HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/05/16 - Agenda Packet - (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY MAY 16, 2000 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
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.
7:00 p.m.
(Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-75—HOGLE-
IRELAND — A request to construct five buildings totaling 156,601 square feet) on
7.90 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9)of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest comer of Jersey Boulevard and
Rochester Avenue—APN: 229-111-06.
7:40 p.m.
(Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22—LEGACY
PARTNERS - The proposed development of four two-story office buildings totaling
280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast corner of
Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District -
APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15.
8:20 p.m.
(Rudy) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-51 MODIFICATION -AMETHYST ESTATES L.P.- A
request to modify a previously approved Design Review of 18 single family homes for
Tentative Tract Map16026 on 11.3 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District
(0-2 dwelling units per acre), located west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley
View Street-APN: 1061-401-03.Related files: Variance 99-01, and PAR 99-01.
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.
NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
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
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn May 16, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-75—HOGLE-IRELAND—
A request to construct five buildings totaling 156,601 square feet) on 7.90 acres of land in the
Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located
on the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue—APN: 229-111-06.
Design Parameters: The site contains one vacant parcel that is 7.73 acres. There are no mature
trees on the site nor is there other significant vegetation on the site. The site is currently cultivated
as a vineyard. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent.
The site is surrounded by the vacant industrially zoned land to the north. To the east across
Rochester Avenue are industrial buildings, and to the south across Jersey Avenue are industrial
buildings. To the west is the Trammel Crow project Development Review 99-55, which was
approved for a large industrial warehouse distribution facility and is currently under construction.
The proposed buildings are designed for warehouse tenants. The building designs are oriented
(facing south)to front Jersey Avenue (approximately 980 feet)and will side Rochester Avenue and
Boston Place (290 feet) on the east and west side of the property, respectively. Each of the
buildings will have office areas (1,600 of office and 1,600 feet of mezzanine areas) portions that
front on to Jersey Avenue. The storage and loading areas do not face Jersey or Rochester
Avenues or Boston Place. Each of these loading areas is oriented towards the rear of the project
facing north and will be screened from the Jersey Avenue public right-of-way with 8-foot high screen
walls.
The buildings incorporate two primary building materials. The office portions of the buildings are
well articulated with strong vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane, that are
carried throughout and on all sides of the buildings. Additionally,the public patio areas are designed
to be away from the loading areas. The color variation of the building is portico white, grey
threshold, and thunder grey(looks blue), color scheme on a concrete tilt-up fagade. There are also
small amounts of medium sandblast concrete along with blue reflective colored glazing accents to
help create contrast.
Gates are shown at three locations to secure truck loading areas; however, none is shown at
Rochester Avenue driveway, which defeats security. It is assumed that the applicant intends a
fourth gate along the north side of Building 5 to complete security perimeter. Regardless, the gate
design is attractive and uses a wire mesh to obscure views.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an- outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues:
1. Redesign project to allow manufacturing uses by providing additional parking. Parking is
proposed at the warehouse standard of 1 space per 1,000 square feet. Staff believes that
this size of building will also attract manufacturers, which require twice as much parking.
Recommend that at least one half of building floor area be calculated as manufacturing at
a rate of 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-75— HOGLE-IRELAND
May 16, 2000
1 Page 2
2. Provide more sandblasted concrete, particularly in office portions and along the portion of
the facility that is visible from public rights-of-way. The amount provided is minimal and does
not meet intent of Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158. Relocate the
sandblasted concrete higher up on the building fagade, so that it is more visible. Most of the
sandblasted concrete is a horizontal band at the base of the building, which will be hidden
behind cars or landscaping. Also, the drawings are not clear in some areas regarding what
is painted versus sandblasted.
Secondary Issues:
1. Provide pedestrian plaza screen walls, 4-6 feet high, and dense landscaping around outdoor
employee eating areas:
2. The applicant should consider how to address severe Santa Ana winds which may affect
east facing truck docks (i.e., Buildings 2 and 4).
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. Provide tables and chairs for outdoor employee eating area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return as a consent
calendar item.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Lary McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
Address issues of additional sandblasted concrete and bring back as a consent item.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Debra Meier May 16, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22—LEGACY PARTNERS
- The proposed development of four two-story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on
19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the
Industrial Park District(Subarea 6)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue
Overlay District-APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15447 — LEGACY PARTNERS - The proposed subdivision of
19.39 acres into four parcels, located near the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street
in the Industrial Park(Subarea 6) District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven
Avenue Overlay District-APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15.
Proiect Setting: The project site is situated long Haven Avenue, existing development in the
immediate area includes office development on the north side of Sixth Street, office and multi-tenant
industrial (Trademark Industrial Park)adjacent to the south; and the Empire Lakes Corporate Park
on the east side of Utica Avenue. The proposed project excludes approximately 8-acres of land at
the comer of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street; including a vacant parcel and Haven Building
Materials, which is an existing non-conforming use consisting of outdoor sales and storage of
masonry materials and supplies, the site is secured only with chain-link fencing and is fully visible
from Haven Avenue and the project site.
The site has been previously graded and gently slopes from north to south. The vineyard was
cleared from the property in 1989, however several Eucalyptus trees remain. The trees will be
removed in conjunction with project development(Tree Removal Permit 00-13).
Staff Comments: The proposed project consists of four office buildings, Phase 1 is comprised of
three buildings clustered at the east side of the site, along Utica Avenue. These three buildings are
connected by decorative hardscape, outdoor seating space, and building entry plazas, designed in
a campus-like setting. Building 4, Phase 2, faces Haven Avenue.
The Planning Commission previously reviewed this proposal as a Pre-Application Review conducted
on January 26, 2000. The applicant has responded to numerous items identified during the pre-
application review, including:
1. Master Planning the Not-A-Part portion at the corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street.
2. Use of the second building material on the free-standing wall used on the"front" Elevations
of all buildings.
3. The roof-mounted equipment screen has been redesigned to incorporate the architectural
style of the building.
4. The "rear" Elevations of the buildings have been modified to provide employee entrances.
5. Building 4 has been moved up to the Haven Avenue streetscape setback.
6. Incorporation of public art into the outdoor seating spaces.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. The architectural design of the.north elevation of Building 1, which faces Sixth Street, and the
west elevation of Building 4, which face Haven Avenue, appear as the"rear"of the buildings.
Does the design depict the level of articulation, detail, and use of building materials reflect the
character of a Special Boulevard?
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-22 &TPM 15447— LEGACY PARTNERS
May 16, 2000
Page 2
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Extend the decorative pavement into the handicap parking spaces at the west end of Buildings
1 and 3.
2. Use landscaping and/or walls to screen the transformer located in the parking area south of
Building 3.
3. Delete the walkway extending from Building 2 to Utica Avenue,which is depicted on the Site
Plan (consistent with what is shown on the Landscape Plan).
4. Relocate the landscape planter islands that occur in front of the secondary access doorways,
to allow unobstructed access at the north elevation of Building 1, the west elevation of
Building-2, and the south elevation of Building 3.
5. Will other access doorways be needed around Building 4? Any such doorways even on the
north or south elevations would impact the 10-foot wide landscape planting areas, especially
if walkways are needed.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee come to a consensus on all issues
as noted above, and schedule the project for Planning Commission consideration.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The Committee acknowledged the revisions to the project that were made following the Pre-
Application Review, which was held in January.
The Committee focused on the following discussion:
1. The repetitive design elements used throughout the entire project including color, materials,
building footprint, and building patterns.
2. The Committee directed the applicant to study the elevations facing Haven Avenue and Sixth
Street to provide architectural detail and style reflective of the Special Boulevard presence.
3. All Site Plan concerns,which were identified as Secondary Issues will be resolved by either
conditions of approval, or modifications to the plan in cooperation with staff. It was also
noted pertaining to Item 5—that Building 4 has been designed so that only access to the
east side of the building is necessary. No additional building exists will be required.
The Committee recommended continuation to a subsequent meeting, in order for the Committee
members to visit a similar site in Newport Beach; and requested that the applicant do the following:
1. Provide further analysis of the design elements of elevations facing Haven Avenue and Sixth
Street.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 00-22 & TPM 15447—LEGACY PARTNERS
May 16, 2000
Page 3
2. Prepare a perspective rendering of the proposed building to portray to the Committee a more
complete understanding of the building design, particularly changes in building plane.
Based on impressions gained from the site visit, in conjunction with the additional information
requested, the Committee will consider the merits of the project design further. In summary, the
Committee was not convinced that the project, overall, represented the goals of the Haven Avenue
Overlay District, and that the buildings were generally too repetitive in nature, and the building plane
may lack sufficient variation to break up the size of the proposed structures.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:20 p.m. Rudy Zeledon May 16, 2000
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-51 MODIFICATION - AMETHYST ESTATES L.P.- A request to
modify a previously approved Design Review of 18 single family homes for Tentative Tract
Map16026 on 11.3 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (0-2 dwelling units per acre),
located west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Street-APN: 1061-401-03.Related files:
Variance 99-01, and PAR 99-01.
Background: On January 26, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 99-
51, for the construction of 18 single-family homes. The approval of the house product included
18 floor plans, from 3,845 square feet to 5,215 square feet with 18 different elevations. The
applicant has submitted an application requesting to modify the previously approved Design Review
to reduce the number of floor plans/elevations.
Design Parameters: The project is located on the west side of Amethyst Avenue, north of Valley
View Street. The site is currently vacant except for vineyard and scrub vegetation. The site has a
natural slope of approximately 8 to10 percent from north to south, except for approximately
1.5 acres of land directly adjacent to the western property line, which has slopes varying from
12 to16 percent. To the east of the site are single family homes that front on to Amethyst Avenue
The south side is bordered by single family homes and both north and west are the San Bernardino
County Flood Control Channel and Demens Basin.
The project site,is proposed to be developed under the Hillside Development Standards. Grading
techniques will be used (i.e., split level foundations and/or stem wall construction) to work with
existing contours and minimize grading alterations. The site will be developed as a gated
community with a private loop street,which has a reduced right-of-way of 40 feet and a street width
of 36 feet
Four floor plans are being proposed, each having two elevations per floor plan,with the exception
of Plan D that has 3 elevations per floor plan. The homes will range in size from 3,365 to
4,937 square feet. All proposed house plans include a 4-car garage. House Plans A-I,A-2, B-1,
C-1 and D-2 were previously approved with Development Review 99-51. The rest of the
proposed house plans have the same floor plan design and architectural theme of the previously
approved products with the following elevation and configuration changes:
Plan B2 proposes a hip roof design for all roof dormers. The building plain along the front
elevation will feature brick veneer, hip roof, and varying window mullion treatment to all
windows. The garage doors feature a different design pattern.
Plan C2 features a hip roof design element at the top peak of each roof gable. In addition,
all roof dormers proposed will have a hip roof design. The garage doors feature a different
design pattern.
Plan D2 features a gable roof above front-on garage with a decorative vent element. The
garage doors feature a different design pattern. The front entry has been modified with a
decorative pitch entryway with fissured style window glazing. The fireplace at the rear
elevation has been replaced with an upper story window and French doors below.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-51 MOD—AMETHYST ESTATES L.P.
May 16, 2000
Page 2
Plan D3 features a side-on garage. The fireplace at the rear elevation has been replaced
with an upper story window and French doors below.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee
discussion:
Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. Provide a third elevation for house Plans A, B, and C. The Residential Design Guidelines
requires a project of this size to have at least 4 floor plans, with 3 elevations each, which
equals 12 distinct homes. Reverse footprints may be counted as a floor plan. The project
is proposing 4 floor plans, with 2 elevations per plan. In addition, Plan D offers a side-entry
garage version. Therefore, a total of 9 distinct homes are proposed (4 x 2 + 1=9). Reverse
floor plans do not count as additional elevations.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1.1 Provide additional variation from Plan C1, such as-varying naterials or varying window
treatment. Plans C1 and C2 elevations are identical, except that C2 features dutch gables
(i.e., small hip at top of gable).
2. Revise Plan D3 right side elevation to eliminate the blank wall at rear of garage. Suggest
adding windows.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the project be revised and returned to the Design
Review Committee, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Lary McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon
This item was continued at the request of the applicant.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
MAY 16, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
rad Buller
Secretary