Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/08/11 - Agenda Packet (2)[977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~ PLANNIl COMMISSION AC. ENI WEDNESDAY AUGUST 11, 1993 8:00 P.M. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette III· II. New Business DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The design review of elevations for Buildings X and Y within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-70. Be DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13316 - L. D. KING - The review of alternative grading schemes for compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance for a recorded tract map consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street - APN: 210-071-14, 37, and 45. Public Co~ents This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IV. Adjournment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DA'I"E: Au~st 11, 1993 TO:. ~..~airman and Members of the Planning Oommission ,,nner BY:. 7 ' '""" Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUI-3J~CT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - Western Properties - The design / review of elevations for buildings X and Y within the Terra Vista Town ! Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-70. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this workshop is for the Commission to review the new elevations for buildings X and Y. BACKGROUND: The Commission approved the conceptual elevations for buildings X and Y in December of 1987. To satisfy the conditions of approval, the developer had sul')mitted final building design and architectural details for Commission review. After three workshops, the Commission approved the building design on November 16, 1989, as shown in Exhibits A and B. The final design consisted of two story buildings intended for a mix of financial, office and retail uses. Subsequently, the developer had received building permits but did not pursue the construction of the buildings. The developer is interested in reviving this project. Because of today's market conditions, the developer is proposing single story retail buildings instead of two story financial/office buildings. Building X is designed for speculative retail tenants. Building Y is designed for a specific tenant called "Leaps and Bounds" which is an indoor recreational facility geared towards children of all ages (similar to "Fundazzle" in Montclair). Representatives from the developer and Leaps and Bounds will be at the meeting to describe this proposed use. STAFF COMMENTS;: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for the Commission discussion. A. Major Issues. The following broad design issues will be the focus of the Commission discussion for this project: One-story versus two-story. The overall design concern is to ensure that the proposed elevations for buildings X and Y are provided with the same high level of design integrity. Buildings X and Y play a very important role in the function of the corner treatment at Foothill Blvd and Haven Ave. Based on comparing and evaluating the proposed elevations with the approved ones, staff feels that however attractive the proposed one-story elevations do not provide the same architectural impact. B. Secondary Issues. Once the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, !he Commission will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Building X. a. The west elevation is the back of the building where service entries are to be located. Since this side of the building faces Haven Avenue, windows should be provided so that it does not look like the back of a building. b. Precast concrete molding should be added to frame the gable towers, the arches and the windows. 2. Building Y. a. Precast concrete molding should be added to frame the tower entries and the arches. b. The proposed colonade at the north elevation places the tower 6 feet from the curb and eliminated 5 tree wells. 3. Site and Landscaping. a. Additional tree wells planted with canopy trees should be provided to the courtyard plaza consistent with the approved plans. (5 tree wells were eliminated) b. Additional tree wells and planter areas should be provided to the north and east elevations of building X. c. The existing phone cabinet is in the way of the pedestrian pathways. The northeast corner of building X should be stepped back so that there is room for a raised planter area in front of the window and landscape area around the phone cabinet, consistent with the approved plans. d. Groups of small canopy trees should be planted within the landscape setback area approximately between the columns of the colonade along the west elevation of building X. However, the placement of trees should take into consideration the location of signage. e. Additional tree wells should be provided along the northern colonade of building Y. f. A continuous 6 foot wide minimum landscape area should be provided along the east side of building Y. The proposed vine pockets in front of the columns are inadequate. g. Groups of small canopy trees should be planted within the landscape setback area approximately between the columns of the colonade at the south elevation of building Y. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the developer revise the development plans to address the identified issues and resubmit for further Commission review. Attachments: Proposed elevations Exhibit A - Approved Building X elevations Exhibit B - Approved Building Y elevations Exhibit C - Comparison of approved building pads with proposed ones NORTH ELEVATION I I I I ~ ,j_'~D U T H E L E V A T Z 0 N , PLANNING CO~ISSION WORKSHOP August 11, 1993 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13316 L.D. KING, Inc. - The review of alternative grading schemes for compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance for a recorded tract map consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street - APN: 210-071-14, 37, 45. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this workshop is to determine the type of grading which should be permitted to occur on the site. Although the site has a recorded tract map, the Planning Co~ission has the power to determine how far the applicant must go to comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance. Staff's intent is not to bring the project into compliance with ordinance, but to determine the Com~ission's expected level of sensitivity to the ordinance. The Co~ission should review the alternative grading concepts to determine which, if any, would be the most appropriate for the tract. BACKGROUND: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13316, a subdivision and Design Review application, was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on March 27, 1987. The tract map was recorded on June 1, 1990, but neither grading nor building permits were issued. In addition, the design review approval for the homes has expired. The original developer, Friedman Homes, encountered financial difficulty and the property has since reverted beck to the lender, Chino Valley Bank. On April 7, 1993 L.D. ~ing, Inc., the planning and engineering firm for the bank, resubmitted a new Design Review application with the previously approved house plans. The purpose of the submittal was to receive a new approval of the conceptual grading plan in order to mass grade the site, construct the required infrastructure, and then sell the lots to merchant builders. Because the entire development concept of the tract is inconsistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance, and the tract map is already recorded, staff decided that the Planning Colm~ission should give some direction as to the type of grading concept that would be preferred for the tract. STAFF COMMENTS: The Co~ission should review the three grading alternatives provided for each of the conditions depicted in Sections A-A, B-B, and C-C. These conditions are typical of those found throughout the tract. The alternative shown on the top of each sheet represents the grading proposed by the applicant. It basically proposes creating large flat pads with typically 2:1 slopes in the rear yards. The other two cross- sections on each sheet represent alternative grading concepts which would bring the finished grade and slopes closer to the previous natural grade. These two concepts generally utilize sloped pads and flattened rear yard slopes, the idea being that a future builder would design a PLANNING CO~94ISSION WORKSHOP DR FOR TRACT 13316 - L.D. KING, INC. August 11, 1993 Page 2 house with stem walls to step down with the grade. These two alternatives to the applicant's proposal show how the grading can be done to be more consistent with the intent of 'the Hillside Development Ordinance. Although these two proposals are preferred by staff, they also fall short of what the ordinance intends. Clearer, more detailed exhibits will be available at the workshop to aid in a discussion about the grading alternatives. Staff will also provide an additional grading alternative which would come closer to meeting the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. In addition, the entire development package for the project will be available for reference.