Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/10/15 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY OCTOBER 15, 1996 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Rich Macias Peter Tolstoy Nancy Fong Alternates: William Bethel Dave Barker CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 5:15 p.m. (Dan) MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-22 - HERITAGE BAG - A proposed modification to expand the floor area from 124,400 to 150,020 square feet and relocate the office area to face 4th Street. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 5:30 p.m. (Dan) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR-A request to develop 264 apartments, with a condominium subdivision map, on 22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone located in the Victoria Planned Community on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane. APN: 227-091-14, 15, and 227-111-12, 13. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 5:15 p.m. Dan Coleman October 15, 1996 MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-22- HERITAGE BAG -A proposed modification to expand the floor area from 124,400 to 150,020 square feet and relocate the office area to face 4th Street. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee approved the modification as presented. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:30 p.m. Dan Coleman October 15, 1996 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR - A request to develop 264 apartments, with a condominium subdivision map, on 22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone, located in the Victoria Planned Community on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-091-14 and 15 and 227-111-12 and 13. Design Parameters: The site is an abandoned vineyard and slopes from north to south at a 3 percent grade. There is row of trees along the northerly boundary, primarily Eucalyptus. There are no known cultural resources on the site. To the west is a mini-storage facility, to the east is an apartment project and an undeveloped phase of the Victoria Village shopping center site, to the north is an abandoned railroad line, and to the south is a winery. The project is proposed as a gated community. Pre-Application Review: This project was the subject of a Pre-Application Review by the Planning Commission on February 14, 1996. Commissioners expressed design concerns with architecture, density, size of open space areas, and lack of trash enclosures conveniently located throughout the project. Minutes of the meeting are attached. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Density- The project has been designed at 11.9 dwelling units per acre. The Commission has traditionally required exceptional design quality for projects desiring to build at the upper end of the density range. During the Pre-Application Review, density was raised as an issue as it relates to the design of open space areas and the space between buildings. The project has been redesigned to meet or exceed all City standards for open space and building separations. The project density is lower than the density of the apartment project to the east (15.9 dwelling units per acre). 2. Architectural Style - Commissioners expressed concern that the proposed style was out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, most notably the Victorian architecture of the adjoining shopping center. The project's contemporary stucco scheme is similar to the existing apartments to the east; however, the primary concern is the context along Base Line Road. 3. Garages - The long garage buildings should be revised to break-up the long roof line. Suggestions would include varying the roof height or adding intersecting gables. Also, garage door patterns should be varied. 4. Carports - Their basic "stick-like' appearance is contrary to the City's design guidelines for multi-family projects. Substantial design elements should be incorporated, such as tile roof treatment similar to garage buildings and solid end walls. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. DRC COMMENTS VTT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR October 15, 1996 Page 3 1. Balconies- For the five buildings along Base Line Road, the acoustical study recommends a 6-foot high sound wall for all balconies facing the street. Suggest this be accomplished by using Lexan panel extensions above the normal patio wall height to achieve the necessary sound attenuation. 2. Open Space - Staff believes the open space layout is superior to most multi-family projects in terms of size and relationship to units. A total of 58 percent of the site is in common and private open space compared to the City's standard of 40 percent. The open space has been arranged as a large 'X' shaped greenbelt which allows 30 out of 35 buildings to orient directly onto the central common areas. 3. Recreational Amenities - The recreational amenities exceed City standards. 4. Colors - Provide color variation between buildings to avoid monotony. All buildings are proposed with the same color scheme: same roof tile, a single wall color (off white) and two accent colors (teal and rust). 5. Landscaping- Should existing windrow be preserved or replaced? The Victoria Community Plan states that windrow style plantings are "crucial to the Plan" to provide a strong visual unifying element. The applicant proposes to remove the existing row of trees along the north boundary. Most of the trees are in good health; however, preservation in place would require that the grading plan would have to be revised to maintain the natural grades underneath the drip line of the trees. Staff recommends replanting a Eucalyptus windrow along the north project boundary. Suggest Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) spaced 8-10 feet on center. 6. Trash Compactor- The project features a single point of collection for all trash at the north project boundary. During the Pre-Application Review, one Commissioner expressed concern that this was inconvenient and required tenants to walk too far carrying their trash or to drive to the compactor. Only 6 out of 35 buildings are within 300 feet of the compactor. 7. Stairways-The open stairways lack any architectural treatment. Stairs should be integrated into the building by enclosing them with walls. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and returned for review by the Design Review Committee. DRC COMMENTS VTT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR October 15, 1996 Page 4 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee recommended that the applicant's architect work with staff to revise the project to address the design issues and return to Design Review Committee on November 5, 1996. 1. Architectural Style - The Committee supported the Mediterranean style subject to refinements: a. Provide window surrounds. b. Provide architectural treatment to blank wall areas such as the Bldg. 2A side elevation. C. Stairways- Study alternative designs with solid decorative walls. Areas beneath stairs may be enclosed for storage. d. Colors - Study alternative color schemes to provide color variations. Suggested that a subtle color change be used as accents on popout elements or between buildings. 2. Garages- Break-up long roof line with intersecting gables or varying roof height. Vary garage door patterns. 3. Carports - Completely redesign to match quality of apartment buildings and garages by incorporating tile roof elements and end walls. The Committee supported the concept of enclosing the ends with storage units. 4. Recreational Amenities - One of the three tot lots may be converted to open space. One possibility is to provide a smaller tot lot adjoining the pool area. 5. Landscaping- Remove and replace existing windrow with more appropriate tree species. 6. Trash Compactor- Provide at least four trash enclosure locations throughout the project for the convenience of residents. The Committee also requested floor plans. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS October 15, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i% Brad Butler Secretary