Uriel Calderon APN: 8387-015-021 Planner: Anne Nguyen Zone: SF-DR 3. DPRB Case No. 20-0013

Associated Project: ACCELA PROJ-20-0045 A request for preliminary feedback on three potential exterior remodel options for an existing 16,760 square-foot two-story administrative professional office building located within Specific Plan No. 2, Area 1 – Commercial (SP-2) at 1305 W. Arrow Highway. Applicant: Milad Oueijan APN: 8383-016-056 Planner: Anne Nguyen Zone: SP-2

DPRB Agenda for August 13, 2020

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Members of the audience are invited to address the Board on any item not on the agenda. Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the Board is prohibited from taking or engaging in discussion on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. However, your concerns may be referred to staff or set for discussion at a later date. The Public Comment period is limited to 30 minutes. Each speaker shall be limited to three (3) minutes.) ADJOURNMENT Copies of staff reports and/or other written documentation pertaining to the items on the agenda are on file in the Planning Department and are available for public inspection during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Notice Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 394-6216. Early notification before the meeting you wish to attend will make it possible for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Copies of documents distributed for the meeting are available in alternative formats upon request.

This page is intentionally left blank.

D E V ELOP M E N T P LA N R E V I E W B OA R D M I N U TE S

JULY 23, 2020 at 8:30 A.M. 245 EAST BONITA AVENUE

CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PRESENT

Emmett Badar, Mayor Scott Dilley, Chamber of Commerce David Bratt, Planning Commission Shari Garwick, Director of Public Works Brad McKinney, Interim City Manager Henry Noh, Director of Community Development John Sorcinelli, Public Member at Large STAFF Eric Beilstein, Building Superintendent Thuy Cao, Planning Intern Marco Espinoza, Senior Planner Anne Nguyen, Associate Planner Fabiola Wong, Planning Manager

CALL TO ORDER Dave Bratt called the regular meeting of the Development Plan Review Board to order at 8:31 a.m. so as to conduct regular business in the City Council Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Emmett Badar moved, seconded by Henry Noh to approve the July 9, 2020 minutes. (Sorcinelli abstain) Reasonable Accommodation Request Case No. 20-0001: A request for an accommodation from the City’s Town Core Design Guidelines Policy for Curb Cuts and Driveway Access from the Street to keep and maintain the existing front driveway at 216 W. Fifth Street. Associate Planner Anne Nguyen presented the staff report with the recommendation of approval. Mr. Sorcinelli asked if Mr. Donley is driven by a family member to appointments or is he still able to drive himself? Also, does he have a safe ground cover to step onto when he exits the vehicle.

DPRB Minutes Page 2 July 23, 2020 Associate Planner Anne Nguyen stated Mr. Donley is driven to all his appointments by family members. The car parks on a solid concrete pad which is safe for Mr. Donley to depart the car. The applicant will also add additional handrails along the steps of the walkway so Mr. Donley can navigate to the ADU more easily. Mr. Bratt asked if there is a procedure that will make the applicant comply with Condition number six. Senior Planner Marco Espinoza stated Condition number eight puts the responsibility on the homeowner to notify Staff if the situation with Mr. Donley changes. Mr. Sorcinelli stated he would like the condition of the rear driveway addressed with the applicant. Associate Planner Nguyen stated the driveway can not be see from the front of the house but Staff will raise the concern to the Applicant. Jerrod Conway, Applicant expressed gratitude in regards to Staff aiding him with his Reasonable Accommodation Request. He asked if the proposed photos of the ribbon driveway met the Board’s expectations. His other concern was in regards to the driveway as well. Conditions state to the effect of when his grandfather no longer inhabits the ADU, the driveway is to be removed. He feels this is uneconomical as another family member may move in soon after needing a similar accommodation. Senior Planner Marco Espinoza stated the situation would need to be looked at during that time as the transition could be 15 years from now. Staff could look into the possibility of extending the accommodation. Jerrod Conway, Applicant asked how Staff would address the issue of returning the curb and gutter to its original state. Mr. Bratt stated it would be against the current code if Staff did not have the homeowner return the curb and gutter to existing once the accommodation is over. The accommodation is conditioned so it may not go against city policy. Motion Reasonable Accommodations Request Case No. 20-0001: Emmett Badar moved, second by Henry Noh to approve subject to conditions of approval. Motion carried: 7-0 Tree Removal Permit No. 20-0019: A request to remove five (5) mature trees and three (3) non-mature trees for a total of eight (8) trees within in the HOA common areas at Canyon Creek Village.

DPRB Minutes Page 3 July 23, 2020 Associate Planner Anne Nguyen presented the staff report with the recommendation of approval. Mr. Badar asked why Staff is concerned about the trees that were chosen for replacement. Associate Planner Nguyen stated the chosen Crepe Myrtle does not grow as big and have the same canopy impact as the trees scheduled for removal. Senior Planner Marco Espinoza stated Staff had done a prior walk-through of the property to look at the status of trees replace. In that time, Staff noticed that some of the Crepe Myrtles on the property are not doing well. Mr. Sorcinelli asked if Staff could follow-up with the tree replacements to make sure they have enough room for future growth. Cecilia Jones, Resident asked the Board to take in consideration the 334 existing mature trees and how the canopies intersect. She notes the community has a lot of problems with the foundation cracking. She feels it is important to be aware with what types of trees are being replaced. Mr. Badar stated the caller makes a great point and he would like Staff to take her points into consideration. Associate Planner Nguyen stated the Applicant provided their own replacement plan which keeps the new replacement trees away from all hardscape. Motion Tree Removal Permit Case No. 20-0001: Emmett Badar moved, second by Shari Garwick to approve subject to conditions of approval. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 a.m. to the meeting of August 13, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

____________________________________

David Bratt, Chairman San Dimas Development Plan Review Board

ATTEST: __________________________ Development Plan Review Board Approved: 8/13/2020

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW BOARD FACT SHEET

DATE: August 13, 2020

TO: Development Plan Review Board

FROM: Marco A. Espinoza

SUBJECT: DPRB Case No. 19-0037 ACCELA PROJ-19-0081 Continued from the June 25, 2020 DPRB meeting. A request to construct a new 1,765 square-foot, one-story single-family residence at 345 W. Third Street. The proposed dwelling unit will be architecturally designed as a Craftsman that includes a 105 square-foot covered entry way. The request was previously approved as a remodel that consisted of a 664-square foot addition to the existing single-family residence. The existing unit at the project site was demolished and no longer constitutes a remodel. Therefore, the new proposed dwelling unit must be designed to meet the Town Core Design Guidelines. The existing 484 square-foot two car-garage will remain in place. The subject property is located in the Town Core and zoned Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR). (APN: 8386-013-054)

FACTS: The applicant received approval from the Board on November 14, 2019, to add 664 square feet to an existing 1,079 square-foot single-story dwelling unit. The scope of work included exterior modifications such as adding a new 64 square-foot covered entry way and the installation of siding material at all four corners of the house.

The applicant submitted construction plans to the City’s Building Division for review and approval. Prior to obtaining approval and securing building/demolition permits, the applicant started the demolition work on the house. During this process, the applicant determined that the existing foundation would not be able to support the new addition nor the remodel as approved by DPRB. The applicant proceeded to demolish the entire structure, except for a small area of the house foundation that was added on in 1980.

Staff was notified of the demolition of the house after it had occurred. A Stop Work Order was issued to the applicant, requesting that the applicant contact the Building and Planning Divisions. Since 99 percent of the existing house was demolished (see picture

Page 1

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 2 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 below), the project was no longer considered a remodel of an existing dwelling unit, but rather a new single-family dwelling subject to compliance with the City’s Town Core Guidelines. As such, the project is being brought forward to be reviewed and approved by the Board.

The applicant submitted plans for a new 1,765 square-foot single-family dwelling unit designed as a Craftsman bungalow to comply with the Town Core Design Guidelines. On June 25, 2020, the Board reviewed the new design of the house. After listening to staff’s presentation, the owner and his designer, and the public, the Board voted to continue the item to allow the applicant time to revise the drawing based on the following recommendations by the Board:

1. To add decorative knee braces or outriggers with an angle cut or a decorative design;

2. The front entry columns should provide a precast column cap; 3. Brick color should be a burnt red brown or the builder could incorporate river rock; 4. To extend the facia board approximately 12”-18” further than the rest of the rafters; 5. The rafter tail overhangs should be 20”-24”; 6. To incorporate decorative attic vents; 7. To provide a minimum of 1-2 inches thick trim around the front door and windows; 8. To remove the front-entry railing; and 9. To change the garage door to a carriage style door to be architecturally consistent

with the house design.

Page 2

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 3 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 Since the June 25, 2020 DPRB meeting, the applicant modified the proposed design. The house design is still proposed as a Craftsman, but it has been redesigned with additional details based on comments from the Board. ANALYSIS: The proposed house has been designed as a Craftsman bungalow with a cross gable roof and three smaller gable roofs extending from the front elevation (south). The three smaller gables give the house variable roof lines typically found in this traditional architectural style. The roof design and layout are inspired by the house pictured below.

Proposed Front Elevation (south)

The entry gable roof will extend a total of five (5) feet from the main wall plane. The roof pitch is 5:12 and the applicant is proposing to use asphalt shingles. The house will have

Page 3

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 4 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 24” eave overhangs. The project proposes board and batten under the gable ends on all of the elevations and three (3) outriggers equally spaced under each of the gable ends. The overall size of the outriggers will vary in size based on the size of the gable roof; either 6” x 6” or 12” x 12” to provide an appropriate scale. All of the outriggers will extend 12” beyond the fascia board. The project proposes a smooth cement-fiber (i.e. Hardie-Board) siding material with a four-inch exposure. The foundation of the house and the base of the front entry columns will be wrapped with grey-colored reclaimed brick. The windows will be single hung windows (Jeld-Wen V-2500 Series) with a nine-light mullion/grid design on the upper windowpane with a clear lower windowpane. All the windows will have a four-inch wide wood trim. The horizontal trim will extend an additional four inches beyond the vertical trim, which is a traditional Craftsman design. The proposed front entry door and exterior light fixtures are consistent with the Craftsman design. All exterior doors will provide a four-inch wide wood trim surround. The front entry is designed with an open gable end with large exposed beams and double non-tapered flat square columns supporting the roof design. The proposed front entry area will be 106 square feet and delineated with a 42” high, 1” x 6” wood railing. The proposed project does not include any modifications to the existing detached garage. Staff has added Condition No. 22 that requires the garage door be replaced with a carriage style sectional door and that the applicant matches the exterior siding of the garage to the primary structure prior to final inspection of the house by the Building Division. The proposed project complies with all the development standards of the Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR) zone as shown below:

Min. or Max. Required

Proposed Complies

Front yard setback 20’-0” 20’-0” Yes Interior side yard setback

5’-0” 5’-0” Yes

Street side yard setback

10’-0” 10’-0” Yes

Rear yard 3'-0” This lot does not have a rear yard

N/A

Garage side yard setback

12’-0” 27’-8” Yes

Building height 35’ / 2-stories 18’-9” / 1-story Yes Lot coverage 35% 31% Yes 2- Car garage 20’-0” x 20’-0” 20’-0” x 20’-0” Yes

Page 4

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 5 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 ISSUES: Brick Color – Staff has a concern with the color of the brick selected for the foundation and front entry columns. The brick color is a used grey hue that is not consistent with the colors typically found in a Craftsman design. Staff discussed this concern with the applicant and the property owner. The property owner expressed that the color of the brick was chosen to coordinate with the gray color palette selected for the exterior of the house. When a gray paint color is applied to the exterior of a Craftsman house, it is typically to provide a contrast with an orange stained/finish of natural wood on exterior doors and windows. Staff recommends using a weathered red brick representative of the era of the architecture proposed for the house (see Condition No. 21). Siding – At the June 25, 2020, DPRB meeting the Board discussed the appropriateness of using a cement fiber siding material vs. wood siding in the Town Core. Since the Town Core Guidelines were adopted in 1993, a variety of alternative construction materials have been developed, improved upon or become more readily available. One of those materials is cement fiber siding, which has been approved as an allowable material in the Town Core for at least the past 13 years. Additionally, in 2007 the City Council approved the use of vinyl siding. Cement fiber siding comes in smooth and wood grain finishes as shown below.

Cement Fiber Siding Smooth Cement Fiber Siding Wood Grain

Page 5

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 6 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020

Wood Grain Lap Siding

Smooth Wood Lap Siding Both the smooth and wood grain have been approved for projects in the Town Core. The smooth finish might be more appropriate for siding exposure of 3 to 5 inches, as depicted above, and the wood grain for larger exposures that are over 5 inches. The applicant is proposing to use the smooth finish but agreeable to the wood grain if the Board has a preference. It should be noted that for historic properties that participate in the economic incentive program, known as the Mill’s Act, for the preservation of historic resources, cement fiber and vinyl siding would not allow be allowed. Allowing a qualified historic building to use cement fiber or vinyl would alter the integrity and character-defining features of the architectural style. Original building materials should be used on these properties. Window - Wood windows vs. vinyl windows was also discussed by the Board at the same meeting. The Board requested for staff to conduct some research of how long vinyl windows have been allowed in the Town Core and to research the quality of the vinyl windows proposed for the project compared to other name brands. Vinyl hung windows have been allowed for the past 13 to 15 years in the Town Core. Mullions/grids have been allowed to be internal vs. external on vinyl windows. Wood windows are preferable but not required.

Page 6

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 7 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 The applicant is proposing to use Jeld Wen Windows V-2500 Series, the windows will be single hung with a nine-lite pattern on the top window panel and clear on the bottom panel, similar but not exact to the window shown on the picture on the next page.

In researching the quality of the proposed windows with other manufactures, Jeld Wen was rated at the top five for its quality and value. Below is a chart from the Consumers Affairs website rating different window manufactures. The windows tested were double hung and were tested for wind and rain resistance, but not for long-term durability nor maintenance issues.

Page 7


In another website that compared different window manufacturers, it states that “Jeld Wen was once know as a manufacture that made cheap and mid-grade vinyl windows. However, it has grown to become a leader in the number, style and range of windows offered”. The company has been in production since 1960 and offers a life time warranty on their vinyl windows and a 20-year warranty on their wood windows. The website also stated the following: “Possibly the most popular material used in window replacement these days, vinyl is one of the most durable, lowest cost, lowest maintenance, highest energy efficiency material on the market. Vinyl is one of those materials that just has it all. There is really nothing to complain about with vinyl as far as performance goes, but critics of vinyl point out that vinyl can sometimes look cheap and lower curb appeal, and they may have a point. To many people, vinyl does not look as nice as something like wood, or even aluminum. That is why manufacturers have come out with wood-clad vinyl, which looks a little bit nicer, but also requires a little more upkeep than pure vinyl”. https://windowpriceguide.com/materials

Page 8

https://windowpriceguide.com/materials

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 9 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 Jeld Wen has five different Series in the single hung windows, two of which are designed specifically for the Florida market, the other three are what you would consider their best, better and good.

Best Better Good The applicant is proposing the Builders V-2500 series which is considered a good vinyl window. However, the applicant is willing to upgrade to the Brickmould series, depicted as better above, if the Board has a preference. Staff would like the Board to provide guidance on the type of cement fiber to be used for the project and type of window. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Development Plan Review Board approve DPRB Case No. 19-0037 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Marco A. Espinoza Senior Planner

Page 9

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 10 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 EXHIBITS:

A. Conditions of Approval B. DPRB June 25, 2020 Minutes

Page 10


Aerial of Subject Site highlighted in Green

Page 11


Exhibit A

Conditions of Approval for DPRB Case No. 19-0037

A request to construct a new 1,765 square-foot, one-story single-family residence at 345 W. Third Street. The proposed dwelling unit will be architecturally designed as a Craftsman that includes a 105 square-foot covered entry way. The request was previously approved as a remodel that consisted of a 664-square foot addition to the existing single-family residence. The existing unit at the project site was demolished and no longer constitutes a remodel. Therefore, the new proposed dwelling unit must be designed to meet the Town Core Design Guidelines. The existing 484 square-foot two car-garage will remain in place. The subject property is located in the Town Core and zoned Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR). (APN: 8386-013-054) PLANNING DIVISION - (909) 394-6250

1. The Applicant/Developer shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers or employees because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any Court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.

2. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for any City Attorney costs incurred by the City for the project, including, but not limited to, consultations, and the preparation and/or review of legal documents. The applicant shall deposit funds with the City to cover these costs in an amount to be determined by the City.

3. Copies of the signed DPRB Conditions of Approval shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.

4. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Single Family Downtown Residential zone.

5. All Conditions are final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 days of the issuance of the Conditions in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.212 of the San Dimas Zoning Code.

Page 12Exhibit A


6. The building permits for this project must be issued within one year from the date of approval or the approval will become invalid. A time extension may be granted under the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.12.070 F.

7. The Applicant/Developer shall sign an affidavit accepting all Conditions and all Standard Conditions before issuance of building permits.

8. All parking provided shall meet the requirements of Section 18.156 (et. seq.) of the San Dimas Municipal Code.

9. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all City of San Dimas Business License requirements and shall provide a list of all contractors and subcontractors that are subject to business license requirements.

10. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as approved by the Development Plan Review Board on June 25, 2020 and the previous DPRB approval from November 14, 2020 is now void.

11. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.

12. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours.

13. The Applicant/Developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Directors of Development Services and Public Works approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.

DESIGN

14. Building architecture and site plan shall be consistent with plans presented to the Development Plan Review Board on June 25, 2020 provided that the Director of Development Services is authorized to make revisions consistent with the San Dimas Municipal Code.

15. Plans for all exterior design features, including, but not limited to, doors, windows, mailboxes and architectural treatments, shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval before issuance of building permits.

16. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. Location and type of exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted by the developer to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to installation.

17. Any asphalt roofing material installed by the Applicant/Developer shall consist of "premium" quality, heavy-textured, dimensional, minimum 25-year rated shingles. A sample shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to installation.

Page 13Exhibit A


18. The Applicant/Developer shall pour a 5’ x 9’ concrete pad to be used for the trash, recycling and green waste bins. The trash pad area shall be behind a fence outside of the front yard setback. Access to the trash pad shall be by a solid walkway to the curb or alley. The exact location of the trash/recycling pad shall be approved by the Planning Division during plan check.

19. Gas meters, backflow prevention devices and other ground-mounted mechanical or electrical equipment installed by the Applicant/Developer shall be inconspicuously Iocated and screened, as approved by the Director of Development Services. Location of this equipment shall be clearly noted on landscape construction documents.

20. All exterior building colors shall match the color and material board on file with the Planning Division. Any revision to the approved building colors shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.

21. The Applicant/Developer shall revise the plans during the plan check process to note red weathered brick for the foundation and columns of the front entry.

22. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to changeout the garage door to a carriage sectional door and install siding on all sides of the existing garage to match the primary structure prior to final of the house unless the applicant/property owner has secured permits for additional work that requires alterations/demolition of the existing garage.

BUILDING DIVISION – (909) 394-6260

23. The plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest editions of the codes as adopted by reference by the City of San Dimas: California Green Building Standards Code, California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and California Electrical Code.

24. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Energy requirements and any measures that exceed them if required as part of a mitigation plan for all new lighting, insulation, solar and mechanical equipment and submit calculations at time of initial plan review.

25. The Applicant/Developer shall submit a Drainage Plan for the proposed

development to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official.

26. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit an updated Engineering Geology/Soils Report that includes an accurate description of the geology of the site and conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the geologic conditions on the proposed

Page 14Exhibit A


development and include a discussion of the expansiveness of the soils and recommended measures for foundations and slabs on grade to resist volumetric changes of the soil. This report shall also include recommendations for surcharge setback requirements in the area of ungraded slopes steeper than five horizontal to one vertical.

27. Building foundation inspections shall not be performed until a final soils report has

been filed with the City and approved. All drainage facilities must be operable.

28. Construction calculations, including lateral analysis, shall be required at the time plans are submitted for plan check. Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing layouts shall be included with the initial plan review set and Electrical schematic/ load list and plumbing (drainage, water, gas) schematics and sizing justification will be required to be submitted for review before issuance of electrical or plumbing permits.

29. Applicable fees shall be paid to Bonita School District in compliance with

Government Code Section 65995.

30. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and shall be prohibited at any time on Sundays or public holidays, per San Dimas Municipal Code Section 8.36.100.

ENGINEERING DIVISION – (909) 394-6240

31. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a signed copy of the City’s certification statement declaring that the contractor will comply with Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the MS4 permit for Los Angeles County as mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

32. The Applicant/Developer shall install sanitary sewers to serve the single family home to the specifications of the City Engineer.

33. With addition of bathroom, the Applicant/Developer shall Contact the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for any required annexation, extension, or sewer trunk fee. Proof of payment/clearance is required before the City will issue any sewer permit.

34. The Applicant/Developer shall provide drainage improvements to carry runoff of storm waters in the area proposed to be developed, and for contributory drainage from adjoining properties to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer shall make a good faith effort to negotiate with the downstream property owner for all required downstream storm drain improvements. The proposed drainage improvements shall be based on a detailed

Page 15Exhibit A


Hydrology Study conforming to the current Los Angeles County methodology. The developed flows outletting into the existing downstream system(s) from this project cannot exceed the pre-existing storm flows.

35. For all projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil, Applicant/Developer shall submit a temporary erosion control plan to be approved by the City Engineer and filed with the City and shall be installed and operable at all times.

36. The Applicant/Developer shall provide right of way improvements within the limits

of the development. Improvements to include curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and paving according to City standards, as shown in the following table:

Street Name

Curb

&

Gutter

A.C

. Pavem

et

Side-w

alk

Drive

Approa

Street Lights

Street Trees

Multi-

use

Median

Island

Bike

Trail

Other

Acacia Street √ √ √ √

Notes:

Remove existing drive approach and replace with curb & gutter to match adjacent existing. Grade and landscape area to match adjacent existing and also plant street tree. Remove and replace curb ramp to comply with current ADA regulations at NE corner of Acacia St & 3rd Street

37. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for any repairs within the limits of the

development, including but not limited to streets and paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and street lights as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.

38. All work adjacent to or within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director and the work shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the City of San Dimas; i.e. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and further that the construction equipment ingress and egress be controlled by a plan approved by Public Works.

39. Construction parking and material storage to be confined to the site. No construction related parking or material storage will be allowed on the surrounding streets.

Page 16Exhibit A

DPRB Case No. 19-0037 Page 17 345 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 PARKS & RECREATION – (909) 394-6230

40. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with City regulations regarding payment of Park, Recreation and Open Space Development Fee per SDMC Chapter 3.26. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.

End of Conditions

Page 17Exhibit A

Exhibit B

ALA

N I

ZA

DI

BO

ST

AN

Y D

ES

IGN

RE

SID

EN

CE

AD

DIT

ION

EX

IST

ING

/DE

MO

PLA

NS

A01

1E

XIS

TIN

G S

ITE

PLA

N/R

OO

F P

LAN

2E

XIS

TIN

G/D

EM

OLI

TIO

N F

LOO

R P

LAN

WA

LL L

EG

EN

D

Page 22

ALA

N I

ZA

DI

BO

ST

AN

Y D

ES

IGN

RE

SID

EN

CE

AD

DIT

ION

SIT

E P

LAN

A02

SIT

E P

LAN

CA

LCU

LATI

ON

SIT

E P

LAN

KE

Y N

OTE

S

1P

OR

PO

SE

D S

ITE

PLA

N

Page 23

CLO

SET

CLO

SET

MAS

TER

BED

RO

OM

BED

RO

OM

# 2

BATH

RO

OM

BED

RO

OM

#1

LIVI

NG

RO

OM

DIN

ING

KITC

HEN

M/ C

LOSE

TPA

NTR

YM

/BAT

H R

OO

M

BATH

RO

OM

HAL

LWAY

CLO

SET

(E) 2

-CAR

GAR

AGE

BATH

RO

OM

LAU

ND

RY

RO

OM

D/W

FR

FLO

OR

PLA

N C

ALC

ULA

TIO

N

WA

LL L

EG

EN

D

ALA

N I

ZA

DI

BO

ST

AN

Y D

ES

IGN

RE

SID

EN

CE

AD

DIT

ION

FIR

ST

FLO

OR

P

LAN

A03

EN

TRA

NC

E D

ETA

IL

1P

RO

PO

SE

D F

LOO

R P

LAN

/RO

OF

PLA

N

1

a. b. a.

1FL

OO

R P

LAN

NO

TIC

E

CIT

Y N

OTI

CE

Page 24

ALA

N I

ZA

DI

BO

ST

AN

Y D

ES

IGN

RE

SID

EN

CE

AD

DIT

ION

EX

TE

RIO

RE

LEV

AT

ION

A04

1S

OU

TH E

LEV

ATI

ON

1

WE

ST

ELE

VA

TIO

N

NO

RTH

ELE

VA

TIO

N

2 34

EA

ST

ELE

VA

TIO

N

Page 25

ALA

N I

ZA

DI

BO

ST

AN

Y D

ES

IGN

RE

SID

EN

CE

AD

DIT

ION

MA

TE

RIA

L B

OA

RD

A05

FRO

NT

DO

OR

H

AR

DY

BO

AR

D

RO

OF

SH

ING

LES

VIN

YL

WIN

DO

W

GR

AY

BR

ICK

WIN

DO

W S

HU

TTE

RS

EX

TER

IOR

LIG

HT

RID

GE

SID

E

Page 26

https://cityofsandimas.sharepoint.com/CD/Shared Documents/CommDev7- Planning Case Files/DPRB/2020/DPRB 20-0010, 240 W Third St, ext remodel historic house/DPRB Fact Sheet 20-0010, 240 W. Third St, ext remodel historic home.docx




FROM: Anne Nguyen, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: DPRB Case No. 20-0010 ACCELA PROJ-20-0038

A request to remove all of the existing wood siding on an existing one-story 928 square-foot single-family historic house with a 576 square-foot detached two-car garage, and replace it with James Hardie Plank lap siding. The Applicant is also proposing to remove all of the existing windows and replace them with vinyl windows. The subject property is located within the Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR) Zone at 240 W. Third Street. (APN: 8387-015-021)

FACTS: The Applicant is requesting approval to remove all of the existing wood siding on the existing historic house and replace it with James Hardie Plank lap siding. Additionally, the Applicant is also proposing to remove all of the existing windows to be replaced with vinyl windows. The house, which was constructed in 1908, is located at 240 W. Third Street and is within the Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR) Zone. The subject site is situated east of Cataract and west of Monte Vista Avenue (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map

N

Cata

ract

Ave

Third St

Subject Site

Mon

te V

ista

Ave

PAGE 1

Fact Sheet for DPRB 20-0010 Page 2 240 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 The subject site measures approximately 7,000 square feet in lot area and was originally developed with a 788 square-foot one-story single-family residence, a 168 square-foot front-gabled porch roof, and a 140 square-foot rear porch that was enclosed in 1974. According to L.A. County Assessor Records, the 576 square-foot (24’-0” x 24’-0”) detached two-car garage located at the rear of the property, adjacent to the alley, was constructed in 1964 with a 5’-0” east side yard setback and a 7’-6” rear yard setback. There also exists an unpermitted 435 square-foot detached structure identified as a granny flat (see Project Plans, Exhibit B), which existed prior to the Applicant purchasing the property in late 2013. Because the Applicant’s request for approval from the Board only involves the exterior siding material and windows of the main dwelling unit, the unpermitted granny flat will be addressed by Staff at a later date. During the sale of the property, the previous owners disclosed to the Applicant that the detached accessory structure was unpermitted, and the Applicant has expressed to Staff that he intends on legalizing the granny flat in the future once he has been able to secure enough funds to finance it given that the State has now allowed accessory dwelling units to be constructed in all residentially zoned properties regardless of lot size. The property is identified in the City’s Historic Resources Survey List as a “Contribution Structure,” which is a structure that significantly contributes to the historic fabric of a neighborhood (see Historic Resources Survey Form, Exhibit C). The historic home is designed in a Craftsman bungalow architectural style and is developed with a side facing medium pitched gable roof and a front porch supported by square posts and a solid baluster made of wood siding that runs across the front of the house. Although the upper portion of the front porch had previously been completely enclosed with screen windows, the previous owners removed all of the screened windows. The house is currently covered with three different types of horizontal clapboard siding each with a different exposure, and rests on a concrete foundation (see Photos of Subject Site, Exhibit D). The existing detached garage was designed in the same Craftsman bungalow architectural style as the main house, but is covered in horizontal wood siding that has a 6.5-inch exposure. After completing the exterior improvements on the main dwelling unit, the Applicant also intends on replacing the existing wood siding on the detached garage with Hardie Plank lap siding to match the historic house. ANALYSIS: Table 18.12.050 of Chapter 18.12 of the San Dimas Municipal Code (SDMC) requires that additions or structural modifications to a historic structure be reviewed and approved by the Board. Since the structure is on the City’s Historic Resources Survey list, the Applicant’s request is before the Board for review. Over the course of the past ten years, the Board has approved a number of historic residences to remove their existing wood siding material and replace it with James Hardie Board material, but only one historic residence located at 516 N. San Dimas Avenue was approved in 2011 to remove all of the existing wood siding (see Figure 2).

PAGE 2

Fact Sheet for DPRB 20-0010 Page 3 240 W. Third Street August 13, 2020

Figure 2 – View of 516 N. San Dimas Ave.; Hardie Board siding done in 2011.

Due to the different exposure widths of the existing horizontal wood siding on the house (see Photos of Subject Site, Exhibit D, p.19), the Applicant is requesting approval to replace all of the wood siding with Hardie Plank lap siding to create a consistent appearance on the entire exterior of the house. The new Hardie Plank lap siding will have a minimum of a 5-inch exposure to match the exposure width of the original siding located on the front part of the house. The decorative lattice vent located on the front and rear gable ends will remain along with the gable vent on the west elevation. In addition, all of the existing ac units projecting on the exterior of the south and west elevations will be removed including the awning located on the west elevation. Once all of the new siding has been installed, the Applicant will be repainting the house with a darker blue color as the main body and a white color for all of the trim around the house including fascia boards, window trim and porch posts (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 – Material Sample and Paint Color Sample Options

PAGE 3

Fact Sheet for DPRB 20-0010 Page 4 240 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 Similar to the inconsistency of the existing siding material on the house, when the Applicant purchased the property, there existed an inconsistency in the window material. There also appears to be two openings, one on either side of the existing fireplace that were inappropriately covered up by the previous homeowners (see Photos of Subject Site, Exhibit D, p.16). There is a total of nine windows on the house that the Applicant is proposing to replace with hung vinyl windows. Out of the nine windows, only four are the original wood windows, which are identified as windows no. 1 and 2 located at the front porch (see Exhibit D, p. 15) and windows no. 5 and 6 located on the porch enclosure (see Exhibit D, pp. 20-21). From the remaining five windows, four of them are vinyl, which are windows no. 4 (see Exhibit D, p.17), and windows no. 7-9 (see Exhibit D, pp. 21-22) while the final window no. 3 located just south of the fireplace (see Exhibit D, p. 17) is aluminum. Along with the varying materials of the existing windows, there exists an inconsistency of window styles whereas five of the existing windows are single hung, two are fixed, and two are sliders. Since all of the windows are proposed to be replaced, the Applicant will be changing the windows located on the rear porch enclosure from fixed to casement, the existing slider window in the kitchen (window no. 4) to be a hopper window, and the single hung window located in the bathroom (window no. 7), to be a hopper window as well thereby changing the opening size of that window. Staff has included Condition of Approval No. 13 to require that window no. 3 just south of the fireplace be restored as a set of two single hung windows to match window no. 8 on the west elevation. Staff has also included Condition of Approval No. 14 to ensure that all new windows will have matching architectural trim typical of the Craftsman style and that a detail drawing be included in the building plans upon submittal. Ultimately, while a policy has not been adopted by the City to prohibit the replacement of historic wood windows with vinyl, Staff has received a number of requests from homeowners over the years that have opted to remove their existing historic wood windows and replace some or all with vinyl. Due to the already inconsistent window styles and window material of the existing historic home, and the desire of the Applicant to invest in his home and make significant improvements that will still retain much of the historic character of the property, Staff is amenable to the proposed window alterations to be vinyl.

Therefore, the proposed improvements will be done in a manner to preserve the historic character of the home. ISSUES: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Development Plan Review Board approve Development Plan Review Board Case No. 20-0010 subject to the attached conditions.

PAGE 4


Respectfully submitted,

Anne Nguyen Associate Planner

EXHIBITS: A. Conditions of ApprovalB. Project PlansC. Historic Resources Inventory FormD. Photos of Subject Site

PAGE 5


Exhibit A Conditions of Approval

for DPRB Case No. 20-0010 ACCELA PROJ-20-0038

A request to remove all of the existing wood siding on an existing one-story 928 square-foot single-family historic house with a 576 square-foot detached two-car garage, and replace it with James Hardie Plank lap siding. The Applicant is also proposing to remove all of the existing windows and replace them with vinyl windows. The subject property is located within the Single-Family Downtown Residential (SF-DR) Zone at 240 W. Third Street. (APN: 8387-015-021)

PLANNING DIVISION - (909) 394-6250

1. The Applicant/Developer shall agree to defend at his sole expense any actionbrought against the City, its agents, officers or employees because of the issuanceof such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicantshall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any Court costs andattorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required bya court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but suchparticipation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.

2. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for any City Attorney costs incurredby the City for the project, including, but not limited to, consultations, and thepreparation and/or review of legal documents. The applicant shall deposit fundswith the City to cover these costs in an amount to be determined by the City.

3. Copies of the Conditions of Approval shall be included on the plans (full size). Thesheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/gradingactivities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensedEngineer/Architect.

4. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Single FamilyDowntown Residential Zone.

5. This approval is limited to paint color changes to the exterior of the historic houseincluding siding, fascia, and window trim as well as the full replacement of theexisting wood siding throughout the entire house with James Hardie Plank lapsiding at a 5-inch exposure and the replacement of all windows to vinyl hungwindows.

PAGE 6Exhibit A


6. All Conditions are final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 days of theissuance of the Conditions in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.212 ofthe San Dimas Zoning Code.

7. The building permits for this project must be issued within one year from the dateof approval or the approval will become invalid. A time extension may be grantedunder the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.12.070 F.

8. The Applicant/Developer shall sign an affidavit accepting all Conditions and allStandard Conditions before issuance of building permits.

9. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all City of San Dimas Business Licenserequirements and shall provide a list of all contractors and subcontractors that aresubject to business license requirements.

10. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as approvedby the Development Plan Review Board on August 13, 2020.

11. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no eventshall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours.

DESIGN

12. Building architecture and site plan shall be consistent with plans presented to theDevelopment Plan Review Board on August 13, 2020 provided that the Director ofDevelopment Services is authorized to make revisions consistent with the SanDimas Municipal Code.

13. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that all new windows will have matchingarchitectural trim typical of the Craftsman style. A detail shall be included in thebuilding plans upon submittal.

14. Any changes to the exterior finishes after August 13, 2020 shall require review andapproval by the Planning Division.

15. All exterior building colors shall match the color and material board on file with thePlanning Division. Any revision to the approved building colors shall be submittedto the Planning Division for review and approval.

BUILDING DIVISION – (909) 394-6260

16. The plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest editions of the codes asadopted by reference by the City of San Dimas: California Green BuildingStandards Code, California Building Code, California Residential Code, CaliforniaMechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and California Electrical Code.

PAGE 7Exhibit A

Fact Sheet for DPRB 20-0010 Page 8 240 W. Third Street August 13, 2020 17. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Energy

requirements and any measures that exceed them if required as part of a mitigation plan for all new lighting, insulation, solar and mechanical equipment and submit calculations at time of initial plan review.

18. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and shall be prohibited at any time on Sundays or public holidays, per San Dimas Municipal Code Section 8.36.100.

ENGINEERING DIVISION – (909) 394-6240

19. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a signed copy of the City's certification statement declaring that the contractor will comply with Minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the MS4 permit for Los Angeles County as mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

20. All work adjacent to or within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director and the work shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the City of San Dimas; i.e. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and further that the construction equipment ingress and egress be controlled by a plan approved by Public Works.

21. Construction parking and material storage to be confined to the site. No construction related material storage will be allowed on the surrounding streets.

End of Conditions

PAGE 8Exhibit A

EXIS

TING

1,157

SQ.

FT.

1-ST

ORY

SING

LE F

AMILY

DWEL

LING

EXIS

TING

1-ST

ORY

452 S

Q.FT

.GR

ANNY

FLA

T

EXIS

TING

492 S

Q.FT

.2-

CAR

GARA

GE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE

SLOPE SLOPE

SLOP

E

SLOP

E

SLOP

E

SLOP

E

SLOP

E

SLOP

E

DRIV

EWAY

CONC

RETE

PAT

IO

PROP

ERTY

LINE

PERI

METE

R OF

EXT

ERIO

RFA

CADE

S TO

BE

REMO

DELE

D

15'-9

"

12'-0"

8'-0"17'-6"

SIDEWALK

GREEN SPACE

THIRD STREET

CURB

ALLEY

5'-3"

3'-6"

5'-0"

A0.0

SITE

PLA

N

ISSU

ED:

SHEE

T N

UM

BER

:

SHEE

T TI

TLE:

OW

NER

:

UR

IEL

CAL

DER

ON

240

W. T

HIR

D S

TREE

TSA

N D

IMAS

, CA

9177

3

DES

IGN

ER:

DAN

IEL

REY

ES

DAN

IEL.

RAD

17@

GM

AIL.

CO

M

626.

257.

8547

PRO

JEC

T:

EXTE

RIO

RC

LAD

DIN

GR

EMO

DEL

& N

EWW

IND

OW

S24

0 W

. TH

IRD

STR

EET

SAN

DIM

AS, C

A 91

773

SITE

PLA

N1

SCAL

E: 3

/16"

= 1

'-0"

N

PRO

JEC

T IN

FOR

MAT

ION

JOB

AD

DR

ES

S: 2

40 W

ES

T T

HIR

D S

TR

EE

T, S

AN

DIM

AS

, CA

917

73

LOT

AR

EA

: 7,0

00 S

Q.F

T.

SIN

GLE

FA

MIL

Y R

ES

IDE

NC

E S

QU

AR

E F

OO

TA

GE

: 1,1

57 S

Q.F

T.

GR

AN

NY

FLA

T S

QU

AR

E F

OO

TA

GE

: 452

SQ

.FT

.

GA

RA

GE

SQ

UA

RE

FO

OT

AG

E: 4

92 S

Q.F

T.

LOT

CO

VE

RA

GE

: 30%

PAGE 9Exhibit B

EXIS

TING

LIVI

NGRO

OM

EXIS

TING

BEDR

OOM

1EX

ISTI

NGBE

DROO

M 2

EXIS

TING

BATH

ROOM

EXIS

TING

BEDR

OOM

3

EXIS

TING

KITC

HEN

EXIS

TING

LAUN

DRY

EXIS

TING

POR

CH

EXIS

TING

DIN

ING

ROOM

10'-0

"21

'-9"

12'-3

"10

'-0"

10'-4"10'-2"

9'-11

"9'-

5"12

'-2"

12'-6

"10

'-0"

54'-0

"

20'-7"

A1.0

FLOO

R PL

AN

EXTE

RIOR

SPE

CS

N

PAGE 10Exhibit B

3'-3"

ELEV

. 9'-

5"LIN

E OF

FIN

ISH

CEILI

NG

LINE

OF T

OP O

F RO

OF

LINE

OF G

RADE

8'-0"

ELEV

. - 0

'-0"

ELEV

. 12

'-8"

LINE

OF F

INIS

H FL

OOR

LEVE

LEL

EV.

1'-5"

1'-5"

NEW

6 1 4"

HARD

IE P

LANK

TO

MATC

H SH

ERW

IN-W

ILLIA

MSBR

ACIN

G BL

UE C

OLOR

HGSW

3353

TYP

.

NEW

WOO

D FA

SCIA

TO

BEPA

INTE

D W

HITE

TYP

.

EXIS

TING

WOO

D FR

AMIN

G IN

OPEN

ING

TO B

E RE

PLAC

ED W

ITH

NEW

WOO

D AN

D PA

INTE

D W

HITE

TYP

.

OPEN

OPEN

OPEN

OPEN

OPEN

OPEN

OPEN

1X4 V

ERTI

CAL B

OARD

AT

CORN

ERS

PAIN

TED

WHI

TETY

P.

3'-3"

LINE

OF F

INIS

H CE

ILING

LINE

OF T

OP O

F RO

OF

LINE

OF G

RADE

8'-0"

ELEV

. - 0

'-0"

LINE

OF F

INIS

H FL

OOR

LEVE

L

1'-5"

ELEV

. 9'-

5"

ELEV

. 12

'-8"

ELEV

. 1'-

5"

NEW

WOO

D FA

SCIA

TO

BEPA

INTE

D W

HITE

TYP

.EX

ISTI

NG W

OOD

FRAM

ING

INOP

ENIN

G TO

BE

REPL

ACED

WIT

H NE

WW

OOD

AND

PAIN

TED

WHI

TE T

YP.

ALL W

INDO

WS

TO B

E RE

PLAC

ED W

ITH

NEW

WIN

DOW

S OF

SAM

E SI

E FR

AMED

WIT

H 1X

4 PAI

NTED

WHI

TE T

YP.

NEW

6 1 4"

HARD

IE P

LANK

TO

MATC

H SH

ERW

IN-W

ILLIA

MSBR

ACIN

G BL

UE C

OLOR

HGSW

3353

THR

OUGH

OUT

TYP.

OPEN

OPEN

OPEN

1X4 V

ERTI

CAL B

OARD

AT

CORN

ERS

PAIN

TED

WHI

TETY

P.

3'-3"

LINE

OF F

INIS

H CE

ILING

LINE

OF T

OP O

F RO

OF

LINE

OF G

RADE

8'-0"

ELEV

. - 0

'-0"

LINE

OF F

INIS

H FL

OOR

LEVE

L

1'-5"

ELEV

. 9'-

5"

ELEV

. 12

'-8"

ELEV

. 1'-

5"

NEW

6 1 4"

HARD

IE P

LANK

TO

MATC

H SH

ERW

IN-W

ILLIA

MSBR

ACIN

G BL

UE C

OLOR

HGSW

3353

THR

OUGH

OUT

TYP.

NEW

WOO

D FA

SCIA

TO

BEPA

INTE

D W

HITE

TYP

.EX

ISTI

NG W

OOD

FRAM

ING

INOP

ENIN

G TO

BE

REPL

ACED

WIT

H NE

WW

OOD

AND

PAIN

TED

WHI

TE T

YP.

ALL W

INDO

WS

TO B

E RE

PLAC

ED W

ITH

NEW

WIN

DOW

S OF

SAM

E SI

E FR

AMED

WIT

H 1X

4 PAI

NTED

WHI

TE T

YP.

OPEN

OPEN

OPEN

1X4 V

ERTI

CAL B

OARD

AT

CORN

ERS

PAIN

TED

WHI

TETY

P.

3'-3"

LINE

OF F

INIS

H CE

ILING

LINE

OF T

OP O

F RO

OF

LINE

OF G

RADE

8'-0"

ELEV

. - 0

'-0"

LINE

OF F

INIS

H FL

OOR

LEVE

L

1'-5"

ELEV

. 9'-

5"

ELEV

. 12

'-8"

ELEV

. 1'-

5"

NEW

6 1 4"

HARD

IE P

LANK

TO

MATC

H SH

ERW

IN-W

ILLIA

MSBR

ACIN

G BL

UE C

OLOR

HGSW

3353

NEW

WOO

D FA

SCIA

TO

BEPA

INTE

D W

HITE

TYP

.

WIN

DOW

TO

BE R

EPLA

CED

WIT

H NE

WW

INDO

WS

OF S

AME

SIE

FRA

MED

WIT

H 1X

4 PAI

NTED

WHI

TE T

YP.

1X4 V

ERTI

CAL B

OARD

AT

CORN

ERS

PAIN

TED

WHI

TETY

P.

A2.0

PROP

OSED

EXTE

RIOR

ELEV

ATIO

NS

PAGE 11Exhibit B

Exhibit C

https://cityofsandimas.sharepoint.com/CD/Shared Documents/CommDev7- Planning Case Files/DPRB/2020/DPRB 20-0010, 240 W Third St, ext remodel historic house/FINAL PACKET/Exhibit D - Photos of Subject Site.docx

Photos of Subject Site

Partial Front view of house showing existing siding over the front gable.

Front view of the property.

Exhibit DPAGE 14

Part

ial W

est E

leva

tion

view

of t

he b

ack

half

of th

e ho

use.

Vi

ew o

f dou

ble

win

dow

s on

East

Ele

vatio

n of

hou

se.

1 2

Exhibit DPAGE 15

Partial East Elevation view showing fire place and covered up window.

Partial East Elevation view showing fire place and covered up window.

Exhibit DPAGE 16

View of large slider window on East Elevation between gate and fireplace.

3

4

View of slider window located on East Elevation between water heater and electric panel.

Exhibit DPAGE 17

Part

ial s

ide

view

show

ing

wat

er h

eate

r, ga

te, a

nd fi

repl

ace.

Pa

rtia

l Eas

t Ele

vatio

n vi

ew o

f the

bac

k ha

lf of

the

hous

e.

Sidi

ng w

ith le

ss th

an

3” e

xpos

ure Sidi

ng w

ith a

lmos

t 5”

expo

sure

Sidi

ng w

ith o

ver 5

” ex

posu

re

Exhibit DPAGE 18

Exhibit DPAGE 19

South (Rear) Elevation view of the house showing two different siding.

Partial view of Rear Elevation showing multiple siding width.

5

Exhibit DPAGE 20

View

of W

indo

w N

o. 8

on

East

Ele

vatio

n of

hou

se.

Part

ial W

est E

leva

tion

view

of t

he b

ack

half

of th

e ho

use.

6 7

8

Exhibit DPAGE 21

9

Window No. 9 located on the West Elevation under side gable.

Exhibit DPAGE 22




FROM: Anne Nguyen, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: DPRB Case No. 20-0013 ACCELA PROJ-20-0045

A request for input on three potential exterior remodel options for an existing 16,760 square-foot two-story administrative professional office building located within Specific Plan No. 2, Area 1 – Commercial (SP-2) at 1305 W. Arrow Highway. (APN 8383-016-056)

FACTS: The Applicant is requesting the Board to consider three exterior remodel options that each represent a contemporary design style, and to provide input prior to the Applicant submitting complete architectural plans to Staff. The property was developed in 1984 with a 16,760 square-foot two-story administrative professional office building located at 1305 W. Arrow Highway and is within Specific Plan No. 2, Area 1 – Commercial (SP-2). Thesubject site is situated west of Rennell Avenue, with Arrow Highway to the south, andSaint George Drive to the north (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map

N.R

enel

l Ave

.

Subject Site

W. Arrow Hwy.

St. George Dr.

PAGE 1

DPRB Case No. 20-0013 Page 2 1305 W. Arrow Highway August 13, 2020

In terms of land uses, single-family residential homes are located both to the north and south of the property, an approximately 0.49 acres vacant lot sits immediately to the west of the property, and a 5,500 square-foot commercial office building built in 2007 is located east of the subject property.

The two-story administrative professional office building is designed as a “U-shaped” building, with a central courtyard that faces the street and a total of sixty (60) parking spaces provided both in the front and rear of the building. The entire exterior of the building is clad in horizontal wood siding (see Photos of Subject Site, Exhibit A). Portions of the wood siding on the ground level were treated for termite damage less than two years ago. There are two staircases; one located at the front, and the other located to the rear of the building adjacent to the rear parking lot. Both staircases are made of wood that is painted the same color as all of the window trim and gutters. The existing roofing material is composition shingle.

ANALYSIS:

Existing Structure The existing two-story administrative professional office building is the only professional building along the Arrow Highway commercial corridor west of the 57 freeway that has not undergone any substantial modifications since it was built in 1984 except for a number of interior tenant improvements. In addition, it is the only building along the commercial corridor that is completely covered in horizontal wood siding, which is more typically found in the City’s downtown area identified as Frontier Village along Bonita Avenue. With the exception of the Stater Bros Shopping Center located just 500 feet west of the subject property, the design of the other neighboring professional office buildings was influenced by the Spanish architectural style. As a result, the majority of those buildings were constructed with an exterior stucco finish, Spanish S-tile roofing material, recessed windows, archways, and stone columns (see Photos of Neighboring Professional Office Buildings, Exhibit B).

The two-story building is unique to that commercial area due to its exterior materials and building design. Because of the exterior maintenance costs of the building, however, the Applicant has proposed a complete redesign of the entire building exterior. The proposal is very schematic and at this time, the Applicant is not intending to increase the building square footage. The existing foot print of the building will remain with the exception of much needed front façade upgrades including the creation of a new entrance and parapet wall that will eliminate the existing symmetrical appearance of the building. The new entrance will provide a secure point of entry for the tenants of the entire building and the front staircase will be reconstructed. The Applicant is also considering the installation of security entrance doors at the rear of the building as well to fully secure the building, but only front elevations are provided to the Board at this time for input. A second-floor terrace will be designed above the new entry doors and a laser cut art panel made of cor-ten steel will be featured in front of the new parapet wall. The windows and their location will remain, but the existing roofing material will be completely removed and the roof framing completely changed to a flat roof.

PAGE 2


Proposed Options for Renovation All options are proposing a more contemporary design style rather than the existing Early California Style of architecture commonly used throughout the city or the Spanish influenced architectural style along the Arrow Highway commercial corridor. For each option, the Applicant is proposing to remove all of the existing wood siding on the building. The following outlines the main characteristics of each option proposed.

Option A (above) 1. Corrugated metal in “Old Town Gray” color2. Brick similar to Albertson’s or the JB Building at 133 E. Bonita Avenue.3. Sand finish stucco in a shade of white color4. Stucco with 1” reveal5. Cor-ten steel garden screen laser cut art panel

Option B (above) 1. Reclaimed wood siding2. Sand finish stucco in a shade of white color3. Brick similar to Albertson’s or the JB Building at 133 E. Bonita Avenue.

3. 2. 1.

4.

3. 2.

1. 4.

5.

PAGE 3


Figure 2 – Close up view of the grain and texture of weathered Cor-ten steel

4. Cor-ten steel garden screen laser cut art panel

Option C (above) 1. Corrugated metal in “Old Town Gray” color2. Cor-ten steel 3/16” thick panels over stucco3. Sand finish stucco in a shade of white color4. Stucco with 1” reveal5. Cor-ten steel garden screen laser cut art panel

Although Cor-ten steel is a product developed by the United States Steel Corporation in the 1930s, it was originally used for railroad coal wagons followed by its popular use in outdoor art projects during the 1960s. The City has not had any projects proposing to use this material. Cor-ten is a weather resistant steel that is a cold-rolled steel allow that forms its own protective layer. Its structural integrity remains intact while the patina color will darken as time goes on. Cor-ten has deep red, brown, and orange coloring depending on the weather and time of day. Figure 2-4 (pictured below) are sample photos of the existing cor-ten steel public art piece located at Monrovia Gold Line Station.

3.

2.1.

4.

5.

PAGE 4


Figure 3 – View of Cor-ten steel in the shade and in the light

Figure 4 – View of Cor-ten steel in sunlight showing gradation of color

In Conclusion

Option A introduces the use of corrugated metal to accent the entrance and partial areas of the building along with a more contemporary stucco with 1” reveal over the eastern portion of the building. The proposed brick material is inspired by existing brick buildings from the City’s downtown area.

Option B uses a combination of brick inspired by the City’s downtown area and sand finished stucco as the main material for the entire body of the building with the reclaimed wood siding used as an accent material to break up the front façade. The second floor above the entrance has a larger outdoor space than the other two options.

Option C utilizes more industrial type materials such as corrugated metal, Cor-ten steel, and stucco with a 1” reveal. The use of the aforementioned materials is a more contemporary design style than any administrative professional office building in the city. This option is the preferred option by the Applicant.

Staff believes that any of the proposed modifications would be an improvement to the existing building. Although Option B and C result in a modern style approach that utilizes a combination of materials that are commonly seen on other buildings in San Dimas alongside new material.

PAGE 5


RECOMMENDATION:

Provide input to Staff on options presented. If identified, provide preferred alternative or direct the architect to explore other alternatives.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne Nguyen Associate Planner

EXHIBITS:

A. Photos of Subject SiteB. Photos of Neighboring Professional Office BuildingsC. Preliminary Front ElevationsD. Photo Examples of Materials

PAGE 6

https://cityofsandimas.sharepoint.com/CD/Shared Documents/CommDev7- Planning Case Files/DPRB/2020/1305 W Arrow Hwy, ext remodel - PRELIM/Exhibit A - Photos of Subject Site.docx

Photos of Subject Site

Partial front view of building showing the front wooden staircasing.

Front view of the property along Arrow Highway.

PAGE 7Exhibit A

Side

pro

file

view

show

ing

the

dept

h of

the

win

dow

pro

ject

ons.

Pa

rtia

l vie

w o

f Eas

t Ele

vatio

n.

PAGE 8Exhibit A

Part

ial v

iew

of E

ast E

leva

tion

and

land

scap

ing

area

. Cl

ose

up v

iew

of e

xist

ing

grou

nd le

vel w

indo

w.

PAGE 9Exhibit A

Partial view of North (Rear) Elevation.

Partial view of North (Rear) Elevation.

PAGE 10Exhibit A

View

of r

ear s

tairc

ase

by p

arki

ng lo

t.

View

from

rear

par

king

lot l

ooki

ng so

uth

dow

n co

rrid

or.

PAGE 11Exhibit A

View

from

inte

rior c

ourt

yard

look

ing

sout

h to

war

d st

airc

ase.

Vi

ew fr

om in

terio

r cou

rtya

rd lo

okin

g no

rthw

ard.

PAGE 12Exhibit A

View of North (Rear) Elevation and West Elevation.

View of West Elevation and partial South (Front) Elevation.

PAGE 13Exhibit A

https://cityofsandimas.sharepoint.com/CD/Shared Documents/CommDev7- Planning Case Files/DPRB/2020/1305 W Arrow Hwy, ext remodel - PRELIM/Exhibit B - Photos of Neighboring Professional Office Buildings.docx

Photos of Neighboring Professional Office Buildings

1325 W. Arrow Highway

Subject Site


W. Arrow Hwy.

PAGE 14Exhibit B

255 N. Lone Hill Avenue


Subject Site

W. Arrow Hwy.

PAGE 15Exhibit B

Subject Site

W. Arrow Hwy.


PAGE 16Exhibit B

Exhibit C

https://cityofsandimas.sharepoint.com/CD/Shared Documents/CommDev7- Planning Case Files/DPRB/2020/1305 W Arrow Hwy, ext remodel - PRELIM/Exhibit D - Photo Examples of Materials.docx

Photo Examples of Materials

Example of potential brick proposed for Option A and Option B.

Example of potential brick proposed for Option A and Option B.

PAGE 21Exhibit D

Example of corten steel pattern proposed for Option C

Example of reclaimed wood siding proposed for Option B

PAGE 22Exhibit D

Example showing use of reclaimed wood siding, stucco, and corten steel for Option C.

Example showing combination of corten steel and stucco being used like Option C.

PAGE 23Exhibit D

Example of corten steel with reclaimed wood siding for Option C.

View of 101-175 E. City Place Dr, Santa Ana, CA (completed project done by Applicant)

Example of stucco with 1” reveal proposed for Option A and C

PAGE 24Exhibit D