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