Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/08/25 - Agenda Packet - DR Workshop 0 1977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY AUGUST 25, 1993 8:30 P.M. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAIN8 ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette II. Old 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. III· Public Comments 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 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 25, 1993 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, Senior Planner 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. At the August 11, 1993, workshop, the applicant was directed to revise the plans to address the Commission's concerns. The applicant submitted the revised plans on August 18, 1993. Because of time constraints, staff will present an oral report at the workshop. Attached for the Commission's reference are copies of the revised elevations, the August 11, 1993, staff report, and the unapproved minutes. City Planner BB:NF:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - August 11, 1993, staff report Exhibit "B" - Draft August 11, 1993 Planning Commission minutes DATE: TO:, FROt~ BY: SUB, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM A/st 11, 1993 /~airman and Members of the Planning Commission /,~j'/Brad_ ~ NancyB~l~iI AClitcYp,PI;enni~fPlanner .3T: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - Western Properties - The design review of elevations for buildings X and Y within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at lhe northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-70. ARSTRACT: The purpose of Ibis 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 submitted final building design and architectural delails 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 Monlclair). 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 comer 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, the 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 lhe 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 lhe 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 wesl 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 lhat 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 T.O. ~ltl. J~ NORTH ELEVATION ~ U T'H £ L £ V A T Z O N t I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 11, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner 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. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Richard Mager, Western Properties, introduced their team to the Commissioners. He stated there is no foreseeable prospect for bank or office uses in Buildings X and Y. Me said they have decided to go with retail uses. Brian Kojos, the Staubach Company, explained the concept of Leaps and Bounds as an indoor family play center geared toward children up to 9 years old. Mr. Mager stated that Leaps and Bounds is different from Fundazzle in that the parents have to stay in the building with the children. Brad Bullet, City Planner, reminded the Commissioners that the focus of tonight's workshop was to review the design for the two buildings. Chairman McNiel commended the superb design of the center. He felt that the proposed elevations for Buildings X and Y fall short of the design excellence. He thought the design of the two buildings is too simple and looks like typical in-line retail shops. Me commented that the corner is very important and the architecture should be of significance. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Commissioners Chitlea and Melcher expressed concerns with the reduced view corridor into the center. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, architect for Western Properties, stated that it is unrealistic to expect a wide view corridor into the center. He explained the function and design of the two buildings. Commissioner Melcher remarked that despite what drives the architecture, the design of the building should not be compromised. He thought the two buildings at this corner should have architectural treatment that project them as the crown jewel of the center. Mr. Mager interjected that because of economic conditions, it is not financially feasible to build two-story office buildings. He disclosed that the rent has dropped from to $2.00 to $1.50 per square foot. Commissioner Melcher responded that he is not unsympathetic to market situations; however, he felt this type of use may not be appropriate at this corner. Mr. Mager felt this type of use would bring pedestrian activities into the plaza area. Commissioner Vallette suggested that the box-like design of Building Y have more movement. Gary Baker, BSW International, architect representing Leaps and Bounds replied that the floor plan cannot be modified because it is tied to the function of the plan. Mr. Bullet suggested the Commission first determine if one-story buildings are acceptable. He said if the Commission felt one-story buildings are acceptable, it could then move on to provide direction to the applicant for addressing the other architectural design elements of the buildings. Commissioner Vallette remarked the one-story is not too overpowering and may allow more visibility into the center. However, she felt the design needs to capture the same sophisticated design as shown in the approved elevations. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed one-story is acceptable; however, he felt the design is too different from the original concept and lacking in architectural excellence. He expressed his concern with orientins the back side of one of the buildings to face Haven Avenue. Commissioner Melcher agreed one-story buildings would be acceptable but he felt the proposed architecture is poor. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would accept one-story buildings with quality design. Chairman McNiel added that he would accept single story only if the buildings are designed as the jewel of the center. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- DRAF-r FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY August 11, 3993 The Commission directed the applicant to forward revised designs to staff by August 18 in order to schedule a workshop following the regular Commission meeting of August 25, 1993. 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. Brad Bullet, City Planner, gave a brief introduction to the project and stated the purpose of the workshop. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, gave a presentation describing the location of the site and the project's background and its relationship to the Hillside Development Ordinance. He stated the purpose of the workshop was to determine to what extent the Commission expects the applicant to comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance. He said specifically the Commission's purpose was to review the proposed grading alternatives and give the applicant a direction to proceed with the application. Commissioner Tolstoy related that a peach orchard had previously been located at the site. David Buxbaum, representing Chino Valley Hank, stated the project was acquired through foreclosure by the bank. He said the bank's goal is to develop the tract so that it can be sold to a builder. He indicated the bank will install the storm drain system, mass grade the site, and install the streets and related infrastructure. Carla Berard, representing L. D. King, described the alternative grading concepts that were before the Commission for review. Commissioner Vallette said she worried that the lots would be sold to individual buyers for the construction of custom homes. She felt there should be some architectural conformity. Mr. Buxbaum stated the bank had filed a letter with the City Engineer stated it did not intend to have the project built with custom homes, but wanted to sell the whole project to a developer. Mr. Bullet stated the bank could sell the project to a builder with the requirement that certain architectural criteria be met relating to a uniform design theme with sensitivity to the Hillside Ordinance. commiesLoner Melcher added the bank could have an architect establish a design envelope for the prospective homes. He felt an architect would also be worth consulting regarding the amount of grade which could be accommodated in a house design. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- DRAFT /9 '/3 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY August 11, 1993 Commissioner Chitiea felt the equestrian uses must be accommodated wherever possible through the tract. She requested that 24 foot by 24 foot corral areas with access to the local feeder trails be provided wherever possible, even if additional grading is necessary, per Planning Commission Resolution No 88-226. Mr. Bullet suggested that the project could be graded more sensitively with grading concepts for future equestrian use provided to new homeowners, rather than grading all possible lots for equestrian uses. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Chitiea that the project should be graded with the intent to make as many lots as possible available for equestrian use. He acknowledged that some lots may not feasibly be used for equestrian use because of the amount of grading which would be necessary. He suggested the grading policy should be interpreted flexibly with regard to the project. He stated he was familiar with the site and observed that many of the property owners now in the area are not the same as those who lived there when the project last had a public hearing. He suggested that the applicant conduct a neighborhood meeting with owners of the adjacent properties. He also recalled the Commission's concerns about the concrete channel which drains at the south end of the site. He said the channel is to be designed in a "naturalized" manner to reduce its visual impact. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the bank choose an architect with experience in designing slab-on-grade production housing as well as hillside developments. In conclusion, the Commission directed the applicant to provide horse corrals with access to local feeder trails consistent with Planning Conmmission Resolution No. 88-226 wherever possible. Compliance with the grading standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance was deemed a secondary concern. In addition, the applicant was directed tO develop some type of architectural guidelines for the development of homes by a future builder. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 10~00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- ~ ~/y DRAFT I~OR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY August 11, 1993